Topic: A Short Youtube Documentary that Reveals the Fate of Bitcoin Holders - page 2. (Read 4151 times)

Why did nobody think to gut the beanie babies and sell the individual beans instead? Pure genius!

Infinitely divisible, bro. In theory there are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000... coins out there. Infinitely divisible. Effectively, however, keeping a fixed number of coins does at least provide a psychological peg so that's good.

Let me play your game for a moment.  Here is a link to your video at 5:26.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgDsyj5eLmo#t=326  Watch for 5 seconds.  This is what went wrong with Beanie Babies.  It was the point when Dogecoin decided to switch to an infinite number of coins.  Bitcoin will only ever have a maximum of 21 million coins.  There is no Bitcoin, Inc. waiting to turn out the next batch.  Beanie Babies lost its capability as a store of value when the manufacturer pumped up production.  Value became diluted, investors pulled out, and the bean bag holders were left with worthless product.  Do not confuse this with an item that has limited quantity, guaranteed by mathematics.

For many of us, Bitcoin would have to go below $20 to start losing any money.

And I'm still buying BTC at $400 levels.

See tech bubble 1.0 and 2.0... smart people have historically invested their money in some incredibly stupid s---. It happens. Remember that not every dollar they are investing is from their personal stash, a lot of their pay is based on commission, it's popular and they need to sell it, it is always easier to sell an idea after it is no longer profitable to buy it (after a bubble has peaked), and their is also the ego satisfaction part of it. People forget that Marc Andressen went completely broke for a while with a med based online start up -- that I think eventually morphed into WebMD -- because he was on a hot streak and the shock to his bank account should it drown was less important to him than the shock of being outside the spotlight. That itself is bullish... at least some of these captains are willing to go down with the ship. But this whole concept that... oh these guys invested so much in infrastructure so it has to go somewhere... nuh uh.

Also see fiber optic cable infrastructure development -- something of great common utility that bankrupted a lot of the titans that made laying it possible. It is entirely possible that Bitcoin investors are sacrificial lambs to a brighter future. That definitely happens in the sphere of innovation.

One year from now, when BTC is trading in the 200-400 dollar range, the bulltards and cultists will still loudly exclaim that BTC is just temporarily below the exponential "trend line", and that the next bull market is just a couple of weeks away.

Well, this is the real catch -- what is their risk appetite? If we dropped below $400 then the rationale of cutting losses may very well overcome the sunk cost fallacy. It's tough to know. They have to be sweating, but their sweat may actually be bullish -- when pushed they might actually double down. It remains to be seen.

Even the infrastucture VCs got to be sweating now.  Marc Andreesen invested like 25M in Coinbase and Overstock only did 1.6 M of sales first 2 quarters.  How much did Coinbase make from that? 2%?    That only 16K.  Imagine their cash burn and recent reports of late payments.   If that series b funding runs out its kaput for Coinbase

Not the beanies shit AGAIN.
>Muh beanies, it compares to EVERYTHING, even to disruptive technology

Give me a fucking break boy. Will bump thread in a year.

When there's a gold rush, invest in shovels   Tim Draper is an idiot and is already kicking himself for his loss.

The Winklevii came out way ahead no matter how you look at it, so they're part of the fortunate elite. Everyone else is investing in the bitcoin services, not bitcoin itself.

In the speculation and securities world, there is something called emotion...this plays a very HUGE factor in determining "investor sentiment". If you are new to this "sport" and you
don't understand behavioral science and how mind games work, you are very vulnerable to manipulation. Yes, you can manipulate prices directly by pump and dumps, TA intervention if you can
forecast what the majority of traders may do and preempt it...or indirectly by monkeying with individual "investor's" mindset. This can work to either to raise or drop prices. Do not underestimate
the power of "opinion shaping". I have noticed certain posters (there is more than one and some with more than one account) on this forum who are very much practicing this "art". When
you've been in this game long enough, you can easily smell most of them like stink on shit...however, there are a smaller number of them who are very good at it and hard to detect. They can goose and subvert the
overall sentiment quite easily on the forums. One of the simplest method and there are several, is the ruse that they are a "believer" so suspicion is lifted. They will then subtly inject negative "information" while they are simultaneously posting positive "information" but using the least relevant ones. Once their infiltration is complete and reinforced, subversion is magnitudes simpler.

Because he wants all the beanie babies to himself that's why! Oh no these precious bears, nobody giveth them for free so Chuckee can't haz them all.

I go cry now. We poor bagholders, holding a bag of money is hard but I'll struggle alone thanks.

Um right, last year the Winklevii invested $12M in beanie babies.  Just recently Tim Draper invested $27M in beanie babies.  Last year Silicon Valley invested over $100M in beanie baby startups.  Millions of $$ in seed funds keep getting poured into new beanie baby exchanges and beanie baby mining operations.

To the OP I say:

And you are on this forum why? To educate about a technology you see no use for? Yes, very wise use of your time. Glad you have such lofty goals for your existence.

Guess you only skimmed my post, so you could slap your sloppily formulated objection to the end of it. Otherwise, you would have noticed that I mentioned the difference between "companies accepting Bitcoin" and going through a payment provider myself. Some of the companies accept BTC natively, some through one of the payment providers. Really doesn't matter for the end user though: you get to pay with Bitcoin, which is what people asked for. Here's a partial list:

Overstock, Expedia, Newegg, VirginGalactic, Gyft.com, CheapAir.com, TigerDirect, Dish, Dell.

Oh, right, food delivery by thuisbezorgd. Pretty big in the Netherlands.

And about the second point ("customers don't have an incentive to use it")... see above. Already answered to that in the first line. Look up 'moving goalpost' if you need to.

Bitcoin is a novel experiment and the public ledger is very clever, however it solves a problem that people don't have.

1) People in the developed world have stable currencies, and even if they're concerned about the economy, they can invest in precious metals or foreign currencies. Why buy into bitcoin, which is susceptible to hacks or data loss? Paper wallets are far too complex for your average "Dancing with the Stars" "X Factor" bag of Doritos Mr. and Mrs. citizen.

2) People in the third world who live under unstable economies don't give a shit about bitcoin. They have nothing to save... they live day to day so inflation doesn't mean much to them. Even if they do have money to save, they'll use it to buy foreign currencies or again, precious metals.

We all appreciate bitcoin and think it's wonderful, but if nobody really has a use for it, then it's no better than a beanie baby doll.

I could tolerate the Tulip comparison but this Beanie baby comparison is crossing the line!  You choose to completely ignore anything good about Bitcoin and compare it to an addiction of hoarding stuffed animals.  I won't bother to argue why you're wrong because you didn't bother to explain why your right. 

You know, this, hmm, kinda hard to understand for me. I mean, it kinda looks like you have experience argueing about those interspecies relations.
Your avatar is more than just a reference from a comic?

Merchants only began to accept bitcoin (through third party processors) because the holders BEGGED them to, since they mistakenly believed that would validate their currency and cause it to rise in value. Merchants couldn't be more happy to oblige... how often do you have potential customers begging you to take their money?

Still, some people here seem to think that the very fact that they accept bitcoin means it is now mainstream, or will be soon. It's not, it's just merchants capitalizing on the fad. The above poster is correct: there is no incentive for regular people to buy bitcoins to then turn around and spend them.

"Hey, [insert your name]! Teach me how to buy bitcoins please! I want to get some so I can then turn around and buy stuff on Overstock.com." -- Nobody, ever.

Lets be honest here.  Merchants dont accept bitcoin.  They have to be converted by a middleman like Coinbase

As a customer.  Unless you already have btcs from the easy mining days.  Why would you want go through an extra step to buy something w btcs