• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Bitcoin - Part 3

psionl0 said:
This is sheer and utter nonsense!
Click to expand...

What is? That intrinsic value means something can be given a monetary value even if it is never bought or sold? Or that something can have a monetary value even if it is never bought or sold? Which?

Also, we’re going to need more than your bald say-so, in order to take this seriously. Exclamation marks will not substitute for cogent discussion!


psionl0 said:
Special pleading.
Click to expand...

Re-read my post again. Specifically, what I’d said about gold.

Hint: Special pleading per se isn’t fallacious. Fallacious special pleading, that is not cogently defended, is.

(If we’re going to be simply throwing around fallacy labels, then what you’re doing here would qualify as fallacious generalization.)


psionl0 said:
Wishful thinking. There isn't a single fact to establish that this is true.
Click to expand...

Nope. It is demonstrably true that I don’t do wishful thinking. Even if I had such a “wish”, which I don’t. I’ve zero issues happily acknowledging that facts do not bear out an argument I’ve put forward, when that turns out to be the case, as you’ve seen just a few posts up. You, on the other hand…

What establishes that BTC's a bubble is exactly what we’re discussing right now. The fact that its trading value has zero connect with intrinsic value.

(Also, re-read what I said specifically about bubbles in my post.)


psionl0 said:
Can you establish what exactly gold would be worth based on its utility value alone? (Not that "utility value" doesn't mean that it can be used as money).
Click to expand...

I could have a crack at it, in theory at any rate, certainly.

But that's completely irrelevant. See again my post.


--------------------

(Reason I keep referring you back to re-read my earlier post, that you’ve responded to, rather than spelling all of this out in detail, is in order to get you to actually read my post, and actually engage with it, rather than simply going through the motions of replying to me. And because I'd rather not repeat what I've already clearly explained there, no doubt only to have you gloss over it again.

Re-read my post, and if you have any cogent disagreement with what I've actually taken the time and effort to explain, then please discuss your disagreement coherently and clearly, like I have, and then we can both examine your points to see if there's any merit to it. What we’re here for. These cryptic, staccato, less than coherent knee-jerk responses, they’re not very helpful, nor considerate. If you happen to be short of time, then feel free to take a day or two or three, and wait until you have ten or fifteen minutes to spare for a well-thought-out post, and then make your case clearly. There’s no rush.)
 
Chanakya said:
What establishes that BTC's a bubble is exactly what we’re discussing right now. The fact that its trading value has zero connect with intrinsic value.
Click to expand...
"Bubble" implies that the price will collapse permanently sooner or later. You have no foundation for making this claim (even if bitcoin is of no use to you) unless it is simply that nothing lasts forever.
 
Last edited:
well specifically i was referring to elon musk and trump and all their crypto space associates. but beyond that, my evidence is the constant stream of crypto scams large and small from ftx and terra and tether to the influencer scams big and small from andrew tate to logan paul to the hawk tuah girl and the washed up youtubers, or simply preferring it as a payment method in more traditional scams. it's constant
 
psionl0 said:
"Bubble" implies that the price will collapse permanently sooner or later. You have no foundation for making this claim (even if bitcoin is of no use to you).
Click to expand...

facepalm

You did not read a word I'd said, in my post preceding. Else you did not understand it. Else you lack the integrity to clearly follow where the discussion points.

Also, it's clear you're not here in good faith. You will not stop spitting out your kneejerk would-be gotchas, and are clearly interested not in actually exploring the issue, but instead in simply going through the motions of doing that while "defending" --- while putting up the appearance of defending --- your a priori position.

Have fun haunting this thread, doing that for yet another decade-and-a-half.
 
Chanakya said:
The exchange utility of gold is established across literally millennia. It is the fact of its long-accepted usage that lends it its exchange value. If gold is a bubble, then it is a bubble grown strong over thousands of years of usage.

BTC is 100% a bubble. Will the bubble pop? That is the question. Earlier I'd have said 100% yes, only a matter of when, whether today or next week or next month or in a couple years. Now, frankly, I'm not so sure.
Click to expand...
You have rendered "bubble" meaningless by giving it such an open ended "popping" date. Nothing lasts for ever so by this measure, everything is in a "bubble".

Of course, bitcoin is subjected to many price cycles which could be described as bubbles. But to say that all of bitcoin is just one massive bubble that will pop permanently (any day now) is the sort of woo that has been posted on this forum for 15 years now. There is a poster who still predicts a crash every time they post. It becomes just a stopped clock analogy.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
You have rendered "bubble" meaningless by giving it such an open ended "popping" date. Nothing lasts for ever so by this measure, everything is in a "bubble".

Of course, bitcoin is subjected to many price cycles which could be described as bubbles. But to say that all of bitcoin is just one massive bubble that will pop permanently (any day now) is the sort of woo that has been posted on this forum for 15 years now. There is a poster who still predicts a crash every time they post. It becomes just a stopped clock analogy.
Click to expand...

You seem to be looking at this not in principle, but only to assess short-to-medium-term price movements. If that is so, then fair enough. But if that is so, then you should clearly qualify that yourself, right at the get-go, rather than leaving it to us to infer that, basis cryptic half-hints drawn out from you like drawing blood from stone.

Also, what of the rest of your incoherent post ---- whose incoherence I have clearly spelled out?

And also, and importantly: It is dishonest of you ---- there is no other way to put it, it is actually dishonest of you ---- to talk now about bubbles bursting permanently any time now, given what I have explicitly said there, and that you have even quoted there. You'll know which label to attach to that egregious instance of that particular fallacy.


----------


If those are the terms of the discussion --- short-to-medium-term price estimation, that and nothing else --- then sure, intrinsic value, while hardly "meaningless", is not the one single overriding factor. Other factors like money flows, and monetary and fiscal regulation, and that sort of thing, and heck, arguably even technical analysis, then rightly share centerstage with intrinsic value, and in some cases --- like gold, sure, and BTC as well --- take its place entirely, as long as you remain cognizant of the risk in inherent to operating within a bubble (an intrinsic-value-bereft bubble, I mean to say). ...And no, that last won't apply to gold, as explained. ...It WILL apply to BTC, although who knows, it may not, another decade or two hence, if the last few months' trend, not just of prices but of 'official' backing, continues.



(Sidebar about TA: I think it's woo. But, as with my position with BTC, I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, with reason and evidence. I haven't been, so far. I also dislike TA hybrids, like price multiples factored off of different operating variables (including obvious ones like top line and bottom line) --- but, in line with what I said about bubbles just now, I do recognize their utility in short-term, and to an extent even medium-term, price estimation.)
 
All of that word salad won't take away the fact that you claim that "Bitcoin is 100% a bubble" and bubbles pop (implying a permanent crash). You have never referred to shorter term bubbles.
Chanakya said:
...And no, that last won't apply to gold, as explained. ...It WILL apply to BTC, although who knows, it may not, another decade or two hence, if the last few months' trend, not just of prices but of 'official' backing, continues.
Click to expand...
... or maybe even a century or two. That is a meaningless description of "bubble".

Bitcoin will crash under either of two circumstances: the "proof of work" algorithm is cracked or a superior crypto takes its place. Regarding the latter, none of the countless alternative cryptos available has come even close to surpassing bitcoin.

Any prediction that won't come to pass for "another decade or two hence" is nothing but fortune telling.
 
psionl0 said:
All of that word salad won't take away the fact that you claim that "Bitcoin is 100% a bubble" and bubbles pop (implying a permanent crash). You have never referred to shorter term bubbles.

... or maybe even a century or two. That is a meaningless description of "bubble".

Bitcoin will crash under either of two circumstances: the "proof of work" algorithm is cracked or a superior crypto takes its place. Regarding the latter, none of the countless alternative cryptos available has come even close to surpassing bitcoin.

Any prediction that won't come to pass for "another decade or two hence" is nothing but fortune telling.
Click to expand...

What complete utter nonsense.

You're the one that's bringing in short-run parameters now, in a blatant goalpost shift. You, not me. You're not even coherent any more.

You're just a dishonest ideologue, with zero intellectual integrity.

Which doesn't mean you're worthless, not at all, you're demonstrably knowledgeable about BTC, and demonstrably able to make your case as long as the argument favors your position. But beyond that, and specifically when your arguments come up short, you demonstrably are dishonest to the bone, and it's a fool's errand to be complicit in letting you put up a spurious appearance of rational discourse.

Have fun, happy haunting.



eta: More fundamentally, and apart from those technical matters, the BTC bubble will crash when people stop buying into this intrinsically worthless story. As happens with most bubbles. That's what a bubble means.

Whether that popping is immediate or not is a separate matter, one I have addressed explicitly. Whether it might end up solidifying, like gold has, ditto.

But there I go, responding to your fundamentally dishonest comments. I really must resist the impulse.
 
Last edited:
Chanakya said:
What complete utter nonsense.

You're the one that's bringing in short-run parameters now, in a blatant goalpost shift. You, not me. You're not even coherent any more.
Click to expand...
So we still have your unsupportable position that "Bitcoin is 100% a bubble" and nothing else. If you don't like me pointing out that there are shorter term bubbles then fine but I am not trying to shift the goal posts.

Chanakya said:
You're just a dishonest ideologue, with zero intellectual integrity.
Click to expand...
You are not the first poster to attack me personally when their arguments are shown to run counter to critical thinking.
 
facepalm

*walks resolutely away*


eta: If you've even a smidgen of honest desire to understand, beyond supporting your weird fixation over supporting BTC, then read my posts again, carefully. No skin off my back either way, but your finding my post a "word salad" indicates your complete ignorance of valuation basics, and you'll probably gain from broadening your understanding. Your call.
 
Last edited:
Chanakya said:
If you've even a smidgen of honest desire to understand, beyond supporting your weird fixation over supporting BTC, . . .
Click to expand...
As I said, not the first time. Accusing me of being a bitcoin lover is the usual response I get when I point out flaws in another's argument.
 
The only reason why Gold and Silver are considered intrinsically valuable is because for centuries, China was willing to accept them in exchange for their highly desirable goods.
The entire exploitation of the New World was just a transfer of precious metals from South America to China, making Europe rich in the process.

But in the absence of a Buyer of Last Resort, no currency is worth anything on its own.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
The only reason why Gold and Silver are considered intrinsically valuable is because for centuries, China was willing to accept them in exchange for their highly desirable goods.
Click to expand...
I thought that gold and silver were in use for thousands of years as currencies. They even had religious undertones - being called "noble" metals.
 
psionl0 said:
I thought that gold and silver were in use for thousands of years as currencies. They even had religious undertones - being called "noble" metals.
Click to expand...
I thought that noble metals were metals would not become corroded, and silver is only included for some uses, and not for others.
 
psionl0 said:
I thought that gold and silver were in use for thousands of years as currencies. They even had religious undertones - being called "noble" metals.
Click to expand...
in limited amounts, yes, by fiat - governments issued coins, paid their soldiers and demanded the money back via taxes, thus creating markets.
But what happened in the age of exploration was the gold&silver supply growing by orders of magnitude without causing a massive dip in value, which was only possible because China kept buying it.
 
No, the silver from South America effectively collapsed the economy of the Spanish Empire.
 
psionl0 said:
As I said, not the first time. Accusing me of being a bitcoin lover is the usual response I get when I point out flaws in another's argument.
Click to expand...

I couldn't speak for those others, but in my case that's because you do indeed seem to be that curious thing, a "bitcoin lover" as you yourself put it, that is unable to countenance any criticism of their object of devotion.

You are deluding yourself if you really think you've "pointed out the flaw in (my) argument". And you're lying if you're aware that you have not, and are merely saying that to keep up appearances. It is the height of Dunning-Kruger-ness to engage with my cogent posts, and your own evasions and sidesteps, and to take that away from our recent discussion.

What do you imagine our argument even is about? Here, let me spell it out for you clearly:

(1) Your claim that intrinsic value is "meaningless". That was the starting point. An ignorant and completely risible idea. And shown as such. And I'm happy to go to greater lengths, to show it even more clearly, should you ask me to.

(2) Your astonishing claim that, apparently, it is not possible to have monetary value in the absence of trade. Another ignorant idea. And shown as such. And again, I'm happy to show it in more detail, should you ask me to.

(3) My contention that gold is a true exception to this rule, and your claim that it is "special pleading" to so single out gold. Again, your POV was shown to be fallacious. And again, I'm fully prepared to discuss this in greater detail, and show this even more clearly, should you ask.

(4) Your implicit contention that because gold is an exception, therefore BTC must be too. And my stating that that is BTC is nowhere like gold. Albeit, like I pointed out myself, by way of steelmanning my argument, things are changing now, and maybe, going forward, the BTC bubble may solidify after all, but in future, not quite there yet.

(5) My stating that any investment trading above its intrinsic value is essentially a bubble. And your claiming that that is not true. Again, your POV is nonsense. And again, I'm happy to explain this in greater detail, should you actually ask.

(6) Following on #5 above, the fact that BTC is a bubble. An obvious fact, pointing out which apparently gives you a heart attack, and leaves you frothing at the mouth.


It is at that point that you neatly shifted goalposts, and brought in short-term price estimates and price bubbles. And then, hilariously, declared yourself the winner --- as if your transparent subterfuge isn't painfully clear to anyone taking the trouble to follow our exchange.


----------


Unlike you I've clearly acknowledged that the specific scam argument of mine doesn't hold, when the facts proved that. I went out of my way to seek out those facts, by specifically asking you that. And I went out my way and steelmanned my own bubble argument by clearly qualifying the recent structural shift potentially underway now. ...While you, in stark contrast, simply shifted goalposts when shown to be wrong, to talk about near term price bubbles. ...You do understand the difference between the two, do you not?

You're not stupid. You're far from ignorant. But you're literally that very curious specimen, someone so besotted with bitcoin, of all things, that every valid criticism of BTC is like a kick in the balls to you, to be defended against either with wild random insults, as earlier, or misrepresentation of the discussion and its outcome, as now.


----------


TLDR: No, you have not found any flaw in my bubble argument. It is your perspective on intrinsic value, and about the BTC bubble, that has been shown to be wanting in this discussion. Regardless of whether you have the wits to understand that, or the integrity to acknowledge that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom