Well, if you must; but to say "a vast computer is a good analogy for the human brain" seems different from saying "a manic speculative bubble is a good analogy for a manic speculative bubble". The second of these looks more like an identity than an analogy.
- Status
There is a curious desire by people to see predictions fail.
It is a psychological aspect I don't understand.
My predictions on bitcoin have been very good if the focus is on direction, and the ratio of into money/out of money, including the current run.
jrhowell
Muse
I would say it is more like: "My predictions on bitcoin have been very good if I am allowed to cherry pick the criteria for defining 'good' after the fact."
I posted that criterion on many threads including this one, and obviously this is assumed before recommending this trade.
Statistics demand a ratio favouring in the money to allow for a winning strategy.
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
Except that you are comparing the recent peak in bitcoin prices with past burst bubbles in things that have nothing in common with bitcoin whatsoever.
That is definitely not an "identity". It barely rises to the level of "analogy" and even then, none of the conclusions drawn from those past burst bubbles have any relevance to bitcoin at all.
They have in common with Bitcoin these important diagnostic features
They produced no, or only trivial, revenue income; therefore
Their value was entirely based on people selling it for a higher price than the original purchase price,
They became the subject of hysterical public excitement, leading to massive valuation increases,
Once they had absorbed all available cash, the price crashed
Either these assets disappeared, or their prices stabilised at the modest levels made reasonable by their use value, if any.
Some remained in being, others vanished for ever. That is not a diagnostic feature of a bubble, one way or the other. So it is not important to point that out, or to point out that a tulip is not an international trading company, which is nor a railway, and a crypto is something else yet again.
Bubbles can start over anything at all. Why? Because the speculator isn't interested in any aspect of the asset except a predicted rise in price.
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
Actually "still". I maintain my position for sound solid reasons. And while I will not be disappointed, there are many who will be, as they lose (are robbed of of?) a lot of money.
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
Stamp collecting has the same features. There are lots of commodity investments that produce no revenue and rely only on people willing to pay higher prices for them for their value.
As a matter of fact, the only difference between an investment that produces a dividend and one that doesn't is simple mathematics. If one reinvested the dividend into buying more of the same stock then one would have a stock holding that gradually increased in value. Although for some "blue chip" stocks this results in a slow but steady growth, in many other cases, the dividend returns are swamped by variations in stock price.
As for the differences:
You are attempting to link bitcoin to a handful of historic investments that experienced a brief period of intense speculation based on lies.
Bitcoin is nothing like that. It has already outlasted your examples many fold and it has always recovered from serious price falls. None of your examples did. There is no evidence that bitcoin is (or is about to enter in) a "final" bubble.
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
trustbutverify
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 5, 2007
- Messages
- 10,541
You're a funny guy, I'll give you that. Not any kind of a trader, but funny.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
There's evidence.
Bitcoin Fees Drop: Why It Happened And What It Means
The mania has reached its peak, and interest is dying out as people discover the truth about Bitcoin. The chances of it going over $20,000 again are looking slim. If it can't then what does that mean? Bitcoin is in its "final" bubble.
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
This must be you crying and pounding the floor when my solid sound reasons are verified by bitcoins demise.
Worst analogy ever. You cited three examples of real things with real value, in an attempt to compare them with an organization that can create hundreds of billions of dollars out of thin air with a computer keystroke, for private benefit.
Gucci has to source the leather and other fine materials in order to craft their handbags. Rolex has to source not only precious metals, but retain expert watchmakers to produce some of the world's finest watches. The Mona Lisa is a unique work of art. My use of the word counterfeit refers to the costless creation of endless amounts of money for the benefit of private elites. Why is it ok for the Fed to do it, but not you or me? Apparently you aren't intelligent enough to acknowledge this distinction, and so you resort to idiotic analogies.
Incidentally, the dollar was originally defined as 371.25 grains of fine silver. So yes, the Federal Reserve Note is a counterfeit in every sense of the word.
Last edited:
No it doesn't. The blockchain is a public ledger. There are companies who offer bitcoin forensic services to the IRS and others. Once your identity is associated with your key, every transaction you've ever done with that key is transparent. There are technologies being developed to anonymize bitcoin, but I'm not sure they're ready yet.
What was the Continental paper currency? Or do you limit your hostility to the Federal Reserve?
What does it matter what the dollar was originally defined as? The pound sterling was once simply a pound weight of silver in the form of 240 silver pennies. But the definition has changed. The US government defines what its unit of account represents. That may change over time, and therefore its notes are not counterfeit in any sense of the word.
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
Clutching at straws again?
Transaction fees merely track the bitcoin price. While bitcoin is off the boil, fewer people are buying into it just as it has always been.
The article also mentions other possibilities including the development of "Segwit" and the use of "batching" (rolling many transactions into one) by bitcoin exchanges. And far from migration to other cryptos, these other cryptos have similarly experienced reduced demand.
One theory the article doesn't put forward is that this signals the end of bitcoin.
xjx388
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2010
- Messages
- 11,392
After every modern bubble, there have remained survivors that held great value. After the dotcom bubble, there remained several companies that went on to become huge winners.
I don’t think crypto will be any different. There are over a thousand cryptos right now. That craziness will end at some point and there will likely be survivors that end up having a lot of value -the ones that are widely adopted and provide a service beyond currency. This is because Blockchain is about transactions at the core. Those transactions are about exchanging information. Someone is working on using Blockchain to create a means of having medical data easily transferred amongst medical providers. The tokens that drive these transactions will have a value. We aren’t even close to exploring all the potential this tech and it’s future iterations will provide. BTC is getting all the hype and it may very well crash but something will come of this.
If you could go back to 1995, could you have picked the handful of dotcoms that would be winners? Would you even have guessed that Amazon or Google would become the behemoths they are now? Indeed, would you even think any of today’s big names had a chance at all?
If you are going to compare bubbles, I think it’s useless to go back to ancient history when we have much better analogies in very recent history.
I don’t think crypto will be any different. There are over a thousand cryptos right now. That craziness will end at some point and there will likely be survivors that end up having a lot of value -the ones that are widely adopted and provide a service beyond currency. This is because Blockchain is about transactions at the core. Those transactions are about exchanging information. Someone is working on using Blockchain to create a means of having medical data easily transferred amongst medical providers. The tokens that drive these transactions will have a value. We aren’t even close to exploring all the potential this tech and it’s future iterations will provide. BTC is getting all the hype and it may very well crash but something will come of this.
If you could go back to 1995, could you have picked the handful of dotcoms that would be winners? Would you even have guessed that Amazon or Google would become the behemoths they are now? Indeed, would you even think any of today’s big names had a chance at all?
If you are going to compare bubbles, I think it’s useless to go back to ancient history when we have much better analogies in very recent history.
Last edited:
Bitcoin had a currency like move, a massive spike down and partial recovery. This is unprecedented in my observation of this artefact.
The following days should be intriguing, obviously some crypto news hit the market, I have not checked the news feeds.
The following days should be intriguing, obviously some crypto news hit the market, I have not checked the news feeds.
I must stress that I agree entirely with this assessment. It's very much like the 1846 railway mania. The mania soon popped, but railways remained (and remain) a valuable resource. Over long periods railway undertakings have values that reflect the usefulness of this technology, and the revenues which it secures in the transport marketplace.
If blockchain turns out to be as useful as you suggest, as well it may, it will retain a value too. But it will nor jump from cents per "token" to tens of thousands of dollars, unless it becomes the pretext for yet another speculative bubble.
- Status