Merged Bitcoin - Part 3

[Dr.Sid]

This one, I'm not sure sure I agree with. My heirs have instructions for accessing the BTC wallet the same as they do for my conventional accounts.

Well of course many people take steps so their BTC can be passed .. but many don't. If you have money in bank, and you die without last will, the lawyers will find the money (and debts), and they will be passed. With BTC, not so much.

 

[blutoski]

Well of course many people take steps so their BTC can be passed .. but many don't. If you have money in bank, and you die without last will, the lawyers will find the money (and debts), and they will be passed. With BTC, not so much.

Yes, that's why I only half agreed that it was a problem.

Lawyers won't find your Swiss bank account if you don't leave the account information lying around, either, for example, but the point is that it's a manageable concern either way.

 

[xjx388]

What “yields” do precious metals...uh...yield?

As always, the value of any particular thing is exactly what someone is willing to pay. And that’s based on whatever they think that thing will provide, whether that’s appreciation, dividends, happiness, etc. That is true no matter what asset or good we are talking about.

BTC has utility, however limited it may be. It’s market price has had some wild swings which attracts investors. Silver and Gold are extremely similar in my opinion.

 

[Chanakya]

What “yields” do precious metals...uh...yield?

As always, the value of any particular thing is exactly what someone is willing to pay. And that’s based on whatever they think that thing will provide, whether that’s appreciation, dividends, happiness, etc. That is true no matter what asset or good we are talking about.

Agreed. Value lies in the eyes of the beholder. As apparently worthless an activity as one or more people jumping up and down at the same place can have value if others are willing to pay for it. See that sweet old man in the UK. For that matter, see any and every spectator sport.

And conversely, not even the most apparently worthwhile of things, like for instance saving entire species from going extinct, has value -- in the amoral, strictly utilitarian, laissez faire investment-world sense of the term -- if no one that is able to is willing to pay for it.

BTC has utility

Evidently, since it commands a market price. Whether its value comports with the values of society in general (and if it doesn't, then whether that is enough reason to make an exception to a general hands-off policy as far as that value -- after all, we do make other such exceptions) is the question. And that question has no 'right' answer; the answer will be what we collectively decide it will be.

Personally I wouldn't touch the thing with a ten-foot pole, personally I wouldn't invest even a hundred dollars of my own money in it; but nor would I lift a finger to keep others from making a killing on it, or getting taken to the cleaners over it as the case may be. But that's just me.

, however limited it may be. It’s market price has had some wild swings which attracts investors. Silver and Gold are extremely similar in my opinion.

Not really, in mine. That old man in the UK was doing it for a Cause, capital C. But what would you think of people paying a random man to keep running round and round in his back porch, the money going towards nothing bigger than feeding him and financing his life? The difference between that and mainstream spectator sports is the difference between CC and gold, IMV. A question of how mainstream they are, how broad their user base.

 

[psionl0]

The actual "well worn pattern" in this thread is people pointing to real problems with bitcoin, along with real supporting facts to which psionl0 responds with hand waving dishonesty and innuendo.

You are the dishonest one here. You are copy/pasting text posted during the last bubble and pretending that they are original contributions by you.

This crap was thoroughly rebutted then (and is being proven false today) but instead of dealing with those arguments you make sure that you don't refer to a single word of those rebuttals so that you can claim that they are "hand waving dishonesty and innuendo" instead.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Further to: it's also important to remember that bitcoin speculators, on average, make absolutely nothing. There is no mechanism for them to make money that doesn't come out of some other speculators pocket.

BTC interest account. Next.

 

[psionl0]

Well, it's definitely not anything I've ever said, so I am concerned you're arguing against an imaginary me.

What I'm saying - for the record - is that it's something with little or no intrinsic value, so its pricing is proportional to popularity rather than yields, and therefore at the mercy of a secondary market, and unpredictable. It could go down to zero. Or not. And in the meantime will fluctuate unpredictably. Its value cannot be analyzed because it does not reflect significant external utility.

There is money to be made in arbitrage and speculation (which is where my analogy to black eleven comes in), there's no doubt about that, but nothing special about it vs, say, beanie babies.

At the moment, if I was to guess on the current blip, it's because there's only so much surplus asset money to go around, and the market is looking dodgy, real estate is iffy with people moving to the suburbs or maybe not, so BTC is a reasonable Plan C for those who share the mindset that it's not beanie babies.

I wasn't responding to you directly but you are claiming that bitcoin is just a zero sum game of purely random chance. This is a claim that is often made during a major bitcoin price bubble.

The price history shows that this claim is false. The price never drops to zero and never stays "low" for the foreseeable future. Instead, the market cap keeps on increasing (price spikes not withstanding) over the longer term. That can only mean that more money is being spent on bitcoin - either by existing speculators or by new speculators. Evidently it will take some very significant event for this state of affairs to change. Why this simple observation must never be mentioned is beyond me.

 

[lomiller]

What “yields” do precious metals...uh...yield?

a) there is actual consumption of precious metals. People use them to make things other people want.
b)over the long term precious metals track with inflation, they don't increase in value.

It’s market price has had some wild swings which attracts investors.

real investors are wary of wild swings. Like I said above, stocks in bankrupt companies continue to trade and have just the type of wild swings you are talking about. This doesn't make them good investments.

Silver and Gold are extremely similar in my opinion.

Can you walk into a jewelry store and buy a chain made of solid bitcoin?

 

[lomiller]

BTC interest account. Next.

Nope. Next.

 

[psionl0]

a) there is actual consumption of precious metals. People use them to make things other people want.
b)over the long term precious metals track with inflation, they don't increase in value.

real investors are wary of wild swings. Like I said above, stocks in bankrupt companies continue to trade and have just the type of wild swings you are talking about. This doesn't make them good investments.



Can you walk into a jewelry store and buy a chain made of solid bitcoin?

Which post did you copy this special pleading from?

 

[lomiller]

Which post did you copy this special pleading from?

You shouldn't try to use phrases you don't understand.

 

[psionl0]

You shouldn't try to use phrases you don't understand.

I understand the phrases but you don't.

You don't even appear to realize how dumb it makes you look when you try to claim that bitcoin has no use whatsoever other than to take up space on your computer.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Nope. Next.

Evidently our realities and investment strategies differ. What would you recommend as a good investment?

 

[lomiller]

Evidently our realities and investment strategies differ. What would you recommend as a good investment?

The best investment for most people is a low MER fund indexed to the stock market. Historically that would be something indexed to the broader US market, but who knows if that will hold true going forward. Professional stock pickers can beat these indexes slightly but typically not by enough to justify the additional MER they charge.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

The best investment for most people is a low MER fund indexed to the stock market. Historically that would be something indexed to the broader US market, but who knows if that will hold true going forward. Professional stock pickers can beat these indexes slightly but typically not by enough to justify the additional MER they charge.

Thanks. I may look into a MER fund a little closer. BTC just crossed into $40,299 a few minutes ago and I liquidated 50%. I may come to regret it later but $40k was my magic number.

 

[psionl0]

If you can afford to gamble then "buy and hold" is a reasonable consideration. Also, buy and sell at 2 or 3 times your purchase price has a reasonable chance of succeeding.

First hurdle: check. Conservative speculators (including those who bought 3 years ago) may sell here.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

New magic number is $80K

 

[blutoski]

I wasn't responding to you directly but you are claiming that bitcoin is just a zero sum game of purely random chance. This is a claim that is often made during a major bitcoin price bubble.

Possibly. For the record, I make that claim at all times, whether the price is rising or falling.

The price history shows that this claim is false. The price never drops to zero and never stays "low" for the foreseeable future. Instead, the market cap keeps on increasing (price spikes not withstanding) over the longer term. That can only mean that more money is being spent on bitcoin - either by existing speculators or by new speculators. Evidently it will take some very significant event for this state of affairs to change. Why this simple observation must never be mentioned is beyond me.

This confuses me because I think that paragraph precisely describes a zero sum situation, contrary to your previous paragraph.

 

[blutoski]

The best investment for most people is a low MER fund indexed to the stock market. Historically that would be something indexed to the broader US market, but who knows if that will hold true going forward. Professional stock pickers can beat these indexes slightly but typically not by enough to justify the additional MER they charge.

Worth mentioning that stock pickers on average *don't* beat these indexes, and the few that do, it's easily explained by random chance.

This is where the analogy to, say, dowsing, comes in. There's a few who walk away with impressive records, but upon closer examination they're either exaggerated or suddenly stop, because they're just random chance.

Warren Buffet's 'bet' that managed funds would not perform vs the S&P500 index was exactly what skeptics do with the Million Dollar Challenge. And again, as a skeptic, I was fascinated with the boilerplate post hoc rationalizations for failure that were offered as a substitute instead of just admitting that the stock market is unpredictable and charging money for stock picking is somewhere between self delusion and fraud.

Skepticism made me a better investor.

 

[psionl0]

This confuses me because I think that paragraph precisely describes a zero sum situation, contrary to your previous paragraph.

"Zero sum" implies that the losers balance out the winners and no net gains can be made.

If you simply meant that for every buyer there is a seller then the entire commodities market* would be a zero sum game which would make the term "zero sum" meaningless.

* Stocks might offer a dividend which is based on the company's productive capability and not necessarily its share price.