psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
Bitcoin causes woo, conspiracy theories, non-sequiturs, made up "facts", logical fallacies and sheer nonsense to be posted by its opponents?
- Status
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
As opposed to you shorting BTC by any means possible? Get real! There is no admissions charge on calling BS.
ftfy
But you won't find anybody calling that statement the BS that it is.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
The reason people where saying it isn't possible is that there isn't an existing way to do it, not that it was theoretically impossible. People trade bitcoins not bitcoin futures for one.
remirol
Senior Wrangler
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2006
- Messages
- 8,089
I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of your backpedaling-like-crazy and your wallet not opening to back up your mouth. If you could write your response on the back of a few $100 bills next time, that'd be great. Thanks!
If this frustrates you, perhaps it's time for you to reconsider your dedication to the awesomeness of Bitcoin as an investment, which somehow you don't have time for despite it being a better promised ROI than anything I've seen except junk bonds and Ponzi schemes. (hmm... where have I seen that before...)
Come on, dude, face it. Shorting stuff never makes that much money because you're limited by the Big Zero -- there's a fixed amount you can make per share, period. Buying long, on the other hand, has no limits other than people's crazy... just ask the miners who had the sense to sell at $1000. If you actually believed even half of what you've said, then you have literally zero excuses for not pushing your life savings into it at this point... but you can't even find a measly $100 to buy into the table with. Who you kiddin'?
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
Edited by Agatha:
Edited for breach of rule 0. Do not alter quotes without making it clear that you have done so, and do not use pictures in an attempt to defeat the autocensor.
You will never find a post of mine advocating that one should invest his life savings in bitcoin. On the contrary, you will find plenty of posts where I caution against investing your life savings in bitcoin. I have always pointed out that bitcoin is volatile and investment in bitcoin is too risky to make it more than part of a balanced investment portfolio.
Of course, at this stage, you no longer have the slightest interest in what I have actually posted. You aren't even putting up strawman arguments anymore. You are now telling outright lies.
You can't cope with the fact that I can always expose your arguments against bitcoin for the nonsense that they are. Every time you go against me on bitcoin you lose and like all losers, you have resorted to attacking the arguer instead.
Last edited by a moderator:
remirol
Senior Wrangler
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2006
- Messages
- 8,089
Could you please quote precisely where I said that you did?
Which fly directly in the face of the posts you've made where you declare that Bitcoin is an excellent long-term investment. I believe the American term is "flip-flop" here. Either it's a good investment or it's not. Which is it?
After you realized you couldn't deny it any more, that is.
Could you please quote a post in the past by yourself where you say this?
It's not MY fault if you were hoist with your own petard on this latest go-round. When you call people out for not risking any money on something and then it's shown that you don't dare risk any money on it yourself, it calls into question the veracity of your other arguments. People are typically consistent about their approach to things, especially money.
Projection much?
I mean, in the _same paragraph_. That's classic.Brian-M
Daydreamer
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,044
Shouldn't that be a picture of a bull, not a cow?
(And the tail looks a bit like a leg being lifted in the air.)
As it stands, it's udderly wrong.
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
Udder BS is still BS.Shouldn't that be a picture of a bull, not a cow?
(And the tail looks a bit like a leg being lifted in the air.)
As it stands, it's udderly wrong.
Almo
Masterblazer
Hey Remirol!
"MPEx charges 30 bitcoins to open an account..."
Wow... that's amazing. That's a lot of money just to get an account opened...
Just read some at that site. It's scary, and I wouldn't trust it with my money.
http://trilema.com/2013/because-mos...pite-of-never-manning-up-and-admitting-to-it/
Just his attitude here is unprofessional.
Edit:
Then I find this:
So first they're idiots, then they're great.
Edit 2:
It gets worse: most of the stocks/funds tradable on MPEx are owned by the MPEx site owner. That looks pretty seriously dodgy to me.
"MPEx charges 30 bitcoins to open an account..."
Wow... that's amazing. That's a lot of money just to get an account opened...
Just read some at that site. It's scary, and I wouldn't trust it with my money.
http://trilema.com/2013/because-mos...pite-of-never-manning-up-and-admitting-to-it/
Just his attitude here is unprofessional.
Edit:
Then I find this:
So first they're idiots, then they're great.
Edit 2:
It gets worse: most of the stocks/funds tradable on MPEx are owned by the MPEx site owner. That looks pretty seriously dodgy to me.
Last edited:
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
Well, I take back any implication I might have made that psionl0 isn't smart; he was certainly smart enough not to invest at that dodgy site.
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
If you are going to address the arguer (or rather, post about instead of to the arguer) then you should really stop conflating "short" and "long" positions. They are polar opposites.
You have made it obvious that if an opportunity came your way and you were so inclined to take a risk, you would bet that bitcoin prices continue to fall. Just leave it at that and you will avoid digging yourself deeper into a hole.
The_Animus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2006
- Messages
- 3,590
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/world/bank-hackers-steal-millions-via-malware.html?referrer=
Around 100 banks were hacked. 1 billion stolen in all. Given how long they sat and monitored everything they probably have quite a bit of personal info too.
I look forward to numerous pages of posts about this and how banks are unsecure and risky.
Around 100 banks were hacked. 1 billion stolen in all. Given how long they sat and monitored everything they probably have quite a bit of personal info too.
I look forward to numerous pages of posts about this and how banks are unsecure and risky.
Almo
Masterblazer
It's not that banks are perfectly secure. The point is that there are traces to follow when bad things happen. My deposits in my savings account are insured by the FDIC and I get it back. Etc. Your analogy fails.
The_Animus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2006
- Messages
- 3,590
Yeah because theft only matters when it is from you directly. Hand waving fail.
ETA: Just in case you aren't aware, your point was already brought up earlier in the thread. It was a poor argument then too.
Last edited:
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
How so? As Almo said, if my money is stolen from my account by a group of hackers, the FDIC gives it back (or the bank does). Legally, I am protected and will be made whole in the event of any theft. What protection does Bitcoin offer?
Almo
Masterblazer
So... a system with no protections is better than a system with protections? Oh right! Deregulation is always good and always results in happy people!
The_Animus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2006
- Messages
- 3,590
I'm just as aware of that as the last time you said it to me.
How long after the formation of banking entities did it take before an insurance program like FDIC was instituted?
If money stolen from a bank doesn't directly affect your bank balance is it really stolen and gone?
Who actually loses that money and is any of that loss passed on to others in any way?
If a few bitcoin exchanges being hacked/exploited and losing half a $billion means they aren't secure, does a hundred banks being hacked and losing a full $billion mean they aren't secure?
Do you think it is/was fair to compare the price and potential of solar power to fossil fuels given that fossil fuels had decades of research, gradual improvements in technology, and subsidies to get where it was?
Similarly do you think it's fair to compare bitcoin and banks given the banks have decades of process and system improvement, societal inertia and backing, and spend infinitely more on their security (obviously with limited success)?
Finally, FDIC is just insurance that could be applied to dollars or bitcoins or gold or candy and says nothing about whether a system which uses dollars, or bitcoins, or gold, or candy is better on its own merits.
The_Animus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2006
- Messages
- 3,590
Not sure why you'd use the laughing dog there. Are you saying it isn't theft? Are you saying that theft does only matter when it's from you directly?
I didn't say that, and I have no idea why anyone would ever say that. When you are responding to someone and your response starts with "So..." it's a good sign you are building a straw man.
Almo, as far as politics go I'm far left. You're arguing with yourself because it sure isn't me. I do appreciate you making it obvious you're not worth future responses though.
Last edited:
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
And you didn't answer my question, which was, what protections are offered to holders of Bitcoin when an exchange is hacked by thieves? If there were an FBIC insuring exchanges against loss, you might have some argument, but since (as we both know) stolen Bitcoins are most likely gone forever your attempt at a rebuttal fails.
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
I will give you the answer you are looking for. The protections offered by bitcoin exchanges is minimal or non-existent. Even if they are not hacked by thieves, there is always the risk that they may prove incompetent or dishonest and lose your money anyway. You would not leave money with a bitcoin exchange for any longer than the minimum amount of time necessary to make an exchange and, even then, expect lengthy delays in getting your money out.
What The_Animus is pointing out is that banks are not much better. In order to gain any semblance of public confidence, they need massive regulation and government backed deposit insurance.
Of course, what you both have ignored is that banks are necessary only when you deal with fiat currency. It is not feasible to carry large sums of cash around with you (especially for long distance transactions) since they are susceptible to loss or theft. You also run the risk that authorities might demand that you prove that you came by the cash legally or forfeit it. (At least with banks, you have a documented record of how you came by your money).
With bitcoin none of that applies. You can send or receive bitcoins over any distance to any person without the need of a third party. Even if an authority could trace a wallet to you, you have a ready made record of all the transactions made by that wallet.
- Status