Is it time to go all in on Bitcoin?

15,512 Views | 205 Replies | Last: 9 hrs ago by concordtom
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

If you haven't studied bitcoin enough to the point that you no longer see it as "investing" in bitcoin but rather "saving" in bitcoin, then you have no business opining publicly about it. If you still conflate "bitcoin" with the rest of "crypto," then again you haven't studied it enough and have no business opining publicly about it.

Just my 2 satoshis.


Why should I save in bitcoin?
Tried to answer this for you back in 2017. If you're still asking this question after you've had 7 years to maybe do some basic research on your own, I don't believe you're asking this in good faith.

https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/74219/replies/1420628

If I'm wrong and you ARE asking this in good faith, I am more than happy to have that conversation. But I'm not going down this road again just so you can "dunk" on me with ill-informed bitcoin takes.


My takeaway from that is you are saying we should save in bitcoin because we will be transacting in bitcoin. It's been 7 years and bitcoin transactions are still extremely rare.

Is there another reason I should save in bitcoin or are you making the same prediction from 7 years ago that still hasn't come to pass?
That should not have been the takeaway, and if that's how it came across that was unintended. But to try and answer this question as succinctly as possible, one should save in bitcoin for the same reasons that people save in real estate or gold. The properties that historically made real estate/gold attractive places to store wealth are just better with bitcoin.

I get it though, I'm just some random guy on the internet, so my own personal decade-long interest/study in bitcoin probably holds no weight with you.

I have to imagine you see Fidelity as more legitimate though.

https://institutional.fidelity.com/app/proxy/content?literatureURL=/9903921.PDF

They have a great explanation of why bitcoin matters in one of their reports, if you are genuine in wanting to learn.
Thank you for sharing the Fidelity explainer - I read it with an open mind. Unfortunately, I have read similar things in the past and bitcoin still comes up short in my view. You may have a different opinion on bitcoin's utility and that is fine. But here are my concerns:

- I invest in real estate. I use it to generate cash. I do not invest in gold. It does not generate cash. I am not looking for a store of wealth. I am looking to generate wealth. The economy is hopefully growing and if I stand pat, I'm going to fall behind. Through its existence, bitcoin has been a terrible store of wealth as it is highly volatile.

- As a currency, bitcoin is inferior because it's supply is limited. That will ultimately lead to destructive deflation if the economy wants to grow faster than bitcoin supply. Expansive supply is a feature of fiat currencies, not a bug. Flexibility is key because deflationary crashes are the worst form of economic disruption.

- As a means of transaction, bitcoin is inferior because the banks / governments that process USD transactions help make me more confident that the process is legitimate and I'm not dealing with a bad actor. The small fee and amount of time is a small price to pay. I do not want to be involved in a currency that most benefits tax cheats, gangsters, and thieves. If I were in an oppressive country I might feel differently. In that case, the problem isn't the currency - it is the oppressive government.
I think being a cash flow investor is great. If real estate is your preferred method of generating that cash flow, there's nothing wrong with that. The following is how I'd address your concerns, however.

Real Estate: I think the inability the preserve purchasing power through saving dollars compels people to seek out alternatives for safeguarding their wealth. Real estate has become a favored option, which financialized it as an asset class valued well beyond its utility value. If housing is a basic human need, is this a good or bad thing? That's a separate debate, but I do see it as problematic that people are pushed towards owning multiple properties (and/or stocks, etc.) simply because they lack viable means to save in currency. In other words, our money is broken. We should be able to save in money itself and not be forced into becoming investors on top of our 9 to 5 just to try and maintain its purchasing power. I think bitcoin does present itself as a direct savings mechanism, and offers a potential solution to this issue. Other reasons I believe bitcoin is superior to real estate include:
  • Finite vs. Scalable Scarcity: Bitcoin's fixed supply contrasts sharply with real estate, which can become less scarce as demand increases, thanks to new developments and rezoning efforts.
  • No Maintenance or Hidden Costs: Bitcoin stands out for its lack of ongoing expensesno maintenance, no tenants, and no fluctuating property taxes. It's not just low-maintenance; it's maintenance-free.
  • Asset Security: Unlike real estate, which can be physically seized, Bitcoin offers a level of security against confiscation.
  • Lower Risk Factors: Real estate investment carries multiple risks, including leverage, tenant reliability, government policy changes, environmental factors, and reliance on insurance payouts. Bitcoin sidesteps these concerns.
  • Unmatched Portability and Liquidity: Real estate is immovable and often difficult to sell quickly. In contrast, Bitcoin can be easily moved and sold globally 24/7, offering superior liquidity and portability.
Volatility: Bitcoin's inherent volatility during its monetization process is to be expected, as it operates uniquely compared to other assets. Traditional assets adjust their supply based on demand shiftsfor instance, increased demand for gold/housing leads to more mining/developments. Bitcoin stands out as its supply remains fixed, unaffected by demand changes, leading to a vertical supply curve. This setup makes its price especially sensitive to demand fluctuations, manifesting as volatility. The assumption that Bitcoin's price will continually rise hinges on the expectation of growing demand over time. As Bitcoin matures, gaining market cap and global liquidity, its volatility is will decrease, a trend supported by various studies. Nominally, bitcoin's price in USD will trend up "forever." Trending obviously implies volatility, no one seriously believes it happens in a straight line. But a volatile increase in purchasing power over time vs a stable but guaranteed loss of purchasing power over time wins in my opinion. With a finite asset priced in an infinite currency, it's not hard to see how all this plays out over the years, in my opinion.

Inflation/Deflation: The debate around inflation and deflation transcends our shared economics education at Cal, where the prevailing wisdom suggests that some inflation is beneficial and deflationary currencies are problematic. However, this perspective is more theoretical than factual. Despite being educated in these principles, I've grown to question them, particularly noting the absence of Austrian economics in our curriculum, which was dominated by Keynesian theories. This omission raises questions about the breadth of economic theories presented to us, especially since Austrian economics offers a viewpoint where inflation isn't deemed necessary, and deflation can be positive. If I put on a tinfoil hat, I might speculate that the mainstream focus on the necessity of inflation serves to justify governmental monetary expansion and currency debasement. While we may hold differing views on the necessity of inflation, I recommend a book that challenged my own understanding and could provide you with an intriguing perspective if you have the free time:

https://www.amazon.com/Price-Tomorrow-Deflation-Abundant-Future/dp/1999257405

Transactions: Totally disagree here. Trusting in Bitcoin really just means you're putting your faith in math, and honestly, I'd take that any day over trusting Uncle Sam. Going through banks and governments for transactions feels like an endless obstacle course. They're all about collecting your info, putting up barriers, and moving at a snail's pace. Bitcoin, though? It's direct, no middleman to hike up fees or slap down restrictions. Plus, it's totally neutral it's there if you want it, no biggie if you don't.

And calling Bitcoin a playground for the shady types? That's way off base. With its open ledger, only an idiot would pick it for anything dodgy. There are reasons why many criminals who used bitcoin believing it was anonymous and not just pseudonymous have been caught. It's like saying knives are evil because they can be used in stabbings, or cars are a menace because they can be getaway vehicles. Come on, that's not the point of these things.

Since 2017, we've seen some wild moves, like the US cancelling Russia's treasury assets and Canada locking down bank accounts over trucker rally protest support. It really makes you wonder how safe any country's assets are if they're not on the US's good side, or what it means for anyone backing peaceful protests that the government doesn't like. When the government holds the reins on currency from creating it to setting its value and deciding who can use it there's no separating it from its political strings. You mentioned if you lived in an oppressive country you might feel differently. Most of the world lives in an oppressive country. If you're from the financially privileged western world, it's harder to see bitcoin's use case. But those in countries regularly experiencing hyperinflation and/or oppressive regimes see it clearly.

If we're not lining up on this basic idea about money, I get why we're at odds. It seems you're cool with governments calling the shots on money, while I'm over here saying it should stay out of their grasp, kind of like keeping church and state apart. Except this is the separation of money an state. I'm all in on the idea that money should be government-neutral, and for me (and plenty of others), Bitcoin seems like our best shot at making that happen.


You and I have fundamental disagreements about the nature and role of government and economics. In my view, government when done right, is the only chance we have to not be completely dominated by wealthy, industrial interests. The last people I want in charge of our currency are private actors with the means to waste immense amounts of energy resources doing complex math equations to enrich themselves. The government power vacuum you dream of would be filled by such people to the detriment of the average person.
Lets Go Brandon 18
How long do you want to ignore this user?
edwinbear said:

If you haven't studied bitcoin enough to the point that you no longer see it as "investing" in bitcoin but rather "saving" in bitcoin, then you have no business opining publicly about it. If you still conflate "bitcoin" with the rest of "crypto," then again you haven't studied it enough and have no business opining publicly about it.

Just my 2 satoshis.
You may have studied bitcoin a lot, but I doubt that you've studied currency nearly enough.

People can talk about the decentralization of cryptocurrency until they're blue in the face as if that is some sort of argument in favor of cryptocurrency, but it is precisely that that makes bitcoin a novelty. That is not to say that the backing of a currency by a nation-state or government is 100% good (witness the number of people who have had their assets frozen because a government didn't like what they did or said for more information), but it is precisely the backing of a nation-state or government that gives fiat money its value. There is no intrinsic value to a dollar bill or a coin (even if you melt it down for whatever precious metals a coin might be comprised of). Even when it was backed by gold, the gold was never what gave it its value because gold has far more speculative value than real value (gold is intrinsically useful in electronics and medicine today). What gave it its long-term value was that the United States government backed it and conducted transactions with it. If at some point the United States decided that the official currency of the country was no longer going to be the dollar but bitcoin, then bitcoin would start to have an inherent value. Absent that, it's just a speculative investment whose value is dictated by the market for bitcoin.

When there is a lot of demand for bitcoin, its value will spike. When there is too much supply of bitcoin and insufficient demand for bitcoin, its value plummets. And where the rubber meets the road, the value of bitcoin is measured in how much real currency you can get in exchange for selling it, not in bitcoin itself.

Anyone looking to get into the cryptocurrency game should view the amount of real currency they put into it the same way as they view money they gamble with. Don't spend more than you can afford to lose.

Warren Buffett explains the problems here and while I don't think Warren Buffett's opinion on something monetarily related is necessarily the end all be all, I would trust his opinion here far more than any Bear Insider poster on the subject.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/30/warren-buffett-gives-his-most-expansive-explanation-for-why-he-doesnt-believe-in-bitcoin.html
edwinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

If you haven't studied bitcoin enough to the point that you no longer see it as "investing" in bitcoin but rather "saving" in bitcoin, then you have no business opining publicly about it. If you still conflate "bitcoin" with the rest of "crypto," then again you haven't studied it enough and have no business opining publicly about it.

Just my 2 satoshis.


Why should I save in bitcoin?
Tried to answer this for you back in 2017. If you're still asking this question after you've had 7 years to maybe do some basic research on your own, I don't believe you're asking this in good faith.

https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/74219/replies/1420628

If I'm wrong and you ARE asking this in good faith, I am more than happy to have that conversation. But I'm not going down this road again just so you can "dunk" on me with ill-informed bitcoin takes.


My takeaway from that is you are saying we should save in bitcoin because we will be transacting in bitcoin. It's been 7 years and bitcoin transactions are still extremely rare.

Is there another reason I should save in bitcoin or are you making the same prediction from 7 years ago that still hasn't come to pass?
That should not have been the takeaway, and if that's how it came across that was unintended. But to try and answer this question as succinctly as possible, one should save in bitcoin for the same reasons that people save in real estate or gold. The properties that historically made real estate/gold attractive places to store wealth are just better with bitcoin.

I get it though, I'm just some random guy on the internet, so my own personal decade-long interest/study in bitcoin probably holds no weight with you.

I have to imagine you see Fidelity as more legitimate though.

https://institutional.fidelity.com/app/proxy/content?literatureURL=/9903921.PDF

They have a great explanation of why bitcoin matters in one of their reports, if you are genuine in wanting to learn.
Thank you for sharing the Fidelity explainer - I read it with an open mind. Unfortunately, I have read similar things in the past and bitcoin still comes up short in my view. You may have a different opinion on bitcoin's utility and that is fine. But here are my concerns:

- I invest in real estate. I use it to generate cash. I do not invest in gold. It does not generate cash. I am not looking for a store of wealth. I am looking to generate wealth. The economy is hopefully growing and if I stand pat, I'm going to fall behind. Through its existence, bitcoin has been a terrible store of wealth as it is highly volatile.

- As a currency, bitcoin is inferior because it's supply is limited. That will ultimately lead to destructive deflation if the economy wants to grow faster than bitcoin supply. Expansive supply is a feature of fiat currencies, not a bug. Flexibility is key because deflationary crashes are the worst form of economic disruption.

- As a means of transaction, bitcoin is inferior because the banks / governments that process USD transactions help make me more confident that the process is legitimate and I'm not dealing with a bad actor. The small fee and amount of time is a small price to pay. I do not want to be involved in a currency that most benefits tax cheats, gangsters, and thieves. If I were in an oppressive country I might feel differently. In that case, the problem isn't the currency - it is the oppressive government.
I think being a cash flow investor is great. If real estate is your preferred method of generating that cash flow, there's nothing wrong with that. The following is how I'd address your concerns, however.

Real Estate: I think the inability the preserve purchasing power through saving dollars compels people to seek out alternatives for safeguarding their wealth. Real estate has become a favored option, which financialized it as an asset class valued well beyond its utility value. If housing is a basic human need, is this a good or bad thing? That's a separate debate, but I do see it as problematic that people are pushed towards owning multiple properties (and/or stocks, etc.) simply because they lack viable means to save in currency. In other words, our money is broken. We should be able to save in money itself and not be forced into becoming investors on top of our 9 to 5 just to try and maintain its purchasing power. I think bitcoin does present itself as a direct savings mechanism, and offers a potential solution to this issue. Other reasons I believe bitcoin is superior to real estate include:
  • Finite vs. Scalable Scarcity: Bitcoin's fixed supply contrasts sharply with real estate, which can become less scarce as demand increases, thanks to new developments and rezoning efforts.
  • No Maintenance or Hidden Costs: Bitcoin stands out for its lack of ongoing expensesno maintenance, no tenants, and no fluctuating property taxes. It's not just low-maintenance; it's maintenance-free.
  • Asset Security: Unlike real estate, which can be physically seized, Bitcoin offers a level of security against confiscation.
  • Lower Risk Factors: Real estate investment carries multiple risks, including leverage, tenant reliability, government policy changes, environmental factors, and reliance on insurance payouts. Bitcoin sidesteps these concerns.
  • Unmatched Portability and Liquidity: Real estate is immovable and often difficult to sell quickly. In contrast, Bitcoin can be easily moved and sold globally 24/7, offering superior liquidity and portability.
Volatility: Bitcoin's inherent volatility during its monetization process is to be expected, as it operates uniquely compared to other assets. Traditional assets adjust their supply based on demand shiftsfor instance, increased demand for gold/housing leads to more mining/developments. Bitcoin stands out as its supply remains fixed, unaffected by demand changes, leading to a vertical supply curve. This setup makes its price especially sensitive to demand fluctuations, manifesting as volatility. The assumption that Bitcoin's price will continually rise hinges on the expectation of growing demand over time. As Bitcoin matures, gaining market cap and global liquidity, its volatility is will decrease, a trend supported by various studies. Nominally, bitcoin's price in USD will trend up "forever." Trending obviously implies volatility, no one seriously believes it happens in a straight line. But a volatile increase in purchasing power over time vs a stable but guaranteed loss of purchasing power over time wins in my opinion. With a finite asset priced in an infinite currency, it's not hard to see how all this plays out over the years, in my opinion.

Inflation/Deflation: The debate around inflation and deflation transcends our shared economics education at Cal, where the prevailing wisdom suggests that some inflation is beneficial and deflationary currencies are problematic. However, this perspective is more theoretical than factual. Despite being educated in these principles, I've grown to question them, particularly noting the absence of Austrian economics in our curriculum, which was dominated by Keynesian theories. This omission raises questions about the breadth of economic theories presented to us, especially since Austrian economics offers a viewpoint where inflation isn't deemed necessary, and deflation can be positive. If I put on a tinfoil hat, I might speculate that the mainstream focus on the necessity of inflation serves to justify governmental monetary expansion and currency debasement. While we may hold differing views on the necessity of inflation, I recommend a book that challenged my own understanding and could provide you with an intriguing perspective if you have the free time:

https://www.amazon.com/Price-Tomorrow-Deflation-Abundant-Future/dp/1999257405

Transactions: Totally disagree here. Trusting in Bitcoin really just means you're putting your faith in math, and honestly, I'd take that any day over trusting Uncle Sam. Going through banks and governments for transactions feels like an endless obstacle course. They're all about collecting your info, putting up barriers, and moving at a snail's pace. Bitcoin, though? It's direct, no middleman to hike up fees or slap down restrictions. Plus, it's totally neutral it's there if you want it, no biggie if you don't.

And calling Bitcoin a playground for the shady types? That's way off base. With its open ledger, only an idiot would pick it for anything dodgy. There are reasons why many criminals who used bitcoin believing it was anonymous and not just pseudonymous have been caught. It's like saying knives are evil because they can be used in stabbings, or cars are a menace because they can be getaway vehicles. Come on, that's not the point of these things.

Since 2017, we've seen some wild moves, like the US cancelling Russia's treasury assets and Canada locking down bank accounts over trucker rally protest support. It really makes you wonder how safe any country's assets are if they're not on the US's good side, or what it means for anyone backing peaceful protests that the government doesn't like. When the government holds the reins on currency from creating it to setting its value and deciding who can use it there's no separating it from its political strings. You mentioned if you lived in an oppressive country you might feel differently. Most of the world lives in an oppressive country. If you're from the financially privileged western world, it's harder to see bitcoin's use case. But those in countries regularly experiencing hyperinflation and/or oppressive regimes see it clearly.

If we're not lining up on this basic idea about money, I get why we're at odds. It seems you're cool with governments calling the shots on money, while I'm over here saying it should stay out of their grasp, kind of like keeping church and state apart. Except this is the separation of money an state. I'm all in on the idea that money should be government-neutral, and for me (and plenty of others), Bitcoin seems like our best shot at making that happen.


You and I have fundamental disagreements about the nature and role of government and economics. In my view, government when done right, is the only chance we have to not be completely dominated by wealthy, industrial interests. The last people I want in charge of our currency are private actors with the means to waste immense amounts of energy resources doing complex math equations to enrich themselves. The government power vacuum you dream of would be filled by such people to the detriment of the average person.


Yes, this fundamental disagreement I think is a key reason we don't see eye to eye on this, but that's fine. We can revisit in another 7 years haha.
edwinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
9-0 Wipeout said:

edwinbear said:

If you haven't studied bitcoin enough to the point that you no longer see it as "investing" in bitcoin but rather "saving" in bitcoin, then you have no business opining publicly about it. If you still conflate "bitcoin" with the rest of "crypto," then again you haven't studied it enough and have no business opining publicly about it.

Just my 2 satoshis.
You may have studied bitcoin a lot, but I doubt that you've studied currency nearly enough.

People can talk about the decentralization of cryptocurrency until they're blue in the face as if that is some sort of argument in favor of cryptocurrency, but it is precisely that that makes bitcoin a novelty. That is not to say that the backing of a currency by a nation-state or government is 100% good (witness the number of people who have had their assets frozen because a government didn't like what they did or said for more information), but it is precisely the backing of a nation-state or government that gives fiat money its value. There is no intrinsic value to a dollar bill or a coin (even if you melt it down for whatever precious metals a coin might be comprised of). Even when it was backed by gold, the gold was never what gave it its value because gold has far more speculative value than real value (gold is intrinsically useful in electronics and medicine today). What gave it its long-term value was that the United States government backed it and conducted transactions with it. If at some point the United States decided that the official currency of the country was no longer going to be the dollar but bitcoin, then bitcoin would start to have an inherent value. Absent that, it's just a speculative investment whose value is dictated by the market for bitcoin.

When there is a lot of demand for bitcoin, its value will spike. When there is too much supply of bitcoin and insufficient demand for bitcoin, its value plummets. And where the rubber meets the road, the value of bitcoin is measured in how much real currency you can get in exchange for selling it, not in bitcoin itself.

Anyone looking to get into the cryptocurrency game should view the amount of real currency they put into it the same way as they view money they gamble with. Don't spend more than you can afford to lose.

Warren Buffett explains the problems here and while I don't think Warren Buffett's opinion on something monetarily related is necessarily the end all be all, I would trust his opinion here far more than any Bear Insider poster on the subject.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/30/warren-buffett-gives-his-most-expansive-explanation-for-why-he-doesnt-believe-in-bitcoin.html



We can agree to disagree then.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Who is Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto? U.K. court is about to weigh in on the mystery


https://www.axios.com/2024/03/06/satoshi-nakamoto-bitcoin-boom-craig-wright
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
edwinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

Who is Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto? U.K. court is about to weigh in on the mystery


https://www.axios.com/2024/03/06/satoshi-nakamoto-bitcoin-boom-craig-wright


There is no mystery. Well there is, but not about Craig Wright. He is a known scammer/pathological liar and all his court "evidence" have proven to be forgeries.
bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?


BTC is still less than $100k.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2034 said:



BTC is still less than $100k.
I know.

The same scammers try to con people into giving land and property under some fancy words like eminent domain.

Or extort protection money by their gang called "IRS"

Or kidnap people and put them in cages they call "Jail".

Weird how sovereignty works. Sounds like a con.


Just want to say that pet.com at one point went public based on eyeball count.

When people lose the ability to justify the valuation, there is no way to tell winners like Amazon, Apple, nVidia, Google from the pet.com, exodus, and webvan.

Not saying it won't continue to go up in value, but it could crash and it could go to million. There is no way to say whether the value is justified either way.

In that case, I have no more advantage through experience and knowledge. Why am I competing with pure gamblers? I don't even gamble in Vegas when it's actually fun.

Rather not entrust my generational wealth for my kids to a gamble that someone will value it more than what I paid instead of just buying it now. There is no other mechanism to assess value (e.g., no multiple of EBITDA, no future revenue growth, margin expansion, etc. based on past performance, TAM, secular trends, etc.). Just what would someone pay me more for the same asset when they could have just bought it cheaper earlier. It isn't as if a single bit coin will generate more cash flow from operations in the future.
bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

bear2034 said:



BTC is still less than $100k.
I know.

The same scammers try to con people into giving land and property under some fancy words like eminent domain.

Or extort protection money by their gang called "IRS"

Or kidnap people and put them in cages they call "Jail".

Weird how sovereignty works. Sounds like a con.


Just want to say that pet.com at one point went public based on eyeball count.

When people lose the ability to justify the valuation, there is no way to tell winners like Amazon, Apple, nVidia, Google from the pet.com, exodus, and webvan.

Not saying it won't continue to go up in value, but it could crash and it could go to million. There is no way to say whether the value is justified either way.

In that case, I have no more advantage through experience and knowledge. Why am I competing with pure gamblers? I don't even gamble in Vegas when it's actually fun.

Rather not entrust my generational wealth for my kids to a gamble that someone will value it more than what I paid instead of just buying it now. There is no other mechanism to assess value (e.g., no multiple of EBITDA, no future revenue growth, margin expansion, etc. based on past performance, TAM, secular trends, etc.). Just what would someone pay me more for the same asset when they could have just bought it cheaper earlier. It isn't as if a single bit coin will generate more cash flow from operations in the future.


What is bitcoin? If it's a property asset like gold, how would you assess its value?

The market cap of bitcoin already surpassed silver and will eventually surpass gold or any of your favorite tech stocks.

Bitcoin will still be around long after the Googles and Amazons of the world die off and will continue to go up forever as long as central banks keep printing fiat currency. And they will print money because governments like spending it, especially ours.

Just ask Blackrock's Larry Fink or Vanguard's CEO who is stepping down.



I'm sure if you stick around long enough, one day you too will own bitcoin in some fund you own without you even realizing it.

Or, you can buy it now and tell your grandchildren years later that you bought bitcoin before it reached $0.1 million.
edwinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

bear2034 said:



BTC is still less than $100k.
I know.

The same scammers try to con people into giving land and property under some fancy words like eminent domain.

Or extort protection money by their gang called "IRS"

Or kidnap people and put them in cages they call "Jail".

Weird how sovereignty works. Sounds like a con.


Just want to say that pet.com at one point went public based on eyeball count.

When people lose the ability to justify the valuation, there is no way to tell winners like Amazon, Apple, nVidia, Google from the pet.com, exodus, and webvan.

Not saying it won't continue to go up in value, but it could crash and it could go to million. There is no way to say whether the value is justified either way.

In that case, I have no more advantage through experience and knowledge. Why am I competing with pure gamblers? I don't even gamble in Vegas when it's actually fun.

Rather not entrust my generational wealth for my kids to a gamble that someone will value it more than what I paid instead of just buying it now. There is no other mechanism to assess value (e.g., no multiple of EBITDA, no future revenue growth, margin expansion, etc. based on past performance, TAM, secular trends, etc.). Just what would someone pay me more for the same asset when they could have just bought it cheaper earlier. It isn't as if a single bit coin will generate more cash flow from operations in the future.


It's not a gamble, it's the surest, soundest money that has ever existed. No one is saying there won't be volatility or drawdowns or that it will go up in a straight line, but when there is a finite asset (bitcoin) and it's priced in an infinite currency (dollars, euros, etc.) it's pretty certain that, over time, it will continue to go up in nominal value because the currency it's priced in has no supply limit. So as more dollars/euros etc get printed over time, much of that will continue finding its way into an asset with absolute scarcity/finiteness. In a sense, to satisfy your valuation models, you can think of bitcoin's price as an index of global liquidity.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:

bear2034 said:



BTC is still less than $100k.
I know.

The same scammers try to con people into giving land and property under some fancy words like eminent domain.

Or extort protection money by their gang called "IRS"

Or kidnap people and put them in cages they call "Jail".

Weird how sovereignty works. Sounds like a con.


Just want to say that pet.com at one point went public based on eyeball count.

When people lose the ability to justify the valuation, there is no way to tell winners like Amazon, Apple, nVidia, Google from the pet.com, exodus, and webvan.

Not saying it won't continue to go up in value, but it could crash and it could go to million. There is no way to say whether the value is justified either way.

In that case, I have no more advantage through experience and knowledge. Why am I competing with pure gamblers? I don't even gamble in Vegas when it's actually fun.

Rather not entrust my generational wealth for my kids to a gamble that someone will value it more than what I paid instead of just buying it now. There is no other mechanism to assess value (e.g., no multiple of EBITDA, no future revenue growth, margin expansion, etc. based on past performance, TAM, secular trends, etc.). Just what would someone pay me more for the same asset when they could have just bought it cheaper earlier. It isn't as if a single bit coin will generate more cash flow from operations in the future.


It's not a gamble, it's the surest, soundest money that has ever existed.


Can I go to the local deli and buy a sandwich with this money?
edwinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:

bear2034 said:



BTC is still less than $100k.
I know.

The same scammers try to con people into giving land and property under some fancy words like eminent domain.

Or extort protection money by their gang called "IRS"

Or kidnap people and put them in cages they call "Jail".

Weird how sovereignty works. Sounds like a con.


Just want to say that pet.com at one point went public based on eyeball count.

When people lose the ability to justify the valuation, there is no way to tell winners like Amazon, Apple, nVidia, Google from the pet.com, exodus, and webvan.

Not saying it won't continue to go up in value, but it could crash and it could go to million. There is no way to say whether the value is justified either way.

In that case, I have no more advantage through experience and knowledge. Why am I competing with pure gamblers? I don't even gamble in Vegas when it's actually fun.

Rather not entrust my generational wealth for my kids to a gamble that someone will value it more than what I paid instead of just buying it now. There is no other mechanism to assess value (e.g., no multiple of EBITDA, no future revenue growth, margin expansion, etc. based on past performance, TAM, secular trends, etc.). Just what would someone pay me more for the same asset when they could have just bought it cheaper earlier. It isn't as if a single bit coin will generate more cash flow from operations in the future.


It's not a gamble, it's the surest, soundest money that has ever existed.


Can I go to the local deli and buy a sandwich with this money?


Can you go to the local deli and buy a sandwich with your real estate? Or gold? Or AAPL shares?
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:

bear2034 said:



BTC is still less than $100k.
I know.

The same scammers try to con people into giving land and property under some fancy words like eminent domain.

Or extort protection money by their gang called "IRS"

Or kidnap people and put them in cages they call "Jail".

Weird how sovereignty works. Sounds like a con.


Just want to say that pet.com at one point went public based on eyeball count.

When people lose the ability to justify the valuation, there is no way to tell winners like Amazon, Apple, nVidia, Google from the pet.com, exodus, and webvan.

Not saying it won't continue to go up in value, but it could crash and it could go to million. There is no way to say whether the value is justified either way.

In that case, I have no more advantage through experience and knowledge. Why am I competing with pure gamblers? I don't even gamble in Vegas when it's actually fun.

Rather not entrust my generational wealth for my kids to a gamble that someone will value it more than what I paid instead of just buying it now. There is no other mechanism to assess value (e.g., no multiple of EBITDA, no future revenue growth, margin expansion, etc. based on past performance, TAM, secular trends, etc.). Just what would someone pay me more for the same asset when they could have just bought it cheaper earlier. It isn't as if a single bit coin will generate more cash flow from operations in the future.


It's not a gamble, it's the surest, soundest money that has ever existed.


Can I go to the local deli and buy a sandwich with this money?


Can you go to the local deli and buy a sandwich with your real estate? Or gold? Or AAPL shares?


No, that's why I would never call those things money
edwinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:

bear2034 said:



BTC is still less than $100k.
I know.

The same scammers try to con people into giving land and property under some fancy words like eminent domain.

Or extort protection money by their gang called "IRS"

Or kidnap people and put them in cages they call "Jail".

Weird how sovereignty works. Sounds like a con.


Just want to say that pet.com at one point went public based on eyeball count.

When people lose the ability to justify the valuation, there is no way to tell winners like Amazon, Apple, nVidia, Google from the pet.com, exodus, and webvan.

Not saying it won't continue to go up in value, but it could crash and it could go to million. There is no way to say whether the value is justified either way.

In that case, I have no more advantage through experience and knowledge. Why am I competing with pure gamblers? I don't even gamble in Vegas when it's actually fun.

Rather not entrust my generational wealth for my kids to a gamble that someone will value it more than what I paid instead of just buying it now. There is no other mechanism to assess value (e.g., no multiple of EBITDA, no future revenue growth, margin expansion, etc. based on past performance, TAM, secular trends, etc.). Just what would someone pay me more for the same asset when they could have just bought it cheaper earlier. It isn't as if a single bit coin will generate more cash flow from operations in the future.


It's not a gamble, it's the surest, soundest money that has ever existed.


Can I go to the local deli and buy a sandwich with this money?


Can you go to the local deli and buy a sandwich with your real estate? Or gold? Or AAPL shares?


No, that's why I would never call those things money


So if Square or Stripe flipped a switch and instantly millions of merchants can accept bitcoin, you'd call it money then? Because that can/will happen. Accepting/using bitcoin as a medium of exchange isn't a technical problem, it's one of adoption.

Money is simply what two parties agree to exchange for goods/services. Gold literally was money for thousands of years and now suddenly it's not because you can't buy a sandwich with it at your local deli?
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:

bear2034 said:



BTC is still less than $100k.
I know.

The same scammers try to con people into giving land and property under some fancy words like eminent domain.

Or extort protection money by their gang called "IRS"

Or kidnap people and put them in cages they call "Jail".

Weird how sovereignty works. Sounds like a con.


Just want to say that pet.com at one point went public based on eyeball count.

When people lose the ability to justify the valuation, there is no way to tell winners like Amazon, Apple, nVidia, Google from the pet.com, exodus, and webvan.

Not saying it won't continue to go up in value, but it could crash and it could go to million. There is no way to say whether the value is justified either way.

In that case, I have no more advantage through experience and knowledge. Why am I competing with pure gamblers? I don't even gamble in Vegas when it's actually fun.

Rather not entrust my generational wealth for my kids to a gamble that someone will value it more than what I paid instead of just buying it now. There is no other mechanism to assess value (e.g., no multiple of EBITDA, no future revenue growth, margin expansion, etc. based on past performance, TAM, secular trends, etc.). Just what would someone pay me more for the same asset when they could have just bought it cheaper earlier. It isn't as if a single bit coin will generate more cash flow from operations in the future.


It's not a gamble, it's the surest, soundest money that has ever existed.


Can I go to the local deli and buy a sandwich with this money?


Can you go to the local deli and buy a sandwich with your real estate? Or gold? Or AAPL shares?


No, that's why I would never call those things money


So if Square or Stripe flipped a switch and instantly millions of merchants can accept bitcoin, you'd call it money then? Because that can/will happen. Accepting/using bitcoin as a medium of exchange isn't a technical problem, it's one of adoption.

Money is simply what two parties agree to exchange for goods/services. Gold literally was money for thousands of years and now suddenly it's not because you can't buy a sandwich with it at your local deli?


I tried to park at a stadium the other day and it was credit card only. The dollar is no longer money.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:

bear2034 said:



BTC is still less than $100k.
I know.

The same scammers try to con people into giving land and property under some fancy words like eminent domain.

Or extort protection money by their gang called "IRS"

Or kidnap people and put them in cages they call "Jail".

Weird how sovereignty works. Sounds like a con.


Just want to say that pet.com at one point went public based on eyeball count.

When people lose the ability to justify the valuation, there is no way to tell winners like Amazon, Apple, nVidia, Google from the pet.com, exodus, and webvan.

Not saying it won't continue to go up in value, but it could crash and it could go to million. There is no way to say whether the value is justified either way.

In that case, I have no more advantage through experience and knowledge. Why am I competing with pure gamblers? I don't even gamble in Vegas when it's actually fun.

Rather not entrust my generational wealth for my kids to a gamble that someone will value it more than what I paid instead of just buying it now. There is no other mechanism to assess value (e.g., no multiple of EBITDA, no future revenue growth, margin expansion, etc. based on past performance, TAM, secular trends, etc.). Just what would someone pay me more for the same asset when they could have just bought it cheaper earlier. It isn't as if a single bit coin will generate more cash flow from operations in the future.


It's not a gamble, it's the surest, soundest money that has ever existed.


Can I go to the local deli and buy a sandwich with this money?


Can you go to the local deli and buy a sandwich with your real estate? Or gold? Or AAPL shares?


No, that's why I would never call those things money


So if Square or Stripe flipped a switch and instantly millions of merchants can accept bitcoin, you'd call it money then? Because that can/will happen. Accepting/using bitcoin as a medium of exchange isn't a technical problem, it's one of adoption.

Money is simply what two parties agree to exchange for goods/services. Gold literally was money for thousands of years and now suddenly it's not because you can't buy a sandwich with it at your local deli?


To be considered money something has to be a commonly accepted medium of exchange. Coulda, woulda, shoulda doesn't count. Bitcoin is not money. Not today at least.

Square and Stripe can do whatever they want. It would have to be commonly accepted. I could have a renter ask to pay me in bitcoin. It's doable but my answer would be no.
edwinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:

bear2034 said:



BTC is still less than $100k.
I know.

The same scammers try to con people into giving land and property under some fancy words like eminent domain.

Or extort protection money by their gang called "IRS"

Or kidnap people and put them in cages they call "Jail".

Weird how sovereignty works. Sounds like a con.


Just want to say that pet.com at one point went public based on eyeball count.

When people lose the ability to justify the valuation, there is no way to tell winners like Amazon, Apple, nVidia, Google from the pet.com, exodus, and webvan.

Not saying it won't continue to go up in value, but it could crash and it could go to million. There is no way to say whether the value is justified either way.

In that case, I have no more advantage through experience and knowledge. Why am I competing with pure gamblers? I don't even gamble in Vegas when it's actually fun.

Rather not entrust my generational wealth for my kids to a gamble that someone will value it more than what I paid instead of just buying it now. There is no other mechanism to assess value (e.g., no multiple of EBITDA, no future revenue growth, margin expansion, etc. based on past performance, TAM, secular trends, etc.). Just what would someone pay me more for the same asset when they could have just bought it cheaper earlier. It isn't as if a single bit coin will generate more cash flow from operations in the future.


It's not a gamble, it's the surest, soundest money that has ever existed.


Can I go to the local deli and buy a sandwich with this money?


Can you go to the local deli and buy a sandwich with your real estate? Or gold? Or AAPL shares?


No, that's why I would never call those things money


So if Square or Stripe flipped a switch and instantly millions of merchants can accept bitcoin, you'd call it money then? Because that can/will happen. Accepting/using bitcoin as a medium of exchange isn't a technical problem, it's one of adoption.

Money is simply what two parties agree to exchange for goods/services. Gold literally was money for thousands of years and now suddenly it's not because you can't buy a sandwich with it at your local deli?


To be considered money something has to be a commonly accepted medium of exchange. Coulda, woulda, shoulda doesn't count. Bitcoin is not money. Not today at least.

Square and Stripe can do whatever they want. It would have to be commonly accepted. I could have a renter ask to pay me in bitcoin. It's doable but my answer would be no.


What if something is commonly accepted, just not in America (yet)? Bitcoin is legal tender in El Salvador and Argentina, you can literally go into a McDonalds and buy a Big Mac there with bitcoin, and is commonly used in parts of Africa where people don't have access to bank accounts, but they have a mobile phone and thus a bitcoin wallet. Is bitcoin money there but not here? America will be the last country where bitcoin as a medium of exchange is commonly adopted because it is the most financially privileged. But not everyone has access to a Chase account.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2034 said:



I'm sure if you stick around long enough, one day you too will own bitcoin in some fund you own without you even realizing it.

Or, you can buy it now and tell your grandchildren years later that you bought bitcoin before it reached $0.1 million.

Says the poster on an anonymous message board who refuses to answer how much BITCOIN he owns and what percentage of his liquid assets it is.

"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

bear2034 said:



I'm sure if you stick around long enough, one day you too will own bitcoin in some fund you own without you even realizing it.

Or, you can buy it now and tell your grandchildren years later that you bought bitcoin before it reached $0.1 million.

Says the poster on an anonymous message board who refuses to answer how much BITCOIN he owns and what percentage of his liquid assets it is.

Well, I'm not going to say how many coins I own but I did post earlier I'm allocated 90% bitcoin and 10% equities. Interestingly, BlackRock analyzed Bitcoin's performance as an asset from July 2010 to December 2021. Their findings were staggering: for a 6040 portfolio (60% equities and 40% bonds), the optimal allocation for Bitcoin stood at a whopping 84.9%. The remaining 15.1% would be divided between equities and bonds in a 6040 ratio.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2034 said:

calbear93 said:

bear2034 said:



BTC is still less than $100k.
I know.

The same scammers try to con people into giving land and property under some fancy words like eminent domain.

Or extort protection money by their gang called "IRS"

Or kidnap people and put them in cages they call "Jail".

Weird how sovereignty works. Sounds like a con.


Just want to say that pet.com at one point went public based on eyeball count.

When people lose the ability to justify the valuation, there is no way to tell winners like Amazon, Apple, nVidia, Google from the pet.com, exodus, and webvan.

Not saying it won't continue to go up in value, but it could crash and it could go to million. There is no way to say whether the value is justified either way.

In that case, I have no more advantage through experience and knowledge. Why am I competing with pure gamblers? I don't even gamble in Vegas when it's actually fun.

Rather not entrust my generational wealth for my kids to a gamble that someone will value it more than what I paid instead of just buying it now. There is no other mechanism to assess value (e.g., no multiple of EBITDA, no future revenue growth, margin expansion, etc. based on past performance, TAM, secular trends, etc.). Just what would someone pay me more for the same asset when they could have just bought it cheaper earlier. It isn't as if a single bit coin will generate more cash flow from operations in the future.


What is bitcoin? If it's a property asset like gold, how would you assess its value?

The market cap of bitcoin already surpassed silver and will eventually surpass gold or any of your favorite tech stocks.

Bitcoin will still be around long after the Googles and Amazons of the world die off and will continue to go up forever as long as central banks keep printing fiat currency. And they will print money because governments like spending it, especially ours.

Just ask Blackrock's Larry Fink or Vanguard's CEO who is stepping down.



I'm sure if you stick around long enough, one day you too will own bitcoin in some fund you own without you even realizing it.

Or, you can buy it now and tell your grandchildren years later that you bought bitcoin before it reached $0.1 million.
Doesn't seem like you understand valuation other than saying it will go up in price. That's a gamble and not a valuation analysis. You have provided no justification other than a conclusory prediction on future price. That's pure speculation. As far as gold, you do realize that defensive investment has performed extremely poorly relative to something simple like S&P 500.

And does Larry Fink actually invest his own personal funds or does he collect management fees from the funds?

Without investing in crypto, I was able to retire recently when I turned 50 and was able to grow generational wealth by betting on my career and the global economy. When you are older, you will hopefully have a wealth advisor. Other than assess overall allocation, I don't micromanage his investments for the family trusts or the Roth IRAs. The assets in executive deferred compensation plan and SERP were invested in time-based funds that are prohibited by their charter from investing in speculative investments like crypto. We also have bond ladders that my advisor manages. Our GRATs for my kids include primarily growth equity stock funds so I doubt the remainder will include crypto. My wealth advisor hates crypto so I doubt there is any funds with heavy bet on crypto. In my own personal account that I have maintained since law school where I have individual stocks that I have owned for decades like Apple, Danaher, nVidia, Amazon, Microsoft, Roper etc. based on my hobby of doing amateur valuation analysis from learnings from my hedge fund, private equity, mutual fund, manager friends, I don't have any crypto or metals. Never will. There is no joy for me in speculative stock, when the only reason I invest in my personal stock account is for me to do valuation analysis for fun. We do have hard assets like actual real estate, some we rent out and some we keep as vacation homes. They actually generate cash flow and/or have functional value. Our kids' 529 funds had time-based American funds from Capital Group and the individual accounts that they had since they were in elementary school had only low expense S&P 500 ETFs where all their gifts and our maximum gift contributions went. They somehow managed to graduate from or attend college/grad school without any loans and do not worry about buying a house despite not having invested in crypto. Surprising how you can build wealth without investing in crypto and just by living below means and growing your career while investing in equity.

I truly hope the best for you. You are a human being, despite our disagreement on investment strategy, and I don't want you to be financially ruined. Bitcoin doing well does not impact me, so have nothing but well wishes for you and your investment and hope Bitcoin returns everything you wish for.

You won't convince me since I am already doing well, don't need to gamble on crypto for my future or the future of my kids. Just be happy with your own conviction.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:

bear2034 said:



BTC is still less than $100k.
I know.

The same scammers try to con people into giving land and property under some fancy words like eminent domain.

Or extort protection money by their gang called "IRS"

Or kidnap people and put them in cages they call "Jail".

Weird how sovereignty works. Sounds like a con.


Just want to say that pet.com at one point went public based on eyeball count.

When people lose the ability to justify the valuation, there is no way to tell winners like Amazon, Apple, nVidia, Google from the pet.com, exodus, and webvan.

Not saying it won't continue to go up in value, but it could crash and it could go to million. There is no way to say whether the value is justified either way.

In that case, I have no more advantage through experience and knowledge. Why am I competing with pure gamblers? I don't even gamble in Vegas when it's actually fun.

Rather not entrust my generational wealth for my kids to a gamble that someone will value it more than what I paid instead of just buying it now. There is no other mechanism to assess value (e.g., no multiple of EBITDA, no future revenue growth, margin expansion, etc. based on past performance, TAM, secular trends, etc.). Just what would someone pay me more for the same asset when they could have just bought it cheaper earlier. It isn't as if a single bit coin will generate more cash flow from operations in the future.


It's not a gamble, it's the surest, soundest money that has ever existed.


Can I go to the local deli and buy a sandwich with this money?


Can you go to the local deli and buy a sandwich with your real estate? Or gold? Or AAPL shares?


No, that's why I would never call those things money


So if Square or Stripe flipped a switch and instantly millions of merchants can accept bitcoin, you'd call it money then? Because that can/will happen. Accepting/using bitcoin as a medium of exchange isn't a technical problem, it's one of adoption.

Money is simply what two parties agree to exchange for goods/services. Gold literally was money for thousands of years and now suddenly it's not because you can't buy a sandwich with it at your local deli?


To be considered money something has to be a commonly accepted medium of exchange. Coulda, woulda, shoulda doesn't count. Bitcoin is not money. Not today at least.

Square and Stripe can do whatever they want. It would have to be commonly accepted. I could have a renter ask to pay me in bitcoin. It's doable but my answer would be no.


What if something is commonly accepted, just not in America (yet)? Bitcoin is legal tender in El Salvador and Argentina, you can literally go into a McDonalds and buy a Big Mac there with bitcoin, and is commonly used in parts of Africa where people don't have access to bank accounts, but they have a mobile phone and thus a bitcoin wallet. Is bitcoin money there but not here? America will be the last country where bitcoin as a medium of exchange is commonly adopted because it is the most financially privileged. But not everyone has access to a Chase account.
Where there is hyperinflation like Argentina and there is government restriction on access to more stable currency like USD, I see the appeal of bitcoin. Are you saying there will be hyperinflation in more and more economy with limited access to the USD?
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Edwinbear makes a good point. Bitcoin has achieved ****hole country money.
edwinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:

bear2034 said:



BTC is still less than $100k.
I know.

The same scammers try to con people into giving land and property under some fancy words like eminent domain.

Or extort protection money by their gang called "IRS"

Or kidnap people and put them in cages they call "Jail".

Weird how sovereignty works. Sounds like a con.


Just want to say that pet.com at one point went public based on eyeball count.

When people lose the ability to justify the valuation, there is no way to tell winners like Amazon, Apple, nVidia, Google from the pet.com, exodus, and webvan.

Not saying it won't continue to go up in value, but it could crash and it could go to million. There is no way to say whether the value is justified either way.

In that case, I have no more advantage through experience and knowledge. Why am I competing with pure gamblers? I don't even gamble in Vegas when it's actually fun.

Rather not entrust my generational wealth for my kids to a gamble that someone will value it more than what I paid instead of just buying it now. There is no other mechanism to assess value (e.g., no multiple of EBITDA, no future revenue growth, margin expansion, etc. based on past performance, TAM, secular trends, etc.). Just what would someone pay me more for the same asset when they could have just bought it cheaper earlier. It isn't as if a single bit coin will generate more cash flow from operations in the future.


It's not a gamble, it's the surest, soundest money that has ever existed.


Can I go to the local deli and buy a sandwich with this money?


Can you go to the local deli and buy a sandwich with your real estate? Or gold? Or AAPL shares?


No, that's why I would never call those things money


So if Square or Stripe flipped a switch and instantly millions of merchants can accept bitcoin, you'd call it money then? Because that can/will happen. Accepting/using bitcoin as a medium of exchange isn't a technical problem, it's one of adoption.

Money is simply what two parties agree to exchange for goods/services. Gold literally was money for thousands of years and now suddenly it's not because you can't buy a sandwich with it at your local deli?


To be considered money something has to be a commonly accepted medium of exchange. Coulda, woulda, shoulda doesn't count. Bitcoin is not money. Not today at least.

Square and Stripe can do whatever they want. It would have to be commonly accepted. I could have a renter ask to pay me in bitcoin. It's doable but my answer would be no.


What if something is commonly accepted, just not in America (yet)? Bitcoin is legal tender in El Salvador and Argentina, you can literally go into a McDonalds and buy a Big Mac there with bitcoin, and is commonly used in parts of Africa where people don't have access to bank accounts, but they have a mobile phone and thus a bitcoin wallet. Is bitcoin money there but not here? America will be the last country where bitcoin as a medium of exchange is commonly adopted because it is the most financially privileged. But not everyone has access to a Chase account.
Where there is hyperinflation like Argentina and there is government restriction on access to more stable currency like USD, I see the appeal of bitcoin. Are you saying there will be hyperinflation in more and more economy with limited access to the USD?


I'm saying every country has a level of inflation, with many countries experiencing hyperinflation (Argentina, Egypt, Lebanon, Venezuela, Nigeria, etc.). The US dollar is also guaranteed to inflate/lose purchasing power over time because governments can't stop printing. The USD is just the best of the worst, so it'll be a slower process, but if you can see the appeal of bitcoin in a hyperinflating country, then you should also understand why holding some bitcoin would also make sense in ANY country, including the US, if you adjust your timeline perspective.

There are other reasons bitcoin matters as well beside this but protection against monetary inflation is a big one. Look at a bitcoin chart priced in one of these hyper inflating currencies and magically much of the volatility and drawdowns many Americans are afraid of just seem to vanish.
edwinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

Edwinbear makes a good point. Bitcoin has achieved ****hole country money.


Then: "bitcoin will go to zero and never amount to anything."

Now: "A country made it legal tender? Well, it's just a ****hole country! Who cares!"

Later: "A G20 central bank is holding bitcoin as a reserve asset? Well, it's not even a G7! Who cares!"

Unless you expect the monetization process of a new asset class to happen overnight, I don't understand why you can't look over the last 15 years and see a clear trend in what is happening.

But it doesn't matter. What will end up happening, dajo, is that you will end up buying/having exposure to bitcoin at the price you deserve, and you won't even know it.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:

bear2034 said:



BTC is still less than $100k.
I know.

The same scammers try to con people into giving land and property under some fancy words like eminent domain.

Or extort protection money by their gang called "IRS"

Or kidnap people and put them in cages they call "Jail".

Weird how sovereignty works. Sounds like a con.


Just want to say that pet.com at one point went public based on eyeball count.

When people lose the ability to justify the valuation, there is no way to tell winners like Amazon, Apple, nVidia, Google from the pet.com, exodus, and webvan.

Not saying it won't continue to go up in value, but it could crash and it could go to million. There is no way to say whether the value is justified either way.

In that case, I have no more advantage through experience and knowledge. Why am I competing with pure gamblers? I don't even gamble in Vegas when it's actually fun.

Rather not entrust my generational wealth for my kids to a gamble that someone will value it more than what I paid instead of just buying it now. There is no other mechanism to assess value (e.g., no multiple of EBITDA, no future revenue growth, margin expansion, etc. based on past performance, TAM, secular trends, etc.). Just what would someone pay me more for the same asset when they could have just bought it cheaper earlier. It isn't as if a single bit coin will generate more cash flow from operations in the future.


It's not a gamble, it's the surest, soundest money that has ever existed.


Can I go to the local deli and buy a sandwich with this money?


Can you go to the local deli and buy a sandwich with your real estate? Or gold? Or AAPL shares?


No, that's why I would never call those things money


So if Square or Stripe flipped a switch and instantly millions of merchants can accept bitcoin, you'd call it money then? Because that can/will happen. Accepting/using bitcoin as a medium of exchange isn't a technical problem, it's one of adoption.

Money is simply what two parties agree to exchange for goods/services. Gold literally was money for thousands of years and now suddenly it's not because you can't buy a sandwich with it at your local deli?


To be considered money something has to be a commonly accepted medium of exchange. Coulda, woulda, shoulda doesn't count. Bitcoin is not money. Not today at least.

Square and Stripe can do whatever they want. It would have to be commonly accepted. I could have a renter ask to pay me in bitcoin. It's doable but my answer would be no.


What if something is commonly accepted, just not in America (yet)? Bitcoin is legal tender in El Salvador and Argentina, you can literally go into a McDonalds and buy a Big Mac there with bitcoin, and is commonly used in parts of Africa where people don't have access to bank accounts, but they have a mobile phone and thus a bitcoin wallet. Is bitcoin money there but not here? America will be the last country where bitcoin as a medium of exchange is commonly adopted because it is the most financially privileged. But not everyone has access to a Chase account.
Where there is hyperinflation like Argentina and there is government restriction on access to more stable currency like USD, I see the appeal of bitcoin. Are you saying there will be hyperinflation in more and more economy with limited access to the USD?


I'm saying every country has a level of inflation, with many countries experiencing hyperinflation (Argentina, Egypt, Lebanon, Venezuela, Nigeria, etc.). The US dollar is also guaranteed to inflate/lose purchasing power over time because governments can't stop printing. The USD is just the best of the worst, so it'll be a slower process, but if you can see the appeal of bitcoin in a hyperinflating country, then you should also understand why holding some bitcoin would also make sense in ANY country, including the US, if you adjust your timeline perspective.

There are other reasons bitcoin matters as well beside this but protection against monetary inflation is a big one. Look at a bitcoin chart priced in one of these hyper inflating currencies and magically much of the volatility and drawdowns many Americans are afraid of just seem to vanish.

The only problem with this is that bitcoin would have to be less volatile than the currency subject to hyperinflation. Furthermore, they would need a country to capitulate and lose control over their own sovereignty over their currency. Neither the FED nor the treasury nor Congress will cede control over their currency and lose the ability to engage in deficit spending. Do you really see United States doing that? If anything, they may go the way of China and make it illegal.

The best reduction of US debt load is inflation. Inflation causes the fixed principal amount to be effectively reduced in value and cost. As long as US remains the most stable currency, there will be demand for treasury. The concern is monetary and fiscal policies driving sticky inflation that requires higher interest rate to compress demand, which puts stain on the debt load while inflation remains elevated. More cautious fiscal and monetary policies would be preferred, but bitcoin whose supply does not grow with inflation and economy will not be anything more than bartered asset as opposed to real currency in the US.
edwinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:

bear2034 said:



BTC is still less than $100k.
I know.

The same scammers try to con people into giving land and property under some fancy words like eminent domain.

Or extort protection money by their gang called "IRS"

Or kidnap people and put them in cages they call "Jail".

Weird how sovereignty works. Sounds like a con.


Just want to say that pet.com at one point went public based on eyeball count.

When people lose the ability to justify the valuation, there is no way to tell winners like Amazon, Apple, nVidia, Google from the pet.com, exodus, and webvan.

Not saying it won't continue to go up in value, but it could crash and it could go to million. There is no way to say whether the value is justified either way.

In that case, I have no more advantage through experience and knowledge. Why am I competing with pure gamblers? I don't even gamble in Vegas when it's actually fun.

Rather not entrust my generational wealth for my kids to a gamble that someone will value it more than what I paid instead of just buying it now. There is no other mechanism to assess value (e.g., no multiple of EBITDA, no future revenue growth, margin expansion, etc. based on past performance, TAM, secular trends, etc.). Just what would someone pay me more for the same asset when they could have just bought it cheaper earlier. It isn't as if a single bit coin will generate more cash flow from operations in the future.


It's not a gamble, it's the surest, soundest money that has ever existed.


Can I go to the local deli and buy a sandwich with this money?


Can you go to the local deli and buy a sandwich with your real estate? Or gold? Or AAPL shares?


No, that's why I would never call those things money


So if Square or Stripe flipped a switch and instantly millions of merchants can accept bitcoin, you'd call it money then? Because that can/will happen. Accepting/using bitcoin as a medium of exchange isn't a technical problem, it's one of adoption.

Money is simply what two parties agree to exchange for goods/services. Gold literally was money for thousands of years and now suddenly it's not because you can't buy a sandwich with it at your local deli?


To be considered money something has to be a commonly accepted medium of exchange. Coulda, woulda, shoulda doesn't count. Bitcoin is not money. Not today at least.

Square and Stripe can do whatever they want. It would have to be commonly accepted. I could have a renter ask to pay me in bitcoin. It's doable but my answer would be no.


What if something is commonly accepted, just not in America (yet)? Bitcoin is legal tender in El Salvador and Argentina, you can literally go into a McDonalds and buy a Big Mac there with bitcoin, and is commonly used in parts of Africa where people don't have access to bank accounts, but they have a mobile phone and thus a bitcoin wallet. Is bitcoin money there but not here? America will be the last country where bitcoin as a medium of exchange is commonly adopted because it is the most financially privileged. But not everyone has access to a Chase account.
Where there is hyperinflation like Argentina and there is government restriction on access to more stable currency like USD, I see the appeal of bitcoin. Are you saying there will be hyperinflation in more and more economy with limited access to the USD?


I'm saying every country has a level of inflation, with many countries experiencing hyperinflation (Argentina, Egypt, Lebanon, Venezuela, Nigeria, etc.). The US dollar is also guaranteed to inflate/lose purchasing power over time because governments can't stop printing. The USD is just the best of the worst, so it'll be a slower process, but if you can see the appeal of bitcoin in a hyperinflating country, then you should also understand why holding some bitcoin would also make sense in ANY country, including the US, if you adjust your timeline perspective.

There are other reasons bitcoin matters as well beside this but protection against monetary inflation is a big one. Look at a bitcoin chart priced in one of these hyper inflating currencies and magically much of the volatility and drawdowns many Americans are afraid of just seem to vanish.

The only problem with this is that bitcoin would have to be less volatile than the currency subject to hyperinflation. Furthermore, they would need a country to capitulate and lose control over their own sovereignty over their currency. Neither the FED nor the treasury nor Congress will cede control over their currency and lose the ability to engage in deficit spending. Do you really see United States doing that? If anything, they may go the way of China and make it illegal.

The best reduction of US debt load is inflation. Inflation causes the fixed principal amount to be effectively reduced in value and cost. As long as US remains the most stable currency, there will be demand for treasury. The concern is monetary and fiscal policies driving sticky inflation that requires higher interest rate to compress demand, which puts stain on the debt load while inflation remains elevated. More cautious fiscal and monetary policies would be preferred, but bitcoin whose supply does not grow with inflation and economy will not be anything more than bartered asset as opposed to real currency in the US.
The Egyptian pound just last week lost about 50% of its value in a single day. That's pretty volatile.

And you're right about why inflation is good for the US government. I'm sure they love being able to erode the value of their debt by printing money. But that comes at a cost, and that cost is borne by you, me and our children. It forces us to take on risk by buying stocks, real estate, etc. to try and maintain purchasing power because we simply can't even save in our own money. That feels broken to me. And for the people already living paycheck to paycheck who don't have discretionary income to risk/invest, inflation is even more insidious.

And again you're right, more cautious fiscal and monetary policies would be preferred. But the point is, how can we trust the government to actually be fiscally cautious and monetarily responsible when history tells us they've abused that trust time and time again? Do we really expect politicians to get elected by calling for less spending and supporting austerity measures? Humans are fallible, but math is not. Bitcoin's monetary policy is chiseled in stone for all to see, the first money that humans cannot debase/manipulate, and that's the point. At a minimum, there is an investment case for bitcoin as a small part of one's portfolio even if only as a hedge against government fiscal irresponsibility and ridiculousness.

We can also disagree on whether inflation/deflation is good/bad. Referring to a previous post I made I made in this thread, I'll just say that some inflation = good and deflation = good is NOT fact, only theory, and that there is an entire branch of economics (Austrian economics) that supports the idea of a deflationary economy that isn't taught in college curriculums at all in favor of Keynesian economics which, surprise surprise, teaches that some inflation = good/necessary.

This is a book that challenged my own ideas on inflation/deflation, which previously were similar to yours. I've said much of exactly what you're saying as well because that is what I was also taught at Cal. At a very minimum I now find the inflation/deflation argument debatable.

https://www.amazon.com/Price-Tomorrow-Deflation-Abundant-Future/dp/1999257405/

Lastly, if bitcoin ONLY ever became something that people in the US, let alone the world, held or traded as a barter asset, that would imply a bitcoin price in the seven figures USD. I believe it is much more than that, but for arguments sake, given the asymmetry of results (bitcoin either goes to zero or goes into the millions), feels like people should have a little bit "just in case." What's worse than allocating maybe 1-3% and losing all of that if it goes to zero is bitcoin running into the millions and beyond while you have none.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"But edwinbear, this all sounds too good to be true. Where can I send my life savings?"

As I understand it, the Bitcoin maximalist argument is that Bitcoin will be the first perpetual ponzi scheme. It's a finite resource that has infinite upside if only you accept all of the constraints the Bitcoin proponents accept as immutable fact.

I don't accept their constraints. edwinbear may feel confident putting 100% of his investable assets in a "currency" which doesn't really work as a currency but like cb93, I'm comfortable watching the chaos from the sidelines.

One of the inflationary pieces that makes Bitcoin even less likely to be a long-term solution for anything is that it will never actually hit the 21 million cap and will eventually go back down to 0 coins. Once a coin is lost, it can never be found again. No big deal, right U2S, how many have been lost? The most recent estimates I've seen are that 30% of outstanding BTC (6 million total) are irretrievable. So, the 21m theoretical max is already down to 15M. In a few years, will it be 10M? Probably. Starting to wonder how a currency that can be lost but not found could possibly continue to dominate our financial futures? Me too.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:

edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:

bear2034 said:



BTC is still less than $100k.
I know.

The same scammers try to con people into giving land and property under some fancy words like eminent domain.

Or extort protection money by their gang called "IRS"

Or kidnap people and put them in cages they call "Jail".

Weird how sovereignty works. Sounds like a con.


Just want to say that pet.com at one point went public based on eyeball count.

When people lose the ability to justify the valuation, there is no way to tell winners like Amazon, Apple, nVidia, Google from the pet.com, exodus, and webvan.

Not saying it won't continue to go up in value, but it could crash and it could go to million. There is no way to say whether the value is justified either way.

In that case, I have no more advantage through experience and knowledge. Why am I competing with pure gamblers? I don't even gamble in Vegas when it's actually fun.

Rather not entrust my generational wealth for my kids to a gamble that someone will value it more than what I paid instead of just buying it now. There is no other mechanism to assess value (e.g., no multiple of EBITDA, no future revenue growth, margin expansion, etc. based on past performance, TAM, secular trends, etc.). Just what would someone pay me more for the same asset when they could have just bought it cheaper earlier. It isn't as if a single bit coin will generate more cash flow from operations in the future.


It's not a gamble, it's the surest, soundest money that has ever existed.


Can I go to the local deli and buy a sandwich with this money?


Can you go to the local deli and buy a sandwich with your real estate? Or gold? Or AAPL shares?


No, that's why I would never call those things money


So if Square or Stripe flipped a switch and instantly millions of merchants can accept bitcoin, you'd call it money then? Because that can/will happen. Accepting/using bitcoin as a medium of exchange isn't a technical problem, it's one of adoption.

Money is simply what two parties agree to exchange for goods/services. Gold literally was money for thousands of years and now suddenly it's not because you can't buy a sandwich with it at your local deli?


To be considered money something has to be a commonly accepted medium of exchange. Coulda, woulda, shoulda doesn't count. Bitcoin is not money. Not today at least.

Square and Stripe can do whatever they want. It would have to be commonly accepted. I could have a renter ask to pay me in bitcoin. It's doable but my answer would be no.


What if something is commonly accepted, just not in America (yet)? Bitcoin is legal tender in El Salvador and Argentina, you can literally go into a McDonalds and buy a Big Mac there with bitcoin, and is commonly used in parts of Africa where people don't have access to bank accounts, but they have a mobile phone and thus a bitcoin wallet. Is bitcoin money there but not here? America will be the last country where bitcoin as a medium of exchange is commonly adopted because it is the most financially privileged. But not everyone has access to a Chase account.
Where there is hyperinflation like Argentina and there is government restriction on access to more stable currency like USD, I see the appeal of bitcoin. Are you saying there will be hyperinflation in more and more economy with limited access to the USD?


I'm saying every country has a level of inflation, with many countries experiencing hyperinflation (Argentina, Egypt, Lebanon, Venezuela, Nigeria, etc.). The US dollar is also guaranteed to inflate/lose purchasing power over time because governments can't stop printing. The USD is just the best of the worst, so it'll be a slower process, but if you can see the appeal of bitcoin in a hyperinflating country, then you should also understand why holding some bitcoin would also make sense in ANY country, including the US, if you adjust your timeline perspective.

There are other reasons bitcoin matters as well beside this but protection against monetary inflation is a big one. Look at a bitcoin chart priced in one of these hyper inflating currencies and magically much of the volatility and drawdowns many Americans are afraid of just seem to vanish.

The only problem with this is that bitcoin would have to be less volatile than the currency subject to hyperinflation. Furthermore, they would need a country to capitulate and lose control over their own sovereignty over their currency. Neither the FED nor the treasury nor Congress will cede control over their currency and lose the ability to engage in deficit spending. Do you really see United States doing that? If anything, they may go the way of China and make it illegal.

The best reduction of US debt load is inflation. Inflation causes the fixed principal amount to be effectively reduced in value and cost. As long as US remains the most stable currency, there will be demand for treasury. The concern is monetary and fiscal policies driving sticky inflation that requires higher interest rate to compress demand, which puts stain on the debt load while inflation remains elevated. More cautious fiscal and monetary policies would be preferred, but bitcoin whose supply does not grow with inflation and economy will not be anything more than bartered asset as opposed to real currency in the US.
The Egyptian pound just last week lost about 50% of its value in a single day. That's pretty volatile.

And you're right about why inflation is good for the US government. I'm sure they love being able to erode the value of their debt by printing money. But that comes at a cost, and that cost is borne by you, me and our children. It forces us to take on risk by buying stocks, real estate, etc. to try and maintain purchasing power because we simply can't even save in our own money. That feels broken to me. And for the people already living paycheck to paycheck who don't have discretionary income to risk/invest, inflation is even more insidious.

And again you're right, more cautious fiscal and monetary policies would be preferred. But the point is, how can we trust the government to actually be fiscally cautious and monetarily responsible when history tells us they've abused that trust time and time again? Do we really expect politicians to get elected by calling for less spending and supporting austerity measures? Humans are fallible, but math is not. Bitcoin's monetary policy is chiseled in stone for all to see, the first money that humans cannot debase/manipulate, and that's the point. At a minimum, there is an investment case for bitcoin as a small part of one's portfolio even if only as a hedge against government fiscal irresponsibility and ridiculousness.

We can also disagree on whether inflation/deflation is good/bad. Referring to a previous post I made I made in this thread, I'll just say that some inflation = good and deflation = good is NOT fact, only theory, and that there is an entire branch of economics (Austrian economics) that supports the idea of a deflationary economy that isn't taught in college curriculums at all in favor of Keynesian economics which, surprise surprise, teaches that some inflation = good/necessary.

This is a book that challenged my own ideas on inflation/deflation, which previously were similar to yours. I've said much of exactly what you're saying as well because that is what I was also taught at Cal. At a very minimum I now find the inflation/deflation argument debatable.

https://www.amazon.com/Price-Tomorrow-Deflation-Abundant-Future/dp/1999257405/

Lastly, if bitcoin ONLY ever became something that people in the US, let alone the world, held or traded as a barter asset, that would imply a bitcoin price in the seven figures USD. I believe it is much more than that, but for arguments sake, given the asymmetry of results (bitcoin either goes to zero or goes into the millions), feels like people should have a little bit "just in case." What's worse than allocating maybe 1-3% and losing all of that if it goes to zero is bitcoin running into the millions and beyond while you have none.


Can you show me the math on how you get the seven figures per bitcoin valuation and, if true, why it's trading at the current price? Seems like you should sell everything and take advantage of the price displacement that is obvious to you. Seems like an easy way to be a billionaire if you believe that.
edwinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

"But edwinbear, this all sounds too good to be true. Where can I send my life savings?"

As I understand it, the Bitcoin maximalist argument is that Bitcoin will be the first perpetual ponzi scheme. It's a finite resource that has infinite upside if only you accept all of the constraints the Bitcoin proponents accept as immutable fact.

I don't accept their constraints. edwinbear may feel confident putting 100% of his investable assets in a "currency" which doesn't really work as a currency but like cb93, I'm comfortable watching the chaos from the sidelines.

One of the inflationary pieces that makes Bitcoin even less likely to be a long-term solution for anything is that it will never actually hit the 21 million cap and will eventually go back down to 0 coins. Once a coin is lost, it can never be found again. No big deal, right U2S, how many have been lost? The most recent estimates I've seen are that 30% of outstanding BTC (6 million total) are irretrievable. So, the 21m theoretical max is already down to 15M. In a few years, will it be 10M? Probably. Starting to wonder how a currency that can be lost but not found could possibly continue to dominate our financial futures? Me too.
Nothing is "accepted" as immutable fact. Things are VERIFIED as immutable fact. Anyone can verify that what is being said is true. There's a reason why bitcoin has gone from $0 to $73K in 15 years, and it's not because of "tulips."

If all but one bitcoin was lost, that single bitcoin could still facilitate global commerce. What would happen is that the world would just be trading around smaller and smaller pieces of bitcoin. And it's almost like the price of bitcoin would have to go up to accommodate. Lost bitcoin makes everyone else's bitcoin worth just a little bit more.

But whatever, you can think of me as a snake oil salesman if you'd like. But I'm never selling you my bitcoin. Not sure how that constitutes a Ponzi. If you're more comfortable watching things happen from the sidelines, that's your prerogative.

But just as a thought experiment, what would bitcoin have to do or what would it have to become for you to admit you were wrong? Is there some price or some level of adoption it would have to achieve for you to say, hey, I was wrong and it is actually that thing? Or if it's the case that no matter what it does you will claim it's a Ponzi? If that's the case then there's no reason to debate, you've made up your mind and you will never change it. But if there IS some kind of milestone where you WOULD change your mind, what is it, and unless you think achieving such milestones always happen over night, how throughout bitcoin's entire history of adoption, price, etc. would it not be TRENDING towards achieving that milestone?
edwinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:

edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:

bear2034 said:



BTC is still less than $100k.
I know.

The same scammers try to con people into giving land and property under some fancy words like eminent domain.

Or extort protection money by their gang called "IRS"

Or kidnap people and put them in cages they call "Jail".

Weird how sovereignty works. Sounds like a con.


Just want to say that pet.com at one point went public based on eyeball count.

When people lose the ability to justify the valuation, there is no way to tell winners like Amazon, Apple, nVidia, Google from the pet.com, exodus, and webvan.

Not saying it won't continue to go up in value, but it could crash and it could go to million. There is no way to say whether the value is justified either way.

In that case, I have no more advantage through experience and knowledge. Why am I competing with pure gamblers? I don't even gamble in Vegas when it's actually fun.

Rather not entrust my generational wealth for my kids to a gamble that someone will value it more than what I paid instead of just buying it now. There is no other mechanism to assess value (e.g., no multiple of EBITDA, no future revenue growth, margin expansion, etc. based on past performance, TAM, secular trends, etc.). Just what would someone pay me more for the same asset when they could have just bought it cheaper earlier. It isn't as if a single bit coin will generate more cash flow from operations in the future.


It's not a gamble, it's the surest, soundest money that has ever existed.


Can I go to the local deli and buy a sandwich with this money?


Can you go to the local deli and buy a sandwich with your real estate? Or gold? Or AAPL shares?


No, that's why I would never call those things money


So if Square or Stripe flipped a switch and instantly millions of merchants can accept bitcoin, you'd call it money then? Because that can/will happen. Accepting/using bitcoin as a medium of exchange isn't a technical problem, it's one of adoption.

Money is simply what two parties agree to exchange for goods/services. Gold literally was money for thousands of years and now suddenly it's not because you can't buy a sandwich with it at your local deli?


To be considered money something has to be a commonly accepted medium of exchange. Coulda, woulda, shoulda doesn't count. Bitcoin is not money. Not today at least.

Square and Stripe can do whatever they want. It would have to be commonly accepted. I could have a renter ask to pay me in bitcoin. It's doable but my answer would be no.


What if something is commonly accepted, just not in America (yet)? Bitcoin is legal tender in El Salvador and Argentina, you can literally go into a McDonalds and buy a Big Mac there with bitcoin, and is commonly used in parts of Africa where people don't have access to bank accounts, but they have a mobile phone and thus a bitcoin wallet. Is bitcoin money there but not here? America will be the last country where bitcoin as a medium of exchange is commonly adopted because it is the most financially privileged. But not everyone has access to a Chase account.
Where there is hyperinflation like Argentina and there is government restriction on access to more stable currency like USD, I see the appeal of bitcoin. Are you saying there will be hyperinflation in more and more economy with limited access to the USD?


I'm saying every country has a level of inflation, with many countries experiencing hyperinflation (Argentina, Egypt, Lebanon, Venezuela, Nigeria, etc.). The US dollar is also guaranteed to inflate/lose purchasing power over time because governments can't stop printing. The USD is just the best of the worst, so it'll be a slower process, but if you can see the appeal of bitcoin in a hyperinflating country, then you should also understand why holding some bitcoin would also make sense in ANY country, including the US, if you adjust your timeline perspective.

There are other reasons bitcoin matters as well beside this but protection against monetary inflation is a big one. Look at a bitcoin chart priced in one of these hyper inflating currencies and magically much of the volatility and drawdowns many Americans are afraid of just seem to vanish.

The only problem with this is that bitcoin would have to be less volatile than the currency subject to hyperinflation. Furthermore, they would need a country to capitulate and lose control over their own sovereignty over their currency. Neither the FED nor the treasury nor Congress will cede control over their currency and lose the ability to engage in deficit spending. Do you really see United States doing that? If anything, they may go the way of China and make it illegal.

The best reduction of US debt load is inflation. Inflation causes the fixed principal amount to be effectively reduced in value and cost. As long as US remains the most stable currency, there will be demand for treasury. The concern is monetary and fiscal policies driving sticky inflation that requires higher interest rate to compress demand, which puts stain on the debt load while inflation remains elevated. More cautious fiscal and monetary policies would be preferred, but bitcoin whose supply does not grow with inflation and economy will not be anything more than bartered asset as opposed to real currency in the US.
The Egyptian pound just last week lost about 50% of its value in a single day. That's pretty volatile.

And you're right about why inflation is good for the US government. I'm sure they love being able to erode the value of their debt by printing money. But that comes at a cost, and that cost is borne by you, me and our children. It forces us to take on risk by buying stocks, real estate, etc. to try and maintain purchasing power because we simply can't even save in our own money. That feels broken to me. And for the people already living paycheck to paycheck who don't have discretionary income to risk/invest, inflation is even more insidious.

And again you're right, more cautious fiscal and monetary policies would be preferred. But the point is, how can we trust the government to actually be fiscally cautious and monetarily responsible when history tells us they've abused that trust time and time again? Do we really expect politicians to get elected by calling for less spending and supporting austerity measures? Humans are fallible, but math is not. Bitcoin's monetary policy is chiseled in stone for all to see, the first money that humans cannot debase/manipulate, and that's the point. At a minimum, there is an investment case for bitcoin as a small part of one's portfolio even if only as a hedge against government fiscal irresponsibility and ridiculousness.

We can also disagree on whether inflation/deflation is good/bad. Referring to a previous post I made I made in this thread, I'll just say that some inflation = good and deflation = good is NOT fact, only theory, and that there is an entire branch of economics (Austrian economics) that supports the idea of a deflationary economy that isn't taught in college curriculums at all in favor of Keynesian economics which, surprise surprise, teaches that some inflation = good/necessary.

This is a book that challenged my own ideas on inflation/deflation, which previously were similar to yours. I've said much of exactly what you're saying as well because that is what I was also taught at Cal. At a very minimum I now find the inflation/deflation argument debatable.

https://www.amazon.com/Price-Tomorrow-Deflation-Abundant-Future/dp/1999257405/

Lastly, if bitcoin ONLY ever became something that people in the US, let alone the world, held or traded as a barter asset, that would imply a bitcoin price in the seven figures USD. I believe it is much more than that, but for arguments sake, given the asymmetry of results (bitcoin either goes to zero or goes into the millions), feels like people should have a little bit "just in case." What's worse than allocating maybe 1-3% and losing all of that if it goes to zero is bitcoin running into the millions and beyond while you have none.


Can you show me the math on how you get the seven figures per bitcoin valuation and, if true, why it's trading at the current price? Seems like you should sell everything and take advantage of the price displacement that is obvious to you. Seems like an easy way to be a billionaire if you believe that.
Bank of America released a research report a little while ago with an analysis that concluded that there is a market cap multiplier effect. In other words, $1 into bitcoin doesn't increase the market cap by $1, but rather it increases the market cap by $1 * X. This makes sense since with all assets, things are priced at the margin. Their analysis concluded that multiple to be 118x.

Personally that feels high to me. So let's be more conservative and say that multiple is 50x, because round numbers are more fun.

At $1 million a bitcoin, that would imply an overall bitcoin market cap of ~$20 trillion.

Currently bitcoin sits at ~$1.5 trillion market cap.

$20 trillion - $1.5 trillion = $18.5 trillion

$18.5 trillion / 50 = $370 billion.

So, $370 billion of new money would have to come into bitcoin to increase its market cap to $1 million at a 50x market cap multiple.

How much inflows are the new bitcoin ETFs adding every trading day? So far, it's been about $500 million to $1 billion.

How much is $370 billion relative to the size of addressable markets all over the world? Those addressable markets include equity markets, global M2, real estate, fixed income, sovereign wealth funds, etc. Some estimates put the entirety of the world's wealth at about $900 trillion.

$370 billion is 0.0411% of $900 trillion. So, less than 1/20th of 1% of global wealth would need to find its way into bitcoin for bitcoin to reach $1 million a coin. And that is a 50x market cap multiple. Bank of America claims it is 118x.

And the new bitcoin ETFs really are a game changer. It basically unlocks a huge pool of wealth that couldn't buy bitcoin before on traditional financial rails, that now can. Those ETFs were approved on Jan 12th. Is it a coincidence that since then bitcoin's price has increased as much and as fast as it has?

Of course there are still al to of unknowns. The market cap multiple is just an estimate, it could be higher or lower, it could be variable and change over time, etc. But if you're looking for some back of the envelope math to get you there, this is one way to look at it.

Lastly, also consider that $1 million X years from now is not the same as $1 million now. Bitcoin could could get to $1 million a bitcoin based on continued inflation alone, it would just take longer. Bitcoin could nominally be at $1 million each when a cheeseburger costs $100 while still having a real value of $70K pegged to today's dollar.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:

edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:

edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:

bear2034 said:



BTC is still less than $100k.
I know.

The same scammers try to con people into giving land and property under some fancy words like eminent domain.

Or extort protection money by their gang called "IRS"

Or kidnap people and put them in cages they call "Jail".

Weird how sovereignty works. Sounds like a con.


Just want to say that pet.com at one point went public based on eyeball count.

When people lose the ability to justify the valuation, there is no way to tell winners like Amazon, Apple, nVidia, Google from the pet.com, exodus, and webvan.

Not saying it won't continue to go up in value, but it could crash and it could go to million. There is no way to say whether the value is justified either way.

In that case, I have no more advantage through experience and knowledge. Why am I competing with pure gamblers? I don't even gamble in Vegas when it's actually fun.

Rather not entrust my generational wealth for my kids to a gamble that someone will value it more than what I paid instead of just buying it now. There is no other mechanism to assess value (e.g., no multiple of EBITDA, no future revenue growth, margin expansion, etc. based on past performance, TAM, secular trends, etc.). Just what would someone pay me more for the same asset when they could have just bought it cheaper earlier. It isn't as if a single bit coin will generate more cash flow from operations in the future.


It's not a gamble, it's the surest, soundest money that has ever existed.


Can I go to the local deli and buy a sandwich with this money?


Can you go to the local deli and buy a sandwich with your real estate? Or gold? Or AAPL shares?


No, that's why I would never call those things money


So if Square or Stripe flipped a switch and instantly millions of merchants can accept bitcoin, you'd call it money then? Because that can/will happen. Accepting/using bitcoin as a medium of exchange isn't a technical problem, it's one of adoption.

Money is simply what two parties agree to exchange for goods/services. Gold literally was money for thousands of years and now suddenly it's not because you can't buy a sandwich with it at your local deli?


To be considered money something has to be a commonly accepted medium of exchange. Coulda, woulda, shoulda doesn't count. Bitcoin is not money. Not today at least.

Square and Stripe can do whatever they want. It would have to be commonly accepted. I could have a renter ask to pay me in bitcoin. It's doable but my answer would be no.


What if something is commonly accepted, just not in America (yet)? Bitcoin is legal tender in El Salvador and Argentina, you can literally go into a McDonalds and buy a Big Mac there with bitcoin, and is commonly used in parts of Africa where people don't have access to bank accounts, but they have a mobile phone and thus a bitcoin wallet. Is bitcoin money there but not here? America will be the last country where bitcoin as a medium of exchange is commonly adopted because it is the most financially privileged. But not everyone has access to a Chase account.
Where there is hyperinflation like Argentina and there is government restriction on access to more stable currency like USD, I see the appeal of bitcoin. Are you saying there will be hyperinflation in more and more economy with limited access to the USD?


I'm saying every country has a level of inflation, with many countries experiencing hyperinflation (Argentina, Egypt, Lebanon, Venezuela, Nigeria, etc.). The US dollar is also guaranteed to inflate/lose purchasing power over time because governments can't stop printing. The USD is just the best of the worst, so it'll be a slower process, but if you can see the appeal of bitcoin in a hyperinflating country, then you should also understand why holding some bitcoin would also make sense in ANY country, including the US, if you adjust your timeline perspective.

There are other reasons bitcoin matters as well beside this but protection against monetary inflation is a big one. Look at a bitcoin chart priced in one of these hyper inflating currencies and magically much of the volatility and drawdowns many Americans are afraid of just seem to vanish.

The only problem with this is that bitcoin would have to be less volatile than the currency subject to hyperinflation. Furthermore, they would need a country to capitulate and lose control over their own sovereignty over their currency. Neither the FED nor the treasury nor Congress will cede control over their currency and lose the ability to engage in deficit spending. Do you really see United States doing that? If anything, they may go the way of China and make it illegal.

The best reduction of US debt load is inflation. Inflation causes the fixed principal amount to be effectively reduced in value and cost. As long as US remains the most stable currency, there will be demand for treasury. The concern is monetary and fiscal policies driving sticky inflation that requires higher interest rate to compress demand, which puts stain on the debt load while inflation remains elevated. More cautious fiscal and monetary policies would be preferred, but bitcoin whose supply does not grow with inflation and economy will not be anything more than bartered asset as opposed to real currency in the US.
The Egyptian pound just last week lost about 50% of its value in a single day. That's pretty volatile.

And you're right about why inflation is good for the US government. I'm sure they love being able to erode the value of their debt by printing money. But that comes at a cost, and that cost is borne by you, me and our children. It forces us to take on risk by buying stocks, real estate, etc. to try and maintain purchasing power because we simply can't even save in our own money. That feels broken to me. And for the people already living paycheck to paycheck who don't have discretionary income to risk/invest, inflation is even more insidious.

And again you're right, more cautious fiscal and monetary policies would be preferred. But the point is, how can we trust the government to actually be fiscally cautious and monetarily responsible when history tells us they've abused that trust time and time again? Do we really expect politicians to get elected by calling for less spending and supporting austerity measures? Humans are fallible, but math is not. Bitcoin's monetary policy is chiseled in stone for all to see, the first money that humans cannot debase/manipulate, and that's the point. At a minimum, there is an investment case for bitcoin as a small part of one's portfolio even if only as a hedge against government fiscal irresponsibility and ridiculousness.

We can also disagree on whether inflation/deflation is good/bad. Referring to a previous post I made I made in this thread, I'll just say that some inflation = good and deflation = good is NOT fact, only theory, and that there is an entire branch of economics (Austrian economics) that supports the idea of a deflationary economy that isn't taught in college curriculums at all in favor of Keynesian economics which, surprise surprise, teaches that some inflation = good/necessary.

This is a book that challenged my own ideas on inflation/deflation, which previously were similar to yours. I've said much of exactly what you're saying as well because that is what I was also taught at Cal. At a very minimum I now find the inflation/deflation argument debatable.

https://www.amazon.com/Price-Tomorrow-Deflation-Abundant-Future/dp/1999257405/

Lastly, if bitcoin ONLY ever became something that people in the US, let alone the world, held or traded as a barter asset, that would imply a bitcoin price in the seven figures USD. I believe it is much more than that, but for arguments sake, given the asymmetry of results (bitcoin either goes to zero or goes into the millions), feels like people should have a little bit "just in case." What's worse than allocating maybe 1-3% and losing all of that if it goes to zero is bitcoin running into the millions and beyond while you have none.


Can you show me the math on how you get the seven figures per bitcoin valuation and, if true, why it's trading at the current price? Seems like you should sell everything and take advantage of the price displacement that is obvious to you. Seems like an easy way to be a billionaire if you believe that.
Bank of America released a research report a little while ago with an analysis that concluded that there is a market cap multiplier effect. In other words, $1 into bitcoin doesn't increase the market cap by $1, but rather it increases the market cap by $1 * X. This makes sense since with all assets, things are priced at the margin. Their analysis concluded that multiple to be 118x.

Personally that feels high to me. So let's be more conservative and say that multiple is 50x, because round numbers are more fun.

At $1 million a bitcoin, that would imply an overall bitcoin market cap of ~$20 trillion.

Currently bitcoin sits at ~$1.5 trillion market cap.

$20 trillion - $1.5 trillion = $18.5 trillion

$18.5 trillion / 50 = $370 billion.

So, $370 billion of new money would have to come into bitcoin to increase its market cap to $1 million at a 50x market cap multiple.

How much inflows are the new bitcoin ETFs adding every trading day? So far, it's been about $500 million to $1 billion.

How much is $370 billion relative to the size of addressable markets all over the world? Those addressable markets include equity markets, global M2, real estate, fixed income, sovereign wealth funds, etc. Some estimates put the entirety of the world's wealth at about $900 trillion.

$370 billion is 0.0411% of $900 trillion. So, less than 1/20th of 1% of global wealth would need to find its way into bitcoin for bitcoin to reach $1 million a coin. And that is a 50x market cap multiple. Bank of America claims it is 118x.

Of course there are still al to of unknowns. The market cap multiple is just an estimate, it could be higher or lower, it could be variable and change over time, etc. But if you're looking for some back of the envelope math to get you there, this is one way to look at it.




That is not valuation. That is based on assumption of capital inflow without capital outflow. A bit like GameStop and AMC until people decided they made enough and sold. If there is a multiplier on the upside, there is a multiplier on the downside.

There may be true believers but there are also a lot of speculation, with those eventually not wanting to be the last one holding the bag of something that has no intrinsic value or cash flow. Just someone decided to create a secure,
limited digital wallet and said let's use this random asset not backed by any government as something others will give you actual currency (which apparently is not as trustworthy as a bitcoin). If you will never sell it, what will you use it for? Just to barter for another asset?
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
edwinbear said:

Unit2Sucks said:

But I'm never selling you my bitcoin. Not sure how that constitutes a Ponzi. If you're more comfortable watching things happen from the sidelines, that's your prerogative.

Even if you did sell me some bitcoin, I'd probably lose it or have it stolen, as has happened to more than 1/3 of all coins minted. But the good news is that everyone who doesn't lose or have their's stolen gets even wealthier.

I just got off the phone with my bank which locked my credit card due to suspected fraud. Fortunately, there was no fraud and they unlocked it for me. That bank faces compliance oversight by a number of federal and state regulators, which helps to protect its customers.

With Bitcoin, lack of oversight and fraud protection is a designed feature, not a bug. As far as I can tell, crypto scams are one of the best ways to make easy money with crypto and there will be crypto crime havens to protect the scammers. There are obviously ways to reduce crypto fraud - the main one being removing the crypto from crypto having some trusted custodian and allowing people to obtain exposure through pooled funds or ETFs or using it off blockchain. But if people aren't holding it and using it as crypto directly, what's the point again and why is it superior to begin with?

The problem I have with crypto maximalists is they too often yadda yadda yadda over the problems with crypto and very much prefer to stay in the land of theory. In practice, crypto is extremely problematic and solving a lot of those problems essentially amount to removing the crypto from crypto.
edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:




Can you show me the math on how you get the seven figures per bitcoin valuation and, if true, why it's trading at the current price? Seems like you should sell everything and take advantage of the price displacement that is obvious to you. Seems like an easy way to be a billionaire if you believe that.

At $1 million a bitcoin, that would imply an overall bitcoin market cap of ~$20 trillion.

Currently bitcoin sits at ~$1.5 trillion market cap.
You're attributing market cap to irretrievable coins? If, as has been reasonably shown by multiple experts, 6M BTC have already been lost, the overall BTC market cap would at most be $15T at $1M per coin. The number of BTC will continue to decay over time (presumably the more it is used, the faster it will decay through unrecoverable error). So $20T market cap equates to perhaps $1.33M per coin. Look you just made 33% more just by HODLing.
edwinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

edwinbear said:

Unit2Sucks said:

But I'm never selling you my bitcoin. Not sure how that constitutes a Ponzi. If you're more comfortable watching things happen from the sidelines, that's your prerogative.

Even if you did sell me some bitcoin, I'd probably lose it or have it stolen, as has happened to more than 1/3 of all coins minted. But the good news is that everyone who doesn't lose or have their's stolen gets even wealthier.

I just got off the phone with my bank which locked my credit card due to suspected fraud. Fortunately, there was no fraud and they unlocked it for me. That bank faces compliance oversight by a number of federal and state regulators, which helps to protect its customers.

With Bitcoin, lack of oversight and fraud protection is a designed feature, not a bug. As far as I can tell, crypto scams are one of the best ways to make easy money with crypto and there will be crypto crime havens to protect the scammers. There are obviously ways to reduce crypto fraud - the main one being removing the crypto from crypto having some trusted custodian and allowing people to obtain exposure through pooled funds or ETFs or using it off blockchain. But if people aren't holding it and using it as crypto directly, what's the point again and why is it superior to begin with?

The problem I have with crypto maximalists is they too often yadda yadda yadda over the problems with crypto and very much prefer to stay in the land of theory. In practice, crypto is extremely problematic and solving a lot of those problems essentially amount to removing the crypto from crypto.
edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:




Can you show me the math on how you get the seven figures per bitcoin valuation and, if true, why it's trading at the current price? Seems like you should sell everything and take advantage of the price displacement that is obvious to you. Seems like an easy way to be a billionaire if you believe that.

At $1 million a bitcoin, that would imply an overall bitcoin market cap of ~$20 trillion.

Currently bitcoin sits at ~$1.5 trillion market cap.
You're attributing market cap to irretrievable coins? If, as has been reasonably shown by multiple experts, 6M BTC have already been lost, the overall BTC market cap would at most be $15T at $1M per coin. The number of BTC will continue to decay over time (presumably the more it is used, the faster it will decay through unrecoverable error). So $20T market cap equates to perhaps $1.33M per coin. Look you just made 33% more just by HODLing.

Ok, you've made up your mind. Good luck.
edwinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:

edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:

edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:

bear2034 said:



BTC is still less than $100k.
I know.

The same scammers try to con people into giving land and property under some fancy words like eminent domain.

Or extort protection money by their gang called "IRS"

Or kidnap people and put them in cages they call "Jail".

Weird how sovereignty works. Sounds like a con.


Just want to say that pet.com at one point went public based on eyeball count.

When people lose the ability to justify the valuation, there is no way to tell winners like Amazon, Apple, nVidia, Google from the pet.com, exodus, and webvan.

Not saying it won't continue to go up in value, but it could crash and it could go to million. There is no way to say whether the value is justified either way.

In that case, I have no more advantage through experience and knowledge. Why am I competing with pure gamblers? I don't even gamble in Vegas when it's actually fun.

Rather not entrust my generational wealth for my kids to a gamble that someone will value it more than what I paid instead of just buying it now. There is no other mechanism to assess value (e.g., no multiple of EBITDA, no future revenue growth, margin expansion, etc. based on past performance, TAM, secular trends, etc.). Just what would someone pay me more for the same asset when they could have just bought it cheaper earlier. It isn't as if a single bit coin will generate more cash flow from operations in the future.


It's not a gamble, it's the surest, soundest money that has ever existed.


Can I go to the local deli and buy a sandwich with this money?


Can you go to the local deli and buy a sandwich with your real estate? Or gold? Or AAPL shares?


No, that's why I would never call those things money


So if Square or Stripe flipped a switch and instantly millions of merchants can accept bitcoin, you'd call it money then? Because that can/will happen. Accepting/using bitcoin as a medium of exchange isn't a technical problem, it's one of adoption.

Money is simply what two parties agree to exchange for goods/services. Gold literally was money for thousands of years and now suddenly it's not because you can't buy a sandwich with it at your local deli?


To be considered money something has to be a commonly accepted medium of exchange. Coulda, woulda, shoulda doesn't count. Bitcoin is not money. Not today at least.

Square and Stripe can do whatever they want. It would have to be commonly accepted. I could have a renter ask to pay me in bitcoin. It's doable but my answer would be no.


What if something is commonly accepted, just not in America (yet)? Bitcoin is legal tender in El Salvador and Argentina, you can literally go into a McDonalds and buy a Big Mac there with bitcoin, and is commonly used in parts of Africa where people don't have access to bank accounts, but they have a mobile phone and thus a bitcoin wallet. Is bitcoin money there but not here? America will be the last country where bitcoin as a medium of exchange is commonly adopted because it is the most financially privileged. But not everyone has access to a Chase account.
Where there is hyperinflation like Argentina and there is government restriction on access to more stable currency like USD, I see the appeal of bitcoin. Are you saying there will be hyperinflation in more and more economy with limited access to the USD?


I'm saying every country has a level of inflation, with many countries experiencing hyperinflation (Argentina, Egypt, Lebanon, Venezuela, Nigeria, etc.). The US dollar is also guaranteed to inflate/lose purchasing power over time because governments can't stop printing. The USD is just the best of the worst, so it'll be a slower process, but if you can see the appeal of bitcoin in a hyperinflating country, then you should also understand why holding some bitcoin would also make sense in ANY country, including the US, if you adjust your timeline perspective.

There are other reasons bitcoin matters as well beside this but protection against monetary inflation is a big one. Look at a bitcoin chart priced in one of these hyper inflating currencies and magically much of the volatility and drawdowns many Americans are afraid of just seem to vanish.

The only problem with this is that bitcoin would have to be less volatile than the currency subject to hyperinflation. Furthermore, they would need a country to capitulate and lose control over their own sovereignty over their currency. Neither the FED nor the treasury nor Congress will cede control over their currency and lose the ability to engage in deficit spending. Do you really see United States doing that? If anything, they may go the way of China and make it illegal.

The best reduction of US debt load is inflation. Inflation causes the fixed principal amount to be effectively reduced in value and cost. As long as US remains the most stable currency, there will be demand for treasury. The concern is monetary and fiscal policies driving sticky inflation that requires higher interest rate to compress demand, which puts stain on the debt load while inflation remains elevated. More cautious fiscal and monetary policies would be preferred, but bitcoin whose supply does not grow with inflation and economy will not be anything more than bartered asset as opposed to real currency in the US.
The Egyptian pound just last week lost about 50% of its value in a single day. That's pretty volatile.

And you're right about why inflation is good for the US government. I'm sure they love being able to erode the value of their debt by printing money. But that comes at a cost, and that cost is borne by you, me and our children. It forces us to take on risk by buying stocks, real estate, etc. to try and maintain purchasing power because we simply can't even save in our own money. That feels broken to me. And for the people already living paycheck to paycheck who don't have discretionary income to risk/invest, inflation is even more insidious.

And again you're right, more cautious fiscal and monetary policies would be preferred. But the point is, how can we trust the government to actually be fiscally cautious and monetarily responsible when history tells us they've abused that trust time and time again? Do we really expect politicians to get elected by calling for less spending and supporting austerity measures? Humans are fallible, but math is not. Bitcoin's monetary policy is chiseled in stone for all to see, the first money that humans cannot debase/manipulate, and that's the point. At a minimum, there is an investment case for bitcoin as a small part of one's portfolio even if only as a hedge against government fiscal irresponsibility and ridiculousness.

We can also disagree on whether inflation/deflation is good/bad. Referring to a previous post I made I made in this thread, I'll just say that some inflation = good and deflation = good is NOT fact, only theory, and that there is an entire branch of economics (Austrian economics) that supports the idea of a deflationary economy that isn't taught in college curriculums at all in favor of Keynesian economics which, surprise surprise, teaches that some inflation = good/necessary.

This is a book that challenged my own ideas on inflation/deflation, which previously were similar to yours. I've said much of exactly what you're saying as well because that is what I was also taught at Cal. At a very minimum I now find the inflation/deflation argument debatable.

https://www.amazon.com/Price-Tomorrow-Deflation-Abundant-Future/dp/1999257405/

Lastly, if bitcoin ONLY ever became something that people in the US, let alone the world, held or traded as a barter asset, that would imply a bitcoin price in the seven figures USD. I believe it is much more than that, but for arguments sake, given the asymmetry of results (bitcoin either goes to zero or goes into the millions), feels like people should have a little bit "just in case." What's worse than allocating maybe 1-3% and losing all of that if it goes to zero is bitcoin running into the millions and beyond while you have none.


Can you show me the math on how you get the seven figures per bitcoin valuation and, if true, why it's trading at the current price? Seems like you should sell everything and take advantage of the price displacement that is obvious to you. Seems like an easy way to be a billionaire if you believe that.
Bank of America released a research report a little while ago with an analysis that concluded that there is a market cap multiplier effect. In other words, $1 into bitcoin doesn't increase the market cap by $1, but rather it increases the market cap by $1 * X. This makes sense since with all assets, things are priced at the margin. Their analysis concluded that multiple to be 118x.

Personally that feels high to me. So let's be more conservative and say that multiple is 50x, because round numbers are more fun.

At $1 million a bitcoin, that would imply an overall bitcoin market cap of ~$20 trillion.

Currently bitcoin sits at ~$1.5 trillion market cap.

$20 trillion - $1.5 trillion = $18.5 trillion

$18.5 trillion / 50 = $370 billion.

So, $370 billion of new money would have to come into bitcoin to increase its market cap to $1 million at a 50x market cap multiple.

How much inflows are the new bitcoin ETFs adding every trading day? So far, it's been about $500 million to $1 billion.

How much is $370 billion relative to the size of addressable markets all over the world? Those addressable markets include equity markets, global M2, real estate, fixed income, sovereign wealth funds, etc. Some estimates put the entirety of the world's wealth at about $900 trillion.

$370 billion is 0.0411% of $900 trillion. So, less than 1/20th of 1% of global wealth would need to find its way into bitcoin for bitcoin to reach $1 million a coin. And that is a 50x market cap multiple. Bank of America claims it is 118x.

Of course there are still al to of unknowns. The market cap multiple is just an estimate, it could be higher or lower, it could be variable and change over time, etc. But if you're looking for some back of the envelope math to get you there, this is one way to look at it.




That is not valuation. That is based on assumption of capital inflow without capital outflow. A bit like GameStop and AMC until people decided they made enough and sold. If there is a multiplier on the upside, there is a multiplier on the downside.

There may be true believers but there are also a lot of speculation, with those eventually not wanting to be the last one holding the bag of something that has no intrinsic value or cash flow. Just someone decided to create a secure,
limited digital wallet and said let's use this random asset not backed by any government as something others will give you actual currency (which apparently is not as trustworthy as a bitcoin). If you will never sell it, what will you use it for? Just to barter for another asset?
We can revisit some years from now but I think I'll just go back to discussing Cal football haha. I've said my piece.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:

edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:

edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:

edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

dajo9 said:

edwinbear said:

calbear93 said:

bear2034 said:



BTC is still less than $100k.
I know.

The same scammers try to con people into giving land and property under some fancy words like eminent domain.

Or extort protection money by their gang called "IRS"

Or kidnap people and put them in cages they call "Jail".

Weird how sovereignty works. Sounds like a con.


Just want to say that pet.com at one point went public based on eyeball count.

When people lose the ability to justify the valuation, there is no way to tell winners like Amazon, Apple, nVidia, Google from the pet.com, exodus, and webvan.

Not saying it won't continue to go up in value, but it could crash and it could go to million. There is no way to say whether the value is justified either way.

In that case, I have no more advantage through experience and knowledge. Why am I competing with pure gamblers? I don't even gamble in Vegas when it's actually fun.

Rather not entrust my generational wealth for my kids to a gamble that someone will value it more than what I paid instead of just buying it now. There is no other mechanism to assess value (e.g., no multiple of EBITDA, no future revenue growth, margin expansion, etc. based on past performance, TAM, secular trends, etc.). Just what would someone pay me more for the same asset when they could have just bought it cheaper earlier. It isn't as if a single bit coin will generate more cash flow from operations in the future.


It's not a gamble, it's the surest, soundest money that has ever existed.


Can I go to the local deli and buy a sandwich with this money?


Can you go to the local deli and buy a sandwich with your real estate? Or gold? Or AAPL shares?


No, that's why I would never call those things money


So if Square or Stripe flipped a switch and instantly millions of merchants can accept bitcoin, you'd call it money then? Because that can/will happen. Accepting/using bitcoin as a medium of exchange isn't a technical problem, it's one of adoption.

Money is simply what two parties agree to exchange for goods/services. Gold literally was money for thousands of years and now suddenly it's not because you can't buy a sandwich with it at your local deli?


To be considered money something has to be a commonly accepted medium of exchange. Coulda, woulda, shoulda doesn't count. Bitcoin is not money. Not today at least.

Square and Stripe can do whatever they want. It would have to be commonly accepted. I could have a renter ask to pay me in bitcoin. It's doable but my answer would be no.


What if something is commonly accepted, just not in America (yet)? Bitcoin is legal tender in El Salvador and Argentina, you can literally go into a McDonalds and buy a Big Mac there with bitcoin, and is commonly used in parts of Africa where people don't have access to bank accounts, but they have a mobile phone and thus a bitcoin wallet. Is bitcoin money there but not here? America will be the last country where bitcoin as a medium of exchange is commonly adopted because it is the most financially privileged. But not everyone has access to a Chase account.
Where there is hyperinflation like Argentina and there is government restriction on access to more stable currency like USD, I see the appeal of bitcoin. Are you saying there will be hyperinflation in more and more economy with limited access to the USD?


I'm saying every country has a level of inflation, with many countries experiencing hyperinflation (Argentina, Egypt, Lebanon, Venezuela, Nigeria, etc.). The US dollar is also guaranteed to inflate/lose purchasing power over time because governments can't stop printing. The USD is just the best of the worst, so it'll be a slower process, but if you can see the appeal of bitcoin in a hyperinflating country, then you should also understand why holding some bitcoin would also make sense in ANY country, including the US, if you adjust your timeline perspective.

There are other reasons bitcoin matters as well beside this but protection against monetary inflation is a big one. Look at a bitcoin chart priced in one of these hyper inflating currencies and magically much of the volatility and drawdowns many Americans are afraid of just seem to vanish.

The only problem with this is that bitcoin would have to be less volatile than the currency subject to hyperinflation. Furthermore, they would need a country to capitulate and lose control over their own sovereignty over their currency. Neither the FED nor the treasury nor Congress will cede control over their currency and lose the ability to engage in deficit spending. Do you really see United States doing that? If anything, they may go the way of China and make it illegal.

The best reduction of US debt load is inflation. Inflation causes the fixed principal amount to be effectively reduced in value and cost. As long as US remains the most stable currency, there will be demand for treasury. The concern is monetary and fiscal policies driving sticky inflation that requires higher interest rate to compress demand, which puts stain on the debt load while inflation remains elevated. More cautious fiscal and monetary policies would be preferred, but bitcoin whose supply does not grow with inflation and economy will not be anything more than bartered asset as opposed to real currency in the US.
The Egyptian pound just last week lost about 50% of its value in a single day. That's pretty volatile.

And you're right about why inflation is good for the US government. I'm sure they love being able to erode the value of their debt by printing money. But that comes at a cost, and that cost is borne by you, me and our children. It forces us to take on risk by buying stocks, real estate, etc. to try and maintain purchasing power because we simply can't even save in our own money. That feels broken to me. And for the people already living paycheck to paycheck who don't have discretionary income to risk/invest, inflation is even more insidious.

And again you're right, more cautious fiscal and monetary policies would be preferred. But the point is, how can we trust the government to actually be fiscally cautious and monetarily responsible when history tells us they've abused that trust time and time again? Do we really expect politicians to get elected by calling for less spending and supporting austerity measures? Humans are fallible, but math is not. Bitcoin's monetary policy is chiseled in stone for all to see, the first money that humans cannot debase/manipulate, and that's the point. At a minimum, there is an investment case for bitcoin as a small part of one's portfolio even if only as a hedge against government fiscal irresponsibility and ridiculousness.

We can also disagree on whether inflation/deflation is good/bad. Referring to a previous post I made I made in this thread, I'll just say that some inflation = good and deflation = good is NOT fact, only theory, and that there is an entire branch of economics (Austrian economics) that supports the idea of a deflationary economy that isn't taught in college curriculums at all in favor of Keynesian economics which, surprise surprise, teaches that some inflation = good/necessary.

This is a book that challenged my own ideas on inflation/deflation, which previously were similar to yours. I've said much of exactly what you're saying as well because that is what I was also taught at Cal. At a very minimum I now find the inflation/deflation argument debatable.

https://www.amazon.com/Price-Tomorrow-Deflation-Abundant-Future/dp/1999257405/

Lastly, if bitcoin ONLY ever became something that people in the US, let alone the world, held or traded as a barter asset, that would imply a bitcoin price in the seven figures USD. I believe it is much more than that, but for arguments sake, given the asymmetry of results (bitcoin either goes to zero or goes into the millions), feels like people should have a little bit "just in case." What's worse than allocating maybe 1-3% and losing all of that if it goes to zero is bitcoin running into the millions and beyond while you have none.


Can you show me the math on how you get the seven figures per bitcoin valuation and, if true, why it's trading at the current price? Seems like you should sell everything and take advantage of the price displacement that is obvious to you. Seems like an easy way to be a billionaire if you believe that.
Bank of America released a research report a little while ago with an analysis that concluded that there is a market cap multiplier effect. In other words, $1 into bitcoin doesn't increase the market cap by $1, but rather it increases the market cap by $1 * X. This makes sense since with all assets, things are priced at the margin. Their analysis concluded that multiple to be 118x.

Personally that feels high to me. So let's be more conservative and say that multiple is 50x, because round numbers are more fun.

At $1 million a bitcoin, that would imply an overall bitcoin market cap of ~$20 trillion.

Currently bitcoin sits at ~$1.5 trillion market cap.

$20 trillion - $1.5 trillion = $18.5 trillion

$18.5 trillion / 50 = $370 billion.

So, $370 billion of new money would have to come into bitcoin to increase its market cap to $1 million at a 50x market cap multiple.

How much inflows are the new bitcoin ETFs adding every trading day? So far, it's been about $500 million to $1 billion.

How much is $370 billion relative to the size of addressable markets all over the world? Those addressable markets include equity markets, global M2, real estate, fixed income, sovereign wealth funds, etc. Some estimates put the entirety of the world's wealth at about $900 trillion.

$370 billion is 0.0411% of $900 trillion. So, less than 1/20th of 1% of global wealth would need to find its way into bitcoin for bitcoin to reach $1 million a coin. And that is a 50x market cap multiple. Bank of America claims it is 118x.

Of course there are still al to of unknowns. The market cap multiple is just an estimate, it could be higher or lower, it could be variable and change over time, etc. But if you're looking for some back of the envelope math to get you there, this is one way to look at it.




That is not valuation. That is based on assumption of capital inflow without capital outflow. A bit like GameStop and AMC until people decided they made enough and sold. If there is a multiplier on the upside, there is a multiplier on the downside.

There may be true believers but there are also a lot of speculation, with those eventually not wanting to be the last one holding the bag of something that has no intrinsic value or cash flow. Just someone decided to create a secure,
limited digital wallet and said let's use this random asset not backed by any government as something others will give you actual currency (which apparently is not as trustworthy as a bitcoin). If you will never sell it, what will you use it for? Just to barter for another asset?
We can revisit some years from now but I think I'll just go back to discussing Cal football haha. I've said my piece.


Fair enough.

By the way, I am not stating you will not be right. I just don't know how to value it so won't invest in it. I missed out on Meta (FB) because I didn't know how to value it. Happens.

Go Bears!
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.