Bitcoin - Part 2

[novaphile]

If you lose access to your wallet?

I'm not sure there's a "click here to reset your password" for that.

Some of the better offline wallets have more support for that kind of thing, to help you get out of a mess if you forget something, but the "include the keys in your will" relies on a lot of things, like:

1. Having a will
2. Having your will found
3. Trusting someone to hold your will with your bitcoin keys in it
4. People finding your computer
5. People being able to start and log in to your computer
6. Your hard drive that contains your wallet not dying

There are all kinds of ways to make the accidental loss of your bitcoins less likely, but they probably all increase the attack surface and make it more likely that your coin will be stolen.

So... yeah, no, not for me.

Note that no-one needs any passwords to recover my shares, bank accounts etc. during probate.

 

[psionl0]

Of course I am. (I can't speak for Roger Ramjets though). We have to get up early in the morning to fool you, you old Sherlock you. But you are far too smart for we mere mortals, and I bow to your incredible intellect and acumen.

You evidently believe that the demise of bitcoin is eminent (which places you at the end of a very long list of failed prophets dating back to 2011).

Of course, you are unable to back this belief so instead you attempt to ridicule those who don't share your belief with sarcasm.

 

[fromdownunder]

You evidently believe that the demise of bitcoin is eminent (which places you at the end of a very long list of failed prophets dating back to 2011).

You might tell me why the demise of Bitcoin would be eminent.



You also might remind me when I said that it's demise is imminent, 'cause I don't remember ever saying it or even suggesting that. But then you always think you know what others mean in their posts, even when you don't.



Norm

 

[Belz...]

Why the past tense? Are you trying to sneak in another woo prophecy without getting busted?

Yeah, you're not defending Bitcoin at all.

 

[psionl0]

You also might remind me when I said that it's demise is imminent, 'cause I don't remember ever saying it or even suggesting that.

There is a reason for your sarcasm and I doubt that it is because you are neutral about bitcoin.

Yeah, you're not defending Bitcoin at all.

You were more skeptical about the doomsday predictions when wrs was going on about $150.

 

[Belz...]

You were more skeptical about the doomsday predictions when wrs was going on about $150.

Ah, good days.

The thing is, fromdownunder didn't make a doomsday prediction. But BTC is not doing great right now. In fact, hasn't been doing great for a couple of years. It's had a hell of a peak, but value doesn't necessarily translate in widespread demand. It could reflect demand within a small community.

You, however, see the use of past tense as an attack upon BTC that you must absolutely respond to. I don't think many here would believe your claim of not defending BTC.

 

[psionl0]

The thing is, fromdownunder didn't make a doomsday prediction.

Yes, he has plausible deniability.

But BTC is not doing great right now. In fact, hasn't been doing great for a couple of years. It's had a hell of a peak, but value doesn't necessarily translate in widespread demand. It could reflect demand within a small community.

Nothing that didn't happen 4 years ago though the cycle may last longer this time and, as is always possible, bitcoin may not get past $20,000 again.

OTOH I'm not prepared to say "final cycle" yet let alone "death".

You, however, see the use of past tense as an attack upon BTC that you must absolutely respond to. I don't think many here would believe your claim of not defending BTC.

Sure, posting as if the death of bitcoin (or any other crypto) is such a foregone conclusion that you may as well refer to it in the past tense is a ridiculous assertion to make.

My meager crypto holdings are not significant enough for me to have an interest either way in bitcoin. However I will attack UN-critical thinking and woo as often as it appears.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, he has plausible deniability.

I see no reason to take the least charitable interpretation, unless you took an attack on BTC personally.

Nothing that didn't happen 4 years ago though the cycle may last longer this time and, as is always possible, bitcoin may not get past $20,000 again.

Sorry I can't parse that. Might be me. Could you rephrase that?

Sure, posting as if the death of bitcoin (or any other crypto) is such a foregone conclusion that you may as well refer to it in the past tense is a ridiculous assertion to make.

See what I mean? You see it as an attack you have to defend against. I saw it as quite an inocuous post.

My meager crypto holdings are not significant enough for me to have an interest either way in bitcoin.

I wasn't talking about financial interests.

 

[psionl0]

I see no reason to take the least charitable interpretation, unless you took an attack on BTC personally.

Constant sarcasm is hard to interpret charitably.

Sorry I can't parse that. Might be me. Could you rephrase that?

Look at the price chart from around 2013 and the posts in this thread from around the same time. You will see that so far, history is just repeating itself.

See what I mean? You see it as an attack you have to defend against. I saw it as quite an inocuous post.

I saw it as a prime example of uncritical thinking and called it out.

I wasn't talking about financial interests.

Neither was I but you would know that if you didn't chop off the final sentence.

 

[Belz...]

Constant sarcasm is hard to interpret charitably.

No argument there.

Look at the price chart from around 2013 and the posts in this thread from around the same time. You will see that so far, history is just repeating itself.

I don't know. It seems in a harder slump than usual.

I saw it as a prime example of uncritical thinking and called it out.

My point is that you only seem to address those examples that are critical of BTC, not the reverse. Maybe it's because all of the BTC groupies are gone and my memory's failing me.

Neither was I but you would know that if you didn't chop off the final sentence.

You know that cutting sentences when quoting doesn't actually erase them from my memory, right?

 

[psionl0]

I don't know. It seems in a harder slump than usual.

Bitcoin lost 90% of its December 2013 peak price over the next 12 months then languished in the doldrums for another year before starting to recover. Bitcoin has 'only' lost 80% of its December 2017 peak so far. It may still fall further suggesting that the cycle is taking longer this time.

My point is that you only seem to address those examples that are critical of BTC, not the reverse. Maybe it's because all of the BTC groupies are gone and my memory's failing me.

I seldom see positive posts about bitcoin which is probably why it seems that way. Regardless, it is not whether the post is positive or negative towards bitcoin but the faulty reasoning behind it.

 

[Belz...]

Bitcoin lost 90% of its December 2013 peak price over the next 12 months then languished in the doldrums for another year before starting to recover. Bitcoin has 'only' lost 80% of its December 2017 peak so far. It may still fall further suggesting that the cycle is taking longer this time.

Fair enough.

I seldom see positive posts about bitcoin which is probably why it seems that way. Regardless, it is not whether the post is positive or negative towards bitcoin but the faulty reasoning behind it.

We always say that. We always say that we're being objective and not influenced by other factors, but we almost always end up being influenced, in the end. As I noted in another thread today, we're rarely aware of even a majority of the factors that go into our brains' decision processes, so it's hard to even justify our actions to others in a way that reflects reality.

 

[fromdownunder]

There is a reason for your sarcasm and I doubt that it is because you are neutral about bitcoin.

I am surprised that you say this, because I thought that my dislike of Bitcoin was never in doubt, and I wonder why you have never noticed before yesterday. But for you to then go and suggest that I have predicted the demise of Bitcoin, when I have avoided this claim at every turn is also not very conducive to critical thinking.


As I have said before, I read several news articles about Bitcoin every day, and the hype in both directions can be painful to read. A $20 recovery? We've turned the corner! A $20 drop? This is the beginning of the end. This, all depending on who you read. And by the time I get up in the morning, and read the "predictions" and look at the current price, it can have changed $100 in either direction.



The daily price summary articles are a joy to behold. A lot of figures are shown and followed by if Bitcoin (or Ether, or one of the others) fall below A, then B might happen. If B happens then C might happen next week. But if B does not happen, then D might happen next year. It really is little more than reading the entrails of a frog, because nobody knows where Bitcoin is going. And people analysing Bitcoin can use the exact same figures to argue either point of view.


One might have thought that Cboe BZX Exchange withdrawing the ETF application was a bad thing. Apparently some do. Then Forbes comes along and argues that it is a good thing.



https://bitcoin.com.au/traders-shou...coin-price-drop-financial-specialist-advises/


My view is that any product that jumps around in price every day, sometimes within an hour or less, to the extent that Bitcoin does, and requires the minute analysis devoted to Bitcoin daily is a flawed product.



Also the arguments made by some on this thread that nobody ever lost money investing in Bitcoin are laughable at present. Anybody who started in at over $10,000 are at least 50% down of they sell. OK, if they have not sold, they have not lost money, but overall, they do have less wealth than they used to.


And finally, a completely innocent phrase like a product "took off" is not some backdoor attempt to foist a doomsday prediction. It is a perfectly innocent expression, intended that way, when any product suddenly jumps in demand very rapidly. It can be found every day of the week, and I did resent the claim that was made about using this day to day term.



If I had have used it to describe a plane ride, or a book which was not selling well which suddenly "took off", or in pretty much any other context, would it have been a backdoor method of predicting a plane crash, or getting a book banned? No, I used it to describe a very obvious event.



Norm

 

[lomiller]

He purchased it in 1980 for under $1M it sold in 2014 for around $8M (hammer price). Not a bad return. So being hidden away for 24 years did not seem to do the value a whole lot of harm.

That's higher risk and lower return then simply putting the same $1 million into the S&P 500 over that same period.

 

[fromdownunder]

That's higher risk and lower return then simply putting the same $1 million into the S&P 500 over that same period.

Probably true (I didn't look it up so I'll take your word), but I expect that when he purchased it he did not intend to murder somebody and spend the last 13 years of his life in prison. He may have had other plans. It's little things like that that can affect future planning. And the stamp market did collapse for quite a while in the early 1980's to mid 90's after excessive speculation in the 1970's, which did not help matters.


Norm

 

[psionl0]

I am surprised that you say this, because I thought that my dislike of Bitcoin was never in doubt, and I wonder why you have never noticed before yesterday. But for you to then go and suggest that I have predicted the demise of Bitcoin, when I have avoided this claim at every turn is also not very conducive to critical thinking.

The problem is that you treat me with sarcasm for merely criticizing faulty arguments about bitcoin. If you believe that these arguments should go unchallenged then that implies that you are at least sympathetic with what is being claimed (bitcoin's imminent demise).

The price volatility argument is an extremely old argument that proves nothing. It has long been established that bitcoin's price is volatile and possibly subject to manipulation due to the fact that its ownership is concentrated.

We always say that. We always say that we're being objective and not influenced by other factors, but we almost always end up being influenced, in the end. As I noted in another thread today, we're rarely aware of even a majority of the factors that go into our brains' decision processes, so it's hard to even justify our actions to others in a way that reflects reality.

It is hard to know how to respond to somebody who apparently sees no difference between defending bitcoin and criticizing a faulty argument.

FYI the argumental flaw is known as "begging the question" - assuming what has to be proved. Every argument about the "last days" of bitcoin going way back to the beginning of the thread has started with the assumption that bitcoin's imminent demise was such a foregone conclusion that it doesn't even need to be questioned.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

That's higher risk and lower return then simply putting the same $1 million into the S&P 500 over that same period.

Hmmm, you didn't have 2008 there?
Chris B.

 

[fromdownunder]

The problem is that you treat me with sarcasm for merely criticizing faulty arguments about bitcoin. If you believe that these arguments should go unchallenged then that implies that you are at least sympathetic with what is being claimed (bitcoin's imminent demise).

.


I responded with sarcasm in that particular post because you claimed to know what I was thinking and no other reason. But the assumption that I agree with everything I don't challenge is painting my POV with a very broad brush.

The price volatility argument is an extremely old argument that proves nothing. It has long been established that bitcoin's price is volatile and possibly subject to manipulation due to the fact that its ownership is concentrated.

It was an explanation for one of the reasons I don't like Bitcoin. I was not trying to prove anything in relation to its future. I don't know where it is going. Neither does anybody else. Many products and services have appeared to be secure in their niche (Kodak, Bryant & May, Video Rental Stores, to name just a few off the top of my head) and been blown out of the water by superior or different products. The same may occur to Bitcoin.



Norm

 

[Mycroft]

Bitcoin lost 90% of its December 2013 peak price over the next 12 months then languished in the doldrums for another year before starting to recover. Bitcoin has 'only' lost 80% of its December 2017 peak so far. It may still fall further suggesting that the cycle is taking longer this time.

It's also possible that what happened in 2013 has nothing to do with what will happen in 2019.

 

[Mycroft]

The price volatility argument is an extremely old argument that proves nothing. It has long been established that bitcoin's price is volatile and possibly subject to manipulation due to the fact that its ownership is concentrated.

You seem to be arguing here that if an argument is old, that it shouldn't be brought up again even though it's valid.

That doesn't make any sense to me.

You claim to be criticizing faulty arguments about bitcoin, but you're really opposing every argument against bitcoin, faulty or not.