I'm Touring The United States! Starting in June, I'm conducting private events in 23 American cities. Click here for full details.

Post Reply 
The Bitcoin (BTC) thread
Author Message
JayJuanGee Offline
Crow
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 6,205
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 79
Post: #8526
RE: The Bitcoin (BTC) thread
(10-20-2019 11:35 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  
(10-20-2019 09:50 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  Maybe another frustration could be that there has been so much excitement from the goldbugs in recent months, and even attempts to suggest that gold is going to be a better investment than bitcoin in the short term, largely because of financial irresponsibilities and macro dynamics, but making the gold case is far from certain, especially if such comparison is going to be to bitcoin.

We gotta concede that gold did pump for a bit, but it seems to have also turned a bit stagnant, too. In the end, bitcoin has been a much better performing asset, especially if we zoom out a bit.

Seven years, for example. Gold is still 20% down, but bitcoin is quite a bit UP.

https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/gold-ba...ince-then/

I am sure if there is some way to attempt to find optimism in the gold situation and to suggest that it is going to perform better than bitcoin, those are largely going to be short term FUD spreading attempts or at least propositions that are NOT very likely to play out in gold's favor in the real world. But, hey, I am more than willing to let the market speak for itself, including putting my money where my mouth is, which I already have for the last 6 years. In that regard, I have considered bitcoin to be a better hedge than gold, and so far it has worked out pretty well for me, and even if there are far from any guarantees that past performance is going to repeat into the future, there still do seem to be pretty decent odds that putting more into bitcoin as compared with gold would be the more prudent long term bet.. especially in the coming years, and maybe give us 5 years, just to be a bit more safe, even though the next 2 years is likely going to show superior performance of bitcoin as compared with gold.. and that is where my money is at... good luck gold bugs.

See you in 2-5 years to make some additional comparisons regarding where bitcoin is at as compared with where gold is at.

I actually do not have a problem with most of your comments. The problem is that you compare apples to oranges. Gold is insurance; BitCoin is a speculation.

I hate to be paternalistic in any way, but if you really appreciate what bitcoin is, then you probably would not be making such a vast attempt to make such a distinction.

O.k. of course, you are going to proclaim that you sufficiently know what bitcoin is, but I just think that something is not quite clicking for you, and part of the evidence is your actual insufficient distinguishing attempt statement.

I will concede that bitcoin is younger than gold, but that does not make bitcoin less solid as an actual scarce asset.

You would proclaim that bitcoin is so damned new that it is too much of an experiment so it could NOT achieve as much status as gold as quickly as gold, but I would suggest that you are NOT correct in your assessment.

I hate to repeat myself over and over, but the main reason that I got into bitcoin 6 years ago was that I was attempting to look for some kind of hedge against the dollar, because almost all of my investments seemed to have so damned much correlation with the dollar. Admittedly, I had some interest in gold and real property in possibly serving such a purpose, yet I had not ever achieved such hedging with gold.

Therefore, when I came across bitcoin, I considered that it could serve such a hedging purpose - of course, 6 years ago bitcoin had even less of a track record, and I will also concede that I was studying BTC as I was investing to attempt to make sure that I felt comfortable with its hedging likelihood.

Nothing is guaranteed, but there seems to be a lot of evidence building up that bitcoin can serve as a hedge in the same kind of way that gold does (but better), therefore bitcoin can be like a better insurance than gold, too - in terms of portability, divisibility, verifiability and even costs in storage and keeping out third party interveners.. accordingly bitcoin really seems to be better than gold, even though the gold bugs don't really believe in bitcoin yet.. but they will increasingly believe and believe and believe.. that is part of the problems of adoption... upside volatility and exponential growth while it is becoming more and more adopted and replacing gold more and more and more and more. Sorry to say that you have your hitch onto the inferior wagon.


(10-20-2019 11:35 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  It might be prudent to place 10%-15% of your investment assets into gold as insurance and 2%-5% into BitCoin as a speculation. That is certainly a defensible position.

You can recommend whatever you want. I don't agree. Bitcoin can be a complete substitute for any gold that you would have invested in, and I stick with my earlier recommendation.

The only thing that gold could possibly serve is a kind of Armageddon scenario, and what is the likelihood of that? less than 1%? So perhaps, if guys are putting high probability on Armageddon type scenarios, then they would stock more gold. I am not going to invest much of anything into that kind of scenario, but I could see investing 1% to 5% into such an Armageddon scenario, but not more than that.

Of course, we differ on this, and maybe I will have to try to come over to your place when shit hits the fans to share your bullets and gold... but I am willing to take my chances that Armageddon is not going to play out in the next 5-10 years, and my bitcoin heavy portfolio is going to leave your more gold friendly (or whatever other precious metals portion of your portfolio) in the dust.


(10-20-2019 11:35 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  Moreover, it is also quite possible that gold could yet again be linked in some manner to the world's future reserve currency, probably SDRs.


Yeah.. good luck with that... world currency situation.. and bitcoin will likely leave that in the dust too.... but hey if SDRs start to seem appealing I might decide to diversify a bit into that, but I would rather see how this particular BTC post halvening plays out first before diversifying into either SDRs or gold because of the fact that SDRs might want to connect with gold... I kind of believe that gold has been fucked with and manipulated too much already, so there is going to be considerable difficulties to get SDRs to really meaningfully move in a direction of pegging to Gold. They may have to end up going with pegging to bitcoin.

(10-20-2019 11:35 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  While most of the world's elite poo-poos this notion, gold is either directly or indirectly involved in about three of only a handful of possible options after the great financial reset.

If a global reset happens, it probably is not happening before this next halvening and probably also would not happen in the next 10 years, but I still think that bitcoin is going to do just fine in such a financial reset, if it were to happen.. and perhaps even better than gold or any other thing that they come up with, whether SDRs or some attempt at a gold variant.

(10-20-2019 11:35 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  The worse the pain of the next great financial crisis, and the worse the public's perception of fiat money that is tethered to absolutely nothing. the more likely that the world will be forced to resort to gold as a stabilizer of the world's economic system.

Probably you should take your gold envisioned world to the gold thread, because you made your point and now you seem to be belaboring it in order to pump a speculative quasi-irrelevant topic without your even seeming to understand how important bitcoin might also be in this scenario. Probably either many of us in this thread do not buy your theory, or at least you should take it to the gold thread in order that anyone who might be amenable to your pie in the sky thoughts of a world with a less important bitcoin and a more important gold can be better envisioned and explored in those parts.
10-21-2019 12:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Tail Gunner Offline
Hummingbird
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 2,786
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation: 47
Post: #8527
RE: The Bitcoin (BTC) thread
(10-21-2019 12:02 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  The only thing that gold could possibly serve is a kind of Armageddon scenario, and what is the likelihood of that? less than 1%? So perhaps, if guys are putting high probability on Armageddon type scenarios, then they would stock more gold. I am not going to invest much of anything into that kind of scenario, but I could see investing 1% to 5% into such an Armageddon scenario, but not more than that.

Of course, we differ on this, and maybe I will have to try to come over to your place when shit hits the fans to share your bullets and gold... but I am willing to take my chances that Armageddon is not going to play out in the next 5-10 years, and my bitcoin heavy portfolio is going to leave your more gold friendly (or whatever other precious metals portion of your portfolio) in the dust.

You say that I do not fully understand BitCoin. Fair point. It might be true. But, based on your language above, you absolutely do not understand gold -- and gold is indisputably far easier to understand that BitCoin.

For example, saying that gold is relegated to an "Armageddon scenario" is simply absurd. I could provide many reasons and sources to argue otherwise, but I only need to present one.

You may have heard of Alan Greenspan. Former Fed Chair. Created much of this financial mess by turning on the easy money and low interest rates after the DotCom crash. He has had nearly two decades to reflect on his actions. He is also one of the most influential dozen or so economists in the world. Here is what he said as recently as 2017:

Quote:I view gold as the primary global currency. It is the only currency, along with silver, that does not require a counterparty signature. Gold, however, has always been far more valuable per ounce than silver. No one refuses gold as payment to discharge an obligation. Credit instruments and fiat currency depend on the credit worthiness of a counterparty. Gold, along with silver, is one of the only currencies that has an intrinsic value. It has always been that way. No one questions its value, and it has always been a valuable commodity, first coined in Asia Minor in 600 BC.

The gold standard was operating at its peak in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a period of extraordinary global prosperity, characterised by firming productivity growth and very little inflation.

But today, there is a widespread view that the 19th century gold standard didn’t work. I think that’s like wearing the wrong size shoes and saying the shoes are uncomfortable! It wasn’t the gold standard that failed; it was politics. World War I disabled the fixed exchange rate parities and no country wanted to be exposed to the humiliation of having a lesser exchange rate against the US dollar than itenjoyed in 1913.

Britain, for example, chose to return to the gold standard in 1925 at the same exchange rate it had in 1913 relative to the US dollar (US$4.86 per pound sterling). That was a monumental error by Winston Churchill, then Chancellor of the Exchequer. It induced a severe deflation for Britain in the late 1920s, and the Bank of England had to default in 1931. It wasn’t the gold standard that wasn’t functioning; it was these pre-war parities that didn’t work. All wanted to return to pre-war exchange rate parities, which, given the different degree of war and economic destruction from country to country, rendered this desire, in general, wholly unrealistic.

Today, going back on to the gold standard would be perceived as an act of desperation. But if the gold standard were in place today we would not have reached the situation in which we now find ourselves.

We would never have reached this position of extreme indebtedness were we on the gold standard, because the gold standard is a way of ensuring that fiscal policy never gets out of line.

https://mises.org/wire/alan-greenspan-ad...about-gold


You cannot really make a comparison of two assets (gold and BitCoin) unless you thoroughly understand both of them. Saying that gold is relegated to an "Armageddon scenario" shows that you do not remotely grasp the sentiment of mainstream economists who possess incredible clout -- and, even more importantly, the the fact that gold is absolutely essential to most of the handful of options available after the next financial reset.

I do not want to derail the thread. At your request, unless I need to offer another rebuttal or clarification based on your response, I will move on.
(This post was last modified: 10-21-2019 12:37 AM by Tail Gunner.)
10-21-2019 12:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like Tail Gunner's post:
Barron, arafat scarf, jeffreyjerpp
Pinocchio Offline
Woodpecker
**

Posts: 391
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 1
Post: #8528
RE: The Bitcoin (BTC) thread
Real Vision are doing a deal atm for 3 month membership for $1.

They are doing a Gold vs Bitcoin thing currently and have got a lot of good people talking about bitcoin like Plan B and Saifedean Ammous - bitcoin standard.

https://www.realvision.com/dollar-offer
10-21-2019 04:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
JayJuanGee Offline
Crow
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 6,205
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 79
Post: #8529
RE: The Bitcoin (BTC) thread
(10-21-2019 12:33 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  
(10-21-2019 12:02 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  The only thing that gold could possibly serve is a kind of Armageddon scenario, and what is the likelihood of that? less than 1%? So perhaps, if guys are putting high probability on Armageddon type scenarios, then they would stock more gold. I am not going to invest much of anything into that kind of scenario, but I could see investing 1% to 5% into such an Armageddon scenario, but not more than that.

Of course, we differ on this, and maybe I will have to try to come over to your place when shit hits the fans to share your bullets and gold... but I am willing to take my chances that Armageddon is not going to play out in the next 5-10 years, and my bitcoin heavy portfolio is going to leave your more gold friendly (or whatever other precious metals portion of your portfolio) in the dust.

You say that I do not fully understand BitCoin. Fair point. It might be true. But, based on your language above, you absolutely do not understand gold -- and gold is indisputably far easier to understand that BitCoin.

Gold is not the topic of this thread, and when you are delving too much into gold pumpenings, then that is seeming to become quite off topic.

In order to invest in bitcoin, I don't really need to know gold more than I know it. And, I could give zero ratt's asses if I know gold as much as you think that I need to know it.

I have already given you some explanation regarding some of my thinking on gold, at least in regards to how much (or little) it might be prudent to have some of it as a hedge. I already said that I believe bitcoin is largely serving a very similar purpose as gold in my portfolio to hedge against the dollar and other similar negative economic situation that I feel might be prudent to attempt to prepare for.

Merely because you come to a different conclusion regarding the importance of gold does not really seem necessary to get into any kind of detailed discussion of that in this thread, but might be a reasonable topic in another thread.. such as a gold thread or such as a gold versus bitcoin thread, but this is not a gold versus bitcoin thread or a alt coin versus bitcoin thread or a way to maximize your profits thread, even if guys might have some of those kinds of goals in life and still participate in this thread... and sometimes even bring up some of those other topics from time to time without necessarily attempting to dwell on them, which seems to be what you want to do with your advocacy of how you believe gold is better than bitcoin.. Yeah, you already said it, so why belabor your point in this thread? What purpose is it serving, besides diverting us into off topicness?

Do you even realize that a lot of the quasi-off topicness of the gold versus bitcoin discussions already have permeated the bitcoin space for years and years and years and years? It is not like you are saying anything new in terms of what bitcoiners are interested in.

Do you even realize that there are a whole lot of things going on in bitcoin on a very regular basis that can be discussed, and if guys participate in those kinds of discussions, then they are likely to have opportunities to attempt to understand bitcoin better, but harping on how gold compares to bitcoin is not likely going to get guys to understand bitcoin better, even if concededly they might get to learn about gold better, but just like me, they don't give any shits about gold nor do they need to give any shits about gold, like I already mentioned.

(10-21-2019 12:33 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  For example, saying that gold is relegated to an "Armageddon scenario" is simply absurd. I could provide many reasons and sources to argue otherwise, but I only need to present one.

You don't need to present any because it is not very relevant. Not that I am going to stop you (yeah I already read ahead ... hahahahahaha).

(10-21-2019 12:33 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  You may have heard of Alan Greenspan. Former Fed Chair. Created much of this financial mess by turning on the easy money and low interest rates after the DotCom crash. He has had nearly two decades to reflect on his actions. He is also one of the most influential dozen or so economists in the world. Here is what he said as recently as 2017:

Yes. I heard of a lot of the craziness of Alan Greenspan, and even lived through it. Of course, I will concede that merely living through some phenomenon might not cause some of us to realize what is happening in terms of monetary policies because we might be paying attention to other things in life...

(10-21-2019 12:33 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  
Alan Greenspan Wrote:I view gold as the primary global currency. It is the only currency, along with silver, that does not require a counterparty signature. Gold, however, has always been far more valuable per ounce than silver. No one refuses gold as payment to discharge an obligation. Credit instruments and fiat currency depend on the credit worthiness of a counterparty. Gold, along with silver, is one of the only currencies that has an intrinsic value. It has always been that way. No one questions its value, and it has always been a valuable commodity, first coined in Asia Minor in 600 BC.

The gold standard was operating at its peak in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a period of extraordinary global prosperity, characterised by firming productivity growth and very little inflation.

But today, there is a widespread view that the 19th century gold standard didn’t work. I think that’s like wearing the wrong size shoes and saying the shoes are uncomfortable! It wasn’t the gold standard that failed; it was politics. World War I disabled the fixed exchange rate parities and no country wanted to be exposed to the humiliation of having a lesser exchange rate against the US dollar than itenjoyed in 1913.

Britain, for example, chose to return to the gold standard in 1925 at the same exchange rate it had in 1913 relative to the US dollar (US$4.86 per pound sterling). That was a monumental error by Winston Churchill, then Chancellor of the Exchequer. It induced a severe deflation for Britain in the late 1920s, and the Bank of England had to default in 1931. It wasn’t the gold standard that wasn’t functioning; it was these pre-war parities that didn’t work. All wanted to return to pre-war exchange rate parities, which, given the different degree of war and economic destruction from country to country, rendered this desire, in general, wholly unrealistic.

Today, going back on to the gold standard would be perceived as an act of desperation. But if the gold standard were in place today we would not have reached the situation in which we now find ourselves.

We would never have reached this position of extreme indebtedness were we on the gold standard, because the gold standard is a way of ensuring that fiscal policy never gets out of line.

https://mises.org/wire/alan-greenspan-ad...about-gold

Gosh. A whole fucking gold diatribe by a traditional investment dinosaur. Holy shit!!!

(10-21-2019 12:33 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  You cannot really make a comparison of two assets (gold and BitCoin) unless you thoroughly understand both of them.

Actually, you have not even learned how to spell bitcoin, so why should any of us grant credit to you about attempting to be genuine in your propositions regarding what kind of knowledge is necessary in order to make investment decisions about how much bitcion that a guy should keep in his portfolio?

We disagree about both about how much a guy needs to study gold in order to invest into bitcoin and we also disagree about what is reasonable or prudent levels of investment into bitcoin versus gold.

I personally believe that reasonable guys are going to differ about how much they believe that they need to know about gold versus bitcoin to be able to reasonably and prudently decide their own investment strategy, and like I mentioned in earlier posts, one of the first things that any guy should be doing is to get together his own finances and psychology before investing into anything, so then if a guy is a beginner in investing, then he is not likely to have very many assets to diversify or choices to make. He has to decide one investment, and then as he gets a bit more advanced then he adds assets.

So if we are assuming our hypothetical investor to already have a lot of investments, and then deciding how to allocate them, then we may have lost 70% to 90% of our potential audience, no?

I am not too comfortable to presume that guys in the bitcoin thread are either already invested in several assets and have choices about what to invest in or that they even need to learn about gold in order to either get started or even to buttress some of their investments, presuming that they have some other investments besides bitcoin.

So, seems to me Tail Gunner, that your presumed hypothetical RVF audience guy is even causing you to deviate further from the topic of this thread. AmiNOTrite?


(10-21-2019 12:33 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  Saying that gold is relegated to an "Armageddon scenario" shows that you do not remotely grasp the sentiment of mainstream economists who possess incredible clout -- and, even more importantly, the the fact that gold is absolutely essential to most of the handful of options available after the next financial reset.

Again, you are presuming both that I need to know more than I know or more than I have already stated, and you are presuming that gold is "essential," and sure some RVF guys are going to agree with you about some need to keep gold in their portfolio, but why you feel such a need to argue it here?

(10-21-2019 12:33 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  I do not want to derail the thread.

You already did. Angel

(10-21-2019 12:33 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  At your request, unless I need to offer another rebuttal or clarification based on your response, I will move on.

Sounds like the best idea that I have heard, yet. Laugh
10-21-2019 01:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Tail Gunner Offline
Hummingbird
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 2,786
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation: 47
Post: #8530
RE: The Bitcoin (BTC) thread
(10-21-2019 01:07 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  
(10-21-2019 12:33 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  
Alan Greenspan Wrote:I view gold as the primary global currency. It is the only currency, along with silver, that does not require a counterparty signature. Gold, however, has always been far more valuable per ounce than silver. No one refuses gold as payment to discharge an obligation. Credit instruments and fiat currency depend on the credit worthiness of a counterparty. Gold, along with silver, is one of the only currencies that has an intrinsic value. It has always been that way. No one questions its value, and it has always been a valuable commodity, first coined in Asia Minor in 600 BC.

The gold standard was operating at its peak in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a period of extraordinary global prosperity, characterised by firming productivity growth and very little inflation.

But today, there is a widespread view that the 19th century gold standard didn’t work. I think that’s like wearing the wrong size shoes and saying the shoes are uncomfortable! It wasn’t the gold standard that failed; it was politics. World War I disabled the fixed exchange rate parities and no country wanted to be exposed to the humiliation of having a lesser exchange rate against the US dollar than itenjoyed in 1913.

Britain, for example, chose to return to the gold standard in 1925 at the same exchange rate it had in 1913 relative to the US dollar (US$4.86 per pound sterling). That was a monumental error by Winston Churchill, then Chancellor of the Exchequer. It induced a severe deflation for Britain in the late 1920s, and the Bank of England had to default in 1931. It wasn’t the gold standard that wasn’t functioning; it was these pre-war parities that didn’t work. All wanted to return to pre-war exchange rate parities, which, given the different degree of war and economic destruction from country to country, rendered this desire, in general, wholly unrealistic.

Today, going back on to the gold standard would be perceived as an act of desperation. But if the gold standard were in place today we would not have reached the situation in which we now find ourselves.

We would never have reached this position of extreme indebtedness were we on the gold standard, because the gold standard is a way of ensuring that fiscal policy never gets out of line.

https://mises.org/wire/alan-greenspan-ad...about-gold

Gosh. A whole fucking gold diatribe by a traditional investment dinosaur. Holy shit!!!

Sadly, you missed the entire point of my post. I mean that literally. Alan Greenspan is not a traditional economist (i.e., from the school of Austrian Economics). He is a Keynesian economist. They do not believe in gold. In his 1923 Tract on Monetary Reform, Keynes famously called the gold standard a "barbarous relic." They believe in fiat currencies and manipulations of the money supply and interest rates. That has been our economic plague since 1971.

As a Keynesian economist, his statement that "I view gold as the primary global currency" simply cannot be overstated. In other words, what Greenspan actually witnessed in real life economics over the past several decades has completely altered his view of gold.

I thought that I was dealing with someone who knew basic economics. Oh, well.
(This post was last modified: 10-21-2019 01:32 PM by Tail Gunner.)
10-21-2019 01:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like Tail Gunner's post:
Tactician, arafat scarf, jeffreyjerpp
JayJuanGee Offline
Crow
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 6,205
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 79
Post: #8531
RE: The Bitcoin (BTC) thread
(10-21-2019 01:29 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  
(10-21-2019 01:07 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  
(10-21-2019 12:33 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  
Alan Greenspan Wrote:I view gold as the primary global currency. It is the only currency, along with silver, that does not require a counterparty signature. Gold, however, has always been far more valuable per ounce than silver. No one refuses gold as payment to discharge an obligation. Credit instruments and fiat currency depend on the credit worthiness of a counterparty. Gold, along with silver, is one of the only currencies that has an intrinsic value. It has always been that way. No one questions its value, and it has always been a valuable commodity, first coined in Asia Minor in 600 BC.

The gold standard was operating at its peak in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a period of extraordinary global prosperity, characterised by firming productivity growth and very little inflation.

But today, there is a widespread view that the 19th century gold standard didn’t work. I think that’s like wearing the wrong size shoes and saying the shoes are uncomfortable! It wasn’t the gold standard that failed; it was politics. World War I disabled the fixed exchange rate parities and no country wanted to be exposed to the humiliation of having a lesser exchange rate against the US dollar than itenjoyed in 1913.

Britain, for example, chose to return to the gold standard in 1925 at the same exchange rate it had in 1913 relative to the US dollar (US$4.86 per pound sterling). That was a monumental error by Winston Churchill, then Chancellor of the Exchequer. It induced a severe deflation for Britain in the late 1920s, and the Bank of England had to default in 1931. It wasn’t the gold standard that wasn’t functioning; it was these pre-war parities that didn’t work. All wanted to return to pre-war exchange rate parities, which, given the different degree of war and economic destruction from country to country, rendered this desire, in general, wholly unrealistic.

Today, going back on to the gold standard would be perceived as an act of desperation. But if the gold standard were in place today we would not have reached the situation in which we now find ourselves.

We would never have reached this position of extreme indebtedness were we on the gold standard, because the gold standard is a way of ensuring that fiscal policy never gets out of line.

https://mises.org/wire/alan-greenspan-ad...about-gold

Gosh. A whole fucking gold diatribe by a traditional investment dinosaur. Holy shit!!!

Sadly, you missed the entire point of my post. I mean that literally. Alan Greenspan is not a traditional economist (i.e., from the school of Austrian Economics). He is a Keynesian economist. They do not believe in gold. In his 1923 Tract on Monetary Reform, Keynes famously called the gold standard a "barbarous relic." They believe in fiat currencies and manipulations of the money supply and interest rates. That has been our economic plague since 1971.

As a Keynesian economist, his statement that "I view gold as the primary global currency" simply cannot be overstated. In other words, what Greenspan actually witnessed in real life economics over the past several decades has completely altered his view of gold.

I thought that I was dealing with someone who knew basic economics. Oh, well.

Thanks for the further explanation. It seems to me that you are overstating the importance of Greenspan's supposed conversion and movement towards accepting gold.

Again, who cares? You have ur lil selfie a dinosaur who happens to have been tied to debt-based economics and then converts to more sound money ideas, but in the end, it doesn't really matter too much in regards to bitcoin and in regards to a very likely situation that we face after the invention of a paradigm shifting technology, such as bitcoin, that comes into the space and likely is on the cusp of establishing the most sound money ever experienced by mankind... and therefore, it is a BIG FUCKING whooptie doo that some traditional economics (that you don't want to call traditional) happen to warm up to some kind of second best (namely gold) asset in order to attempt to bring some semblance of responsibility back into our current monetary system.

In the end, those various traditional dinosaurs can strive towards making all the various adjustments that they want in order to attempt to revisit sound economics, and bitcoin does not give any shits. Bitcoin is going to come into the space and force all of those traditional fucktwats into having to be more responsible, and accordingly all of us are going to benefit from having such a high level of sound money (namely bitcoin) that the world had never previously seen and cause a level of honesty, integrity and attempts to compete against bitcoin, but before any of those traditionalist who are not able to understand abstract digital soundness are able to appreciate the power of KING DADDY bitcoin (because they were too busy staring at shiny objects - namely gold), they will be forced into more responsible policies, even if it could take 20 to 60 years for these scenarios to really play out.

Good luck to shiny object admirerors, you are going to need it.

By the way, Tailgunner, weren't you saying that you were leaving your gold talking points away from this thread at some point? It was nice meeting you, but it would be way nicer if you were ready, willing and able to attempt to learn about bitcoin in order that we can attempt to have some on-topic discussions in this thread. Do you have any of that? Or you just want to continue to attempt to stretch logic by make some kind of semblance of connection to bitcoin with mostly irrelevant points about shiny objects?

Instead of "got milk"? I should be asking you, tailgunner, "got bitcoin"?

Anyhow.. now go bugger off and read up a bit about bitcoin, and then we will see you in regards to your learnings on that particular relevant topic, to the extent that you might be capable of getting those shiny objects out of your every glimpse of a thought. Laugh Laugh Laugh
10-21-2019 02:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Tail Gunner Offline
Hummingbird
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 2,786
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation: 47
Post: #8532
RE: The Bitcoin (BTC) thread
(10-20-2019 11:35 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  I actually do not have a problem with most of your comments. The problem is that you compare apples to oranges. Gold is insurance; BitCoin is a speculation. It might be prudent to place 10%-15% of your investment assets into gold as insurance and 2%-5% into BitCoin as a speculation. That is certainly a defensible position.

Just today the CEO of U.S. Global Investors, who runs a gold and Precious Metal ETF but is also the chairman of HIVE Blockchain Technologies Ltd. (HIVE:TSX.V; PRELF:OTC), a cryptocurrency mining company, had this to say:

Quote:So, I don't think we should sell gold to buy Bitcoin. I think they're both alternative asset classes, and they're important parts of a portfolio. I believe that 10% weighting in gold is prudent and rational, and having a couple points in digital currency, especially when you're younger, is a clever way of having that diversified portfolio.

https://www.streetwisereports.com/articl...1220854858


So, he agrees with my statement from a few days ago that a properly diversified investment portfolio might include 10% in gold (as insurance) and a few percent in BitCoin or some other digital currency (as a speculation). He is an analyst in both fields (precious metals and crypto-currencies), so he has no dog in the fight and therefore offers an unbiased view of portfolio construction.
(This post was last modified: 10-22-2019 12:38 PM by Tail Gunner.)
10-22-2019 12:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
JayJuanGee Offline
Crow
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 6,205
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 79
Post: #8533
RE: The Bitcoin (BTC) thread
(10-22-2019 12:37 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  
(10-20-2019 11:35 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  I actually do not have a problem with most of your comments. The problem is that you compare apples to oranges. Gold is insurance; BitCoin is a speculation. It might be prudent to place 10%-15% of your investment assets into gold as insurance and 2%-5% into BitCoin as a speculation. That is certainly a defensible position.

Just today the CEO of U.S. Global Investors, who runs a gold and Precious Metal ETF but is also the chairman of HIVE Blockchain Technologies Ltd. (HIVE:TSX.V; PRELF:OTC), a cryptocurrency mining company, had this to say:

Quote:So, I don't think we should sell gold to buy Bitcoin. I think they're both alternative asset classes, and they're important parts of a portfolio. I believe that 10% weighting in gold is prudent and rational, and having a couple points in digital currency, especially when you're younger, is a clever way of having that diversified portfolio.

https://www.streetwisereports.com/articl...1220854858


So, he agrees with my statement from a few days ago that a properly diversified investment portfolio might include 10% in gold (as insurance) and a few percent in BitCoin or some other digital currency (as a speculation). He is an analyst in both fields (precious metals and crypto-currencies), so he has no dog in the fight and therefore offers an unbiased view of portfolio construction.


Just because he invests in gold, precious metals and crypto currencies, suggesting bitcoin (not ONLY some shitcoins), does not mean that he does not have any dog in the fight or that he is some kind of neutral valid source.

I am just as much neutral and valid in my opinions as him, so stop with your dumbass attempts to try to bring in some other alleged authority to make the same point that you want to make, which is largely pumping gold and perhaps PMs without still really knowing much if anything about bitcoin besides asserting traditional investor talking points to proclaim that bitcoin is more speculative than those other investments, blah blah blah.

All investments have speculative components, and a variety of other attributes, and again, you are hardly even making any actual on-topic points about anything specifically related to bitcoin but merely reasserting a claim that you already made regarding some kind of supposed prudence to put more value (like 10x more) into PMs such as gold than bitcoin, and likely the opposite is equally as prudent, and it could also be proclaimed to be prudent to invest nothing into gold like I already asserted a multitude of times.

I suppose since you are going on and on and on about your same attempt to impose supposed hedging (by PMs including gold) prudence upon this thread, it might be worthy of restating a lot of the difficulties in gold in terms of the purpose that gold is meant to serve in any purportedly "prudent" portfolio.

Part of the reason to invest into gold is to create a hedge and even a kind of non-correlation, so if all is going to shit or even partially to shit in various dollar based investments, then theory would be that gold is going to hold more of its value and perhaps even go up in value to offset the going down of dollar based investments. I agree that sometimes such inverse correlation can and will occur with gold, and part of the reason that the main RVF gold thread specifies actual physical gold is a kind of presumption that it is much more difficult to manipulate actual physical gold, but a major problem remains that for 20 years or more gold has been manipulated the fuck out of with paper instruments, and that paper instrument manipulation negatively affects the physical gold too.

Yeah, maybe you can wish for a world in which physical gold causes paper manipulation to become more honest, but in some sense, only scenarios approaching Armageddon could force cause that kind of high level of gold honesty, so who the fuck is going to claim a million dollars in physical gold or even a billion dollars? How the fuck you going to move it around and cheaply verify that heavy (but looks nice) shit? Bitcoin does not have those kinds of verification and portability problems, and therefore can be much more easily claimed. Of course there are going to be attempts to manipulate the fuck out of bitcoin with fractional reserves and all of that shit, but there still remains way more power in the individuals to demand possession of their coins and also to meaningfully and widespreadedly act on such demanding of possession of their coins (without even being considerably burdened by making such demands in terms of storage or security or even timeline... {can be done in minutes}). Anyhow, should not really have to belabor these kinds of obvious points that you don't really seem to acknowledge with your ongoing batting around your pumpening of your dinosaur hedging product.

Do you even understand what I am saying? Probably not. You are too busy focusing on your agenda without even seeming to realize that guys can have differing levels of prudence and to recognize that even if you might be making some decent points, you are doing it in the wrong place, because guys here already sufficiently know about gold, and if they are more interested can go to other places to study gold. This is supposed to be a place to really attempt to delve into ongoing and important bitcoin developments and happening rather than your repeated theme that is supposedly (if we give you some benefit of the doubt) attempting to save us from ourselves when we are BIG BOYS over here and don't need gold buggers to save us. Laugh Laugh
10-22-2019 02:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Tail Gunner Offline
Hummingbird
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 2,786
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation: 47
Post: #8534
RE: The Bitcoin (BTC) thread
(10-22-2019 02:04 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  All investments have speculative components, and a variety of other attributes, and again, you are hardly even making any actual on-topic points about anything specifically related to bitcoin but merely reasserting a claim that you already made regarding some kind of supposed prudence to put more value (like 10x more) into PMs such as gold than bitcoin, and likely the opposite is equally as prudent, and it could also be proclaimed to be prudent to invest nothing into gold like I already asserted a multitude of times.

If you will not listen to me regarding volatility and speculation, then perhaps you will listen to this person:

(11-30-2013 02:47 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  I think that this kind of volatility is more stressful when a guy is NOT sufficiently diversified in his investments. NO ONE should invest too much of his assets into volatile assets – unless he wants to go crazy or unless he is especially tolerate of extreme risk. Sometimes if a guy does NOT have anything then, he is more willing to put all into volatile assets. My personal strategy is to invest ONLY as much as I am willing to lose in volatile assets – and FEW of us probably can rest assured that we are completely secure or diversified…. And personally, the richer a guy is the more comfortable he can feel about the extent to which he is able to diversify his assets.

That is sound advice.

You should listen to him (the formerly prudent JayJuanGee), instead of placing so much your cash into something that conceivably could go to zero.
(This post was last modified: 10-22-2019 05:28 PM by Tail Gunner.)
10-22-2019 04:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Tail Gunner's post:
arafat scarf
arafat scarf Offline
Robin
*

Posts: 152
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 9
Post: #8535
RE: The Bitcoin (BTC) thread
Good perspective, Tail Gunner. I don't know what to think of gold as an asset, but I find it interesting seeing what investment managers say about it in relation to Bitcoin.

I don't see why Jay should be the self-appointed hall monitor of this thread and determine what constitutes appropriate topics of Bitcoin discussion. Gold and Bitcoin seem to be compared frequently by a lot of writers and people on social media so it's good to know what some of the actual pros are saying. It's hard to get a clear perspective on the topic of Bitcoin when reading Jay's word salad and then reading this kind of nonsense:

JayJuanGee Wrote:I reminded my uncle that I don't give too much consideration to my traditional investments that were about 85% of my investments, and then bitcoin was less than 15%, but now bitcoin is 75%, and my traditional investments are about 25%.

and

JayJuanGee Wrote:I am just as much neutral and valid in my opinions as him [the CEO of US Global Investors], so stop with your dumbass attempts to try to bring in some other alleged authority to make the same point that you want to make, which is largely pumping gold and perhaps PMs without still really knowing much if anything about bitcoin besides asserting traditional investor talking points to proclaim that bitcoin is more speculative than those other investments, blah blah blah.
(This post was last modified: 10-22-2019 05:36 PM by arafat scarf.)
10-22-2019 05:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes arafat scarf's post:
Tail Gunner
JayJuanGee Offline
Crow
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 6,205
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 79
Post: #8536
RE: The Bitcoin (BTC) thread
(10-22-2019 04:33 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 02:04 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  All investments have speculative components, and a variety of other attributes, and again, you are hardly even making any actual on-topic points about anything specifically related to bitcoin but merely reasserting a claim that you already made regarding some kind of supposed prudence to put more value (like 10x more) into PMs such as gold than bitcoin, and likely the opposite is equally as prudent, and it could also be proclaimed to be prudent to invest nothing into gold like I already asserted a multitude of times.

If you will not listen to me regarding volatility and speculation, then perhaps you will listen to this person:

(11-30-2013 02:47 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  I think that this kind of volatility is more stressful when a guy is NOT sufficiently diversified in his investments. NO ONE should invest too much of his assets into volatile assets – unless he wants to go crazy or unless he is especially tolerate of extreme risk. Sometimes if a guy does NOT have anything then, he is more willing to put all into volatile assets. My personal strategy is to invest ONLY as much as I am willing to lose in volatile assets – and FEW of us probably can rest assured that we are completely secure or diversified…. And personally, the richer a guy is the more comfortable he can feel about the extent to which he is able to diversify his assets.

That is sound advice. You should listen to him.

I appreciate that you are quoting me from nearly 6 years ago, but even my then quote does not support what you are suggesting to be a prudent allocation.

It seems that I already said that in that late 2013 time-frame, when I got into bitcoin, the vast majority of my investments were dollar dependent, including some of the some what less dependent property interests. I had already had several kinds of investments, and I had been specifically looking for an investment to diversify/hedge somewhat out of my dollar based investments. Surely not all guys have already decently established their investments, like I had already done in late 2013, but I still wanted to tweak, which I decided that BTC was going to be something that I would add and become my tweaking of my whole portfolio.

Initially, in late 2013, I was a bit nervous because I knew very little about bitcoin besides what I had read in this thread and including some references that were made in this thread (and I read some of that). Therefore, my initial plan was to allocate myself a budget for 6 months, and then to dollar cost average the allocated amount over the 6 months and then to reassess my situation at the end of that first six months, which largely brought me into about May 2014.

Around April 2014, after investing into BTC for more than 4 months and researching, I then decided to extend my BTC investment plan for another 6 months (so that would bring me to a year in total), with a goal of getting up to about 10% of the total value of my quasi-liquid investments would then be in bitcoin.

So, yeah, pretty much I achieved that 10% or so allocation by the end of 2014 (and I believe that I had gone over by 1% or more because of dropping BTC prices), yet I felt comfortable that I had reached my allocation and diversification goal by the end of 2014 - but if you recall the end of 2014 and even into 2015, BTC was in quite a low point in price, so I continued to dollar cost average into it through 2015, and tweaked my various plans in 2016, and really I have been following variations of my plan, especially since the end of 2014.

Actually after considerable price appreciation that really exploded in 2017, but did not really go below mid-2017 price levels, I had decided to largely let my kinds of diversification ride. I had not changed my traditional investments, but bitcoin had appreciated so much that it became a larger percentage of my holdings, but I still felt no need to diversify out of it - especially, since my traditional investments could sustain me if need be. In other words, I did not need my bitcoin investment in order to be sustained, so the bitcoin investment has been icing on the cake, even though it had become worth more than all of my other investments combined.

Having said all of that, I still stand by my earlier posts in suggesting that guys do not need to invest in gold. I never did, and bitcoin was meant to serve as a hedge against the dollar in the same kinds of ways that gold would have been; however, I still consider BTC to be a better hedge than gold. There is no need to diversify more for the mere sake of diversifying, just like there is no need to invest in other cryptos besides bitcoin because they are likely only adding additional layers of risk when bitcoin is already risky and already fits a category that other cryptos are merely following BTC's lead.

Sure, any guy can choose to diversify some of his assets in gold, if he so chooses, but NOT diversifying into gold and having BTC as a dollar hedge is also prudent (as I have said many times already).

Anyhow, I don't see how either I am contradicting myself or that you are bringing anything new to the conversation by trying to show some of my words from past posts... especially when we are having a conversation today, not around 6 years ago.
10-22-2019 05:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
JayJuanGee Offline
Crow
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 6,205
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 79
Post: #8537
RE: The Bitcoin (BTC) thread
(10-22-2019 05:21 PM)arafat scarf Wrote:  Good perspective, Tail Gunner. I don't know what to think of gold as an asset, but I find it interesting seeing what investment managers say about it in relation to Bitcoin.

I don't see why Jay should be the self-appointed hall monitor of this thread and determine what constitutes appropriate topics of Bitcoin discussion. Gold and Bitcoin seem to be compared frequently by a lot of writers and people on social media so it's good to know what some of the actual pros are saying. It's hard to get a clear perspective on the topic of Bitcoin when reading Jay's word salad and then reading this kind of nonsense:

JayJuanGee Wrote:I reminded my uncle that I don't give too much consideration to my traditional investments that were about 85% of my investments, and then bitcoin was less than 15%, but now bitcoin is 75%, and my traditional investments are about 25%.

and

JayJuanGee Wrote:I am just as much neutral and valid in my opinions as [the CEO of US Global Investors], so stop with your dumbass attempts to try to bring in some other alleged authority to make the same point that you want to make, which is largely pumping gold and perhaps PMs without still really knowing much if anything about bitcoin besides asserting traditional investor talking points to proclaim that bitcoin is more speculative than those other investments, blah blah blah.


Sometimes when we are sharing information, we try to keep out some personal privacy matters or try to save OpSec, and if my use of percentages is confusing to you, then you could ask me to clarify something that might be confusing or if I might have mistated something or left out some kind of explanation that would help to make it more clear.

Furthermore, if you are interested the bitcoin topic, then maybe you could give a bit of your own perspective and experiences, too, which might also help to understand what kinds of clarifications might be helpful to you (and maybe other guys, too?).
10-22-2019 05:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Nolimitz Offline
Pigeon

Posts: 25
Joined: Sep 2018
Reputation: 0
Post: #8538
RE: The Bitcoin (BTC) thread
https://youtu.be/3XlFY_dGHWs

Enjoyed this video by Ben Loukas on my commute.

Covers the larger picture for bitcoin, including the risks.

Worth watching.
10-22-2019 07:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
SlickyBoy Offline
Ostrich
****

Posts: 2,201
Joined: Nov 2014
Reputation: 20
Post: #8539
RE: The Bitcoin (BTC) thread
(10-20-2019 10:16 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  This about 12 minute YouTube video has Libra/bitcoin presentations of: 1) Tim Draper, 2) Andreas Antonopolis, 3) bitcoin the cartoon character and 4) John Macafee. Ultimately Antonopolis probably gets to the jist of the matter, in that the dynamics of Libra coin are just not going to be likely to get to bitcoin's level of real meaningful disruptiveness.

Libra or not, I've never been a big fan of bitcoin as a replacement currency and the fact that Tim Draper pops up in any crypto currency discussion doesn't do anything to inspire me. He's the same asshat who was still shilling for Holmes over at Theranos long after the lights came on, everyone else realized how ugly the girl was and hit the road. That he's in the same boat as McAfee? Well, at least McAfee has the excuse of snorting coke of a hooker's ass to cloud his judgment.

I understand people wanting to make a profit on the hype, but as a genuine replacement currency it doesn't make any sense. The more transactions made, the longer the block chain gets and the more cumbersome the crypto currency becomes. To my understanding they all use some form of block chain.

That said, there are very useful applications for block chain technology, but replacing currency isn't one of them. Good for anyone here who's made a good run on crypto hype, but I would get out of it while you can.

Twitter: @_slickyboy
Occasional contributor at Return of Kings (while it lasted)
10-22-2019 07:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Tail Gunner Offline
Hummingbird
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 2,786
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation: 47
Post: #8540
RE: The Bitcoin (BTC) thread
So, I finally had the opportunity to finish reading that Frank Holmes article that I cited this morning. This is a very interesting tidbit that investors should know:

Quote:The 10-day volatility of gold is 2%, and the S&P is 3%. So over any rolling 10-day period, it is a non-event 7% of the time for the S&P to go up or down 3%, and gold is only 2%. And quite often, if the S&P falls 3%, gold is up 2%, so it's a great counterweight to a portfolio.

Also recognize that silver's volatility is more than that. Silver is more like the 3%. And when we look at the digital currencies, they're more like a huge magnitude, they're 12% volatility, so much more volatile.

https://www.streetwisereports.com/articl...1220854858


Obviously, this is useful information to know when balancing a portfolio.
10-22-2019 10:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Tail Gunner's post:
Barron
arafat scarf Offline
Robin
*

Posts: 152
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 9
Post: #8541
RE: The Bitcoin (BTC) thread
JayJuanGee Wrote:Sometimes when we are sharing information, we try to keep out some personal privacy matters or try to save OpSec, and if my use of percentages is confusing to you, then you could ask me to clarify something that might be confusing or if I might have mistated something or left out some kind of explanation that would help to make it more clear.

Missing the point, the exact percentages isn't confusing at all.

The point is that it's ridiculous when you say that you're "just as completely neutral and valid in your opinions" as a professional investment fund portfolio manager given the fact that the vast majority of your portfolio is in Bitcoin and given your temperament on the topic. Many people would consider it foolhardy when you say that "NOT diversifying into gold and having BTC as a dollar hedge is ... prudent". From reading this thread it appears more like you're talking your book and that you have a peculiar, malignant attachment to Bitcoin, albeit fortuitous, rather than good sense.

In contrast, Tail Gunner's perspective isn't that of a total shill and seems thoughtful in providing a variety of references from economists and investment fund managers about those assets that historically do what Bitcoin purports to do for hedging against inflation. To that end, I find his comments relevant and informative here.
(This post was last modified: 10-23-2019 12:44 AM by arafat scarf.)
10-22-2019 11:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
SpursFan741 Offline
Robin
*

Posts: 189
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation: 20
Post: #8542
RE: The Bitcoin (BTC) thread
Yea, right JayJuanGee and Swordfish we are indeed in a bull market hhahahahahah. BEAR modus is on like I and a few other posters mentionned earlier here, based on clear technical Analysis.


We broke the support level of 7700 and see it go down to 6.5$k for the short term. My short got filled at 7650$
(This post was last modified: 10-23-2019 08:47 AM by SpursFan741.)
10-23-2019 08:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Deepdiver Offline
Hummingbird
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 3,304
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 96
Post: #8543
RE: The Bitcoin (BTC) thread
A major recent BTC concern:

Bitcoin's value is derived from:

1. The Largest and most robust verification network (miners) - as long as no one mining group gains control of 51% plus of all mining nodes the results of the mining process are both irrefutable and immutable,

2. The 21 Million cap that ensures increasing future scarcity and therefore increasing future value,

3. The fact that the BTC Blockchain has never been hacked - wallets and exchanges were hacked but not the cryptographic BTC blockchain - well until quantum computers are perfected.

Therefore the following proposal if implemented would likely adversely affect the value of Bitcoin.

Proposal to Increase Bitcoin’s 21 Million Supply Sparks Debate - Bitcoin News
https://news.bitcoin.com/proposal-to-inc...ks-debate/

21 is a number that holds deep symbology to bitcoiners. In addition to denoting the total number of bitcoins, in millions, that will ever be issued, it’s inspired scores of cryptocurrency business names, websites, and merchandise designs. Despite its assumed inviolability, some members of the community are opposed to Bitcoin’s rigidly set 21 million supply. If they have their way, that arbitrary cap will be lifted. For many devout bitcoiners, this suggestion is sacrilegious.

Bitcoin’s Fixed Supply – Arbitrary or Mandatory?

At a “Satoshi’s Roundtable” event last week, decried by some as Bitcoin’s very own version of Bilderberg, the prospect of raising BTC’s 21 million cap was raised. It was Matt Luongo who floated the proposal, in response to a discussion about anticipated adoption of the Lightning Network (LN). With the block reward halving every four years, and onchain transaction volume likely to be low in future should LN take off, there will be little incentive for miners to secure the network. This could lead to it being vulnerable to 51 percent attacks that would undo the trust instilled in the Bitcoin network over many years.

An argument has also been made for increasing the 21 million supply of Bitcoin Cash in future, on similar grounds. Due to the network’s low fees, miners would theoretically have little economic incentive to secure the network once the block reward diminishes.

Luongo’s suggestion of raising BTC’s total supply is intended to incentivize mining in a future of minimal block rewards and minimal onchain volume. While there may be an economic and security case for doing so, it is a matter that resonates strongly – even emotionally – with a sizeable portion of the Bitcoin community. There are also those who are motivated by purely financial reasons. The fact that there will never be more than 21 million bitcoins is what gives the currency its digital scarcity. Raising the fixed cap, even by a fraction, could dilute the value of everyone’s holdings, it is feared, and consign BTC to the status of an EOS-style inflationary cryptocurrency.

A Controversial Proposal That’s Sparked Intense Debate

Numerous Bitcoin luminaries have waded into the debate regarding Bitcoin’s supply following the Satoshi’s Roundtable discussion. Nick Szabo insisted that decreased hash power due to lower mining rewards would not have a significant impact on security, but conceded that “it may require recipients of very-high-value transactions to wait more blocks before relying on them.” Cobra Bitcoin took a more combative approach, tweeting “There will only ever be 21 million bitcoins. If you have a problem with that, get the fuck out of our community because you aren’t welcome.”

To this, Matt Luongo responded:

This stuff has to work … If the stars align and this becomes an issue do you sacrifice a core tenet of the community or the entire security of the chain?

It is not entirely known why Satoshi chose 21 million as the number of coins to be issued, though it is speculated that this ties in with the halving reward schedule that occurs every four years. Alternatively, it could be because the total number of sats that will ever be created approximately mirrors the maximum capacity of a 64-bit floating point number.

Given that there was no mention of Bitcoin’s proposed supply in Satoshi’s seminal whitepaper, perhaps the number itself was never particularly significant to him. Whatever the case, 21 million has come to be one of Bitcoin’s defining features, and any attempt to meddle with the magic number is liable to be treated as heresy. Future generations of bitcoiners may be more receptive to raising the supply, but in the here and now, that notion seems untenable.


###

Deepdiver - Nuke Boats Forever!
"You do not have to be a perfect person to be a perfect PATRIOT!"

Official Whitehouse.gov President Trump's achievements: https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-adminis...lishments/

Communist Freaking Red China's Plan to Undermine the USA and the West:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/up...18-PDF.pdf

The Naked Communists 45 Goals for the USA:
https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/wat...-1963.html
(This post was last modified: 10-23-2019 02:40 PM by Deepdiver.)
10-23-2019 02:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like Deepdiver's post:
Tail Gunner, Tactician
Stats Offline
Pigeon

Posts: 6
Joined: May 2018
Reputation: 0
Post: #8544
RE: The Bitcoin (BTC) thread
(10-23-2019 02:39 PM)Deepdiver Wrote:  1. The Largest and most robust verification network (miners) - as long as no one mining group gains control of 51% plus of all mining nodes the results of the mining process are both irrefutable and immutable,

Question. how do the mining nodes work? If a new super computer is invented that is as powerful as millions of current tech computers can this comp and its controllers acquire a large number of nodes and make decisions for every one?
10-23-2019 02:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Deepdiver Offline
Hummingbird
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 3,304
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 96
Post: #8545
RE: The Bitcoin (BTC) thread
Please note that JJG is a long time BTC shill, he has an extremely offensive and bad habit of telling other grown men to Bugger Off and calling them a Dumbass and condescends to people who are obviously his intellectual superiors like the well mannered and thoughtful tailgunner.

I have had JJG on ignore for at least 24 months however his spam level of shilling posts regarding BTC uber alles, unfortunately, bleeds through in the many other member's posts replying to JJG's innumerable disrespectful invectives.

Vulgar language and vulgar manners = vulgar people.


###

Deepdiver - Nuke Boats Forever!
"You do not have to be a perfect person to be a perfect PATRIOT!"

Official Whitehouse.gov President Trump's achievements: https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-adminis...lishments/

Communist Freaking Red China's Plan to Undermine the USA and the West:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/up...18-PDF.pdf

The Naked Communists 45 Goals for the USA:
https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/wat...-1963.html
(This post was last modified: 10-23-2019 03:10 PM by Deepdiver.)
10-23-2019 02:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Deepdiver Offline
Hummingbird
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 3,304
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 96
Post: #8546
RE: The Bitcoin (BTC) thread
(10-23-2019 02:50 PM)Stats Wrote:  
(10-23-2019 02:39 PM)Deepdiver Wrote:  1. The Largest and most robust verification network (miners) - as long as no one mining group gains control of 51% plus of all mining nodes the results of the mining process are both irrefutable and immutable,

Question. how do the mining nodes work? If a new super computer is invented that is as powerful as millions of current tech computers can this comp and its controllers acquire a large number of nodes and make decisions for every one?

51% Attack
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/1/51-attack.asp

REVIEWED BY JAKE FRANKENFIELD Updated May 6, 2019

Definition of 51% Attack

51% attack refers to an attack on a blockchain – usually bitcoin's, for which such an attack is still hypothetical – by a group of miners controlling more than 50% of the network's mining hashrate, or computing power. The attackers would be able to prevent new transactions from gaining confirmations, allowing them to halt payments between some or all users. They would also be able to reverse transactions that were completed while they were in control of the network, meaning they could double-spend coins.


They would almost certainly not be able to create a create new coins or alter old blocks, so a 51% attack would probably not destroy bitcoin or another blockchain-based currency outright, even if it proved highly damaging.

Breaking Down 51% Attack
Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are based on blockchains, a form of distributed ledger. These digital files record every transaction made on a cryptocurrency's network and are available to all users – and the general public – for review, meaning that no one can spend a coin twice. (So-called "private blockchains" introduce permissions to prevent certain users of the general public from seeing all the data on a blockchain.)


As its name implies, a blockchain is a chain of blocks, bundles of data that record all completed transactions during a given period of time. For bitcoin, a new block is generated approximately every 10 minutes. Once a block is finalized – "mined," in the jargon – it cannot be altered, since a fraudulent version of the public ledger would quickly be spotted and rejected by the network's users.

However, by controlling the majority of the computing power on the network, an attacker or group of attackers can interfere with the process of recording new blocks. They can prevent other miners from completing blocks, theoretically allowing them to monopolize the mining of new blocks and earn all of the rewards. For bitcoin, the reward is currently 12.5 newly-created bitcoins, though it will eventually drop to zero. They can block other users' transactions. They can send a transaction and then reverse it, making it appear as though they still had the coin they just spent. This vulnerability, known as double-spending, is the digital equivalent of a perfect counterfeit and the basic cryptographic hurdle the blockchain was built to overcome, so a network that allowed for double-spending would quickly suffer a loss of confidence.

Changing historical blocks - transactions locked in prior to the start of the attack - would be extremely difficult even in the event of a 51% attack. The further back the transactions are, the more difficult it would be to change them. It would be impossible to change transactions prior to a checkpoint, past which transactions are hard-coded into bitcoin's software.

On the other hand, a form of a 51% attack is possible with less than 50% of the network's mining power, but with a lower probability of success.

Ghash.io
The mining pool ghash.io briefly exceeded 50% of the bitcoin network's computing power in July 2014, leading the pool to voluntarily commit to reducing its share of the network. It said in a statement that it would not reach 40% of the total mining power in the future.

Krypton and Shift
Krypton and Shift, two blockchains based on ethereum, suffered 51% attacks in August 2016.

Bitcoin Gold
In May of 2018, Bitcoin Gold, at the time the 26th-largest cryptocurrency, suffered a 51% attack. The malicious actor or actors controlled a vast amount of Bitcoin Gold's hash power such that even with Bitcoin Gold repeatedly attempting to raise the exchange thresholds, the attackers were able to double-spend for several days, eventually stealing more than $18 million worth of Bitcoin Gold.

34% Attack
The tangle, a distributed ledger that is fundamentally distinct from a blockchain but designed to accomplish similar goals, could theoretically succumb to an attacker deploying over a third of the network's hashrate, referred to as a 34% attack.

Deepdiver - Nuke Boats Forever!
"You do not have to be a perfect person to be a perfect PATRIOT!"

Official Whitehouse.gov President Trump's achievements: https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-adminis...lishments/

Communist Freaking Red China's Plan to Undermine the USA and the West:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/up...18-PDF.pdf

The Naked Communists 45 Goals for the USA:
https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/wat...-1963.html
10-23-2019 02:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like Deepdiver's post:
Tail Gunner, SlickyBoy
Deepdiver Offline
Hummingbird
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 3,304
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 96
Post: #8547
RE: The Bitcoin (BTC) thread
BTC - TA never lies, however - it does repeat.... testing previous support and resistance that is.

https://www.tradingview.com/chart/BTCUSD...ober-2019/

Our A-B-C chart from the 3128 15 Dec 2018 Swing Low to the 13,868 June 26 Swing High (Green Rejection Wick High vs Green Candle Body Close at 12,927) we then had a B target range of 7,600 based on Candle Body high and 7,231 based upon the Wick High... with a Target A=C wave of 17,990/18,000.

Only Question is do we retest the Wave A Leg subwave 2 Support of 5,000 or even the 3,128 Swing low first...

Weds 23 October 2019
Open 8024
High 8029
Low 7296
Close 7506 minus 518 at 2:30 PM today...

Or did we simply come within the BTC range of the number for the B target prior to the C leg halving Bull Run... stay tuned as BTC trades 7X24.


###

Deepdiver - Nuke Boats Forever!
"You do not have to be a perfect person to be a perfect PATRIOT!"

Official Whitehouse.gov President Trump's achievements: https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-adminis...lishments/

Communist Freaking Red China's Plan to Undermine the USA and the West:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/up...18-PDF.pdf

The Naked Communists 45 Goals for the USA:
https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/wat...-1963.html
(This post was last modified: 10-23-2019 03:26 PM by Deepdiver.)
10-23-2019 03:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Deepdiver's post:
Momo007
Tail Gunner Offline
Hummingbird
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 2,786
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation: 47
Post: #8548
RE: The Bitcoin (BTC) thread
(10-23-2019 03:24 PM)Deepdiver Wrote:  Only Question is do we retest the Wave A Leg subwave 2 Support of 5,000 or even the 3,128 Swing low first...

FWIW: I read this article, and reviewed this chart, yesterday -- before the big drop today.

It is a good chart showing the areas of support levels for BitCoin, as already mentioned by Deepdiver.

   

https://www.caseyresearch.com/daily-disp...m-to-drop/
(This post was last modified: 10-23-2019 03:53 PM by Tail Gunner.)
10-23-2019 03:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
bgbusiness Away
Kingfisher
***

Posts: 624
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 7
Post: #8549
RE: The Bitcoin (BTC) thread
Dropped to 7.5k, but whatever I took out 1/3 of my portfolio anyways.
I still believe that we will see 20k sometime next year. Possibly during the halving or summer by the latest.

14k in the summer was due to hype. That was too fast imo when you look at the historical charts.

Recently I diversified my portfolio with Tezos/Chainlink/EOS. (had ethereal already)
I am hyped up on chainlink, it has done a lot of deals with huge companies like Google already and if bitcoin is going to 40x, these alt coins can go up to possibly 100x from here.

If my predictions are right, and in two years I see 50x~100x returns on my investments, I should be a millionaire lol I do have to keep on investing pretty much everything i have though every fucking check

"Don't let yourself get attached to anything you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you feel the heat around the corner."
- Heat

"That's the difference between you and me. You wanna lose small, I wanna win big."
10-23-2019 04:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes bgbusiness's post:
Tactician
bgbusiness Away
Kingfisher
***

Posts: 624
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 7
Post: #8550
RE: The Bitcoin (BTC) thread
It might drop to 5k, I don't give a shit, I am putting more in when it drops, I saw this move coming so I knew i could take some out. It was testing 8k continuously and the more frequent the chart keep on testing the same support line, the more likely it will fall....

"Don't let yourself get attached to anything you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you feel the heat around the corner."
- Heat

"That's the difference between you and me. You wanna lose small, I wanna win big."
10-23-2019 04:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes bgbusiness's post:
Tactician
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  IRS: Bitcoin is not currency assman 23 7,775 07-06-2019 08:37 PM
Last Post: Deepdiver
  Bitcoin & Cryptocurrency Profit & Loss Trackers & Capital Gains Calculators jamaicabound 2 4,782 06-01-2019 09:03 AM
Last Post: Dr. Howard
  DACing for Cryptodummies: Hassle-Free and Easy Bitcoin Investing SamuelBRoberts 108 33,376 12-26-2018 08:27 PM
Last Post: redbeard

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)

Contact Us | RooshV.com | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication