Pages:
Author

Topic: A Short Youtube Documentary that Reveals the Fate of Bitcoin Holders - page 3. (Read 4151 times)

legendary
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1007
How can you compare the usefulness of 'Beanies' with that of bitcoin? Insanity.


Bitcoin isn't useful, aside from speculating, day trading, and online gambling. People aren't using bitcoins to buy things online, unless they already had some to begin with! What we're seeing now is a domino effect of investors losing faith, one by one, because merchant adoption has finally happened, but the general public still doesn't care!

When the price stops rallying up, there's nothing left to look forward to anymore!

People bought beanies because they were told they were sure to rise in value.

People bought bitcoin because they were told they were sure to rise in value.

IT'S.THE.SAME.THING!


Ah, the old 'moving goal post' maneuver...

Let's go back 1 year or so: "Merchants will never adopt Bitcoin. They have no incentive to do so!"

Today: "Okay, so quite a few merchants accept Bitcoin, and Bitpay/Coinbase make it possible to pay with Bitcoin even if a merchant doesn't accept them yet, but customers will never adopt them because they have no incentive to do so!

We'll see. Next likely step before customer adoption: merchants giving those incentives to pay in Bitcoin, effectively splitting the gains from lower transactions cost with customers in the form of rebates.
hero member
Activity: 624
Merit: 500
Chuckee - Registered August 16, 2014, 06:56:52 PM

Its amazing watching the same shit play out every freaking year on this forum. I've seen the same posts by the latest noob troll over and over and over.

That's fair enough. We see a lot of these trolls come and go. But I thought this line was pretty hilarious in the context of beanie babies... "Maybe someday bitcoin will become popular again!"

LOL.... Grin
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
How can you compare the usefulness of 'Beanies' with that of bitcoin? Insanity.


Bitcoin isn't useful, aside from speculating, day trading, and online gambling. People aren't using bitcoins to buy things online, unless they already had some to begin with! What we're seeing now is a domino effect of investors losing faith, one by one, because merchant adoption has finally happened, but the general public still doesn't care!

When the price stops rallying up, there's nothing left to look forward to anymore!

People bought beanies because they were told they were sure to rise in value.

People bought bitcoin because they were told they were sure to rise in value.

IT'S.THE.SAME.THING!
legendary
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1007
I get your point, but, actually, even that example's retort is a fallacy, because the person arguing for marriage between a man and a woman is arguing that only the act itself of getting married in a different context involves sin, not that a separate sin can't be committed while a man and woman are married. In other words, that retort is no different than "Oh, really. So how come you murdered someone while you were married to your wife?")

Sidenote: this is heavily offtopic of course. But since OP opened a rather worthless thread, I don't feel bad for hijacking it Cheesy


I get your point as well, however:

What you describe would be true in a sort of platonic realm of arguments, where each proponent of a position would be completely unrelated on a personal level from the position he or she presents. Let's say, how a mathematician would present a proof. He could be wrong, he could be right, but there is only the validity of the argument itself, and it has no relation to the individual presenting it other than that the person presenting the proof contains the brain that computed the proof (or made an error doing so).

I believe that, even in principle, that's not how non-mathematical arguments work. There is no "platonic ideal" of, say, the right amount of taxation. Or whether it is morally wrong or right to marry man and woman only, or man, man goat.

So my claim is: even when we can make some references to more abstract, possibly objective points in an (moral) argument, we will also inevitably invoke some personal aspects. Like "personal integrity", or "consistency of principles of ones own life".

And it is at this point, if there is a clear contradiction between one of the claims of the argument (say: "marriage is holy") and the personal example of the proponent of the argument (say: he cheats on his wife) that an ad hominem is a valid counter - not because it goes against any principle that the proponent of the argument mentions, but because the proponent inevitable has to rely on personal aspects to further his argument (in the case of moral/aesthetical/maybe also economical arguments).

Does that make any sense?

full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 100
playing pasta and eating mandolinos
How can you compare the usefulness of 'Beanies' with that of bitcoin? Insanity.
legendary
Activity: 1762
Merit: 1011
Chuckee - Registered August 16, 2014, 06:56:52 PM

Its amazing watching the same shit play out every freaking year on this forum. I've seen the same posts by the latest noob troll over and over and over.


Ad hominem attacks just show us you don't have any arguments.

The argument here isn't an ad hominem. The argument, if you want a catchy name, is perhaps best called 'extrapolation from pattern'.


Could be a false equivalence, as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

The problem with the fallacy classification is that it is circular to a degree, or perhaps more accurately: they only describe the structure of an argument, but doesn't answer conclusively if, in the given context, the argument is valid or not. People however tend to use the term fallacy to mean "your argument is wrong".

"Ad hominem" is a good example: depending on the circumstances, an ad hominem can be evidence that an argument is not valid ("We should lower taxes because of X". "No we shouldn't, you cheated on your wife!"), or it can be a reasonable objection given the right context ("We should forbid gay marriage. Only the marriage between man and woman is free of sin." "Oh really. So how come you cheated on your wife?")

I get your point, but, actually, even that example's retort is a fallacy, because the person arguing for marriage between a man and a woman is arguing that only the act itself of getting married in a different context involves sin, not that a separate sin can't be committed while a man and woman are married. In other words, that retort is no different than "Oh, really. So how come you murdered someone while you were married to your wife?")
legendary
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1007
Chuckee - Registered August 16, 2014, 06:56:52 PM

Its amazing watching the same shit play out every freaking year on this forum. I've seen the same posts by the latest noob troll over and over and over.


Ad hominem attacks just show us you don't have any arguments.

The argument here isn't an ad hominem. The argument, if you want a catchy name, is perhaps best called 'extrapolation from pattern'.


Could be a false equivalence, as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

The problem with the fallacy classification is that it is circular to a degree, or perhaps more accurately: they only describe the structure of an argument, but doesn't answer conclusively if, in the given context, the argument is valid or not. People however tend to use the term fallacy to mean "your argument is wrong".

"Ad hominem" is a good example: depending on the circumstances, an ad hominem can be evidence that an argument is not valid ("We should lower taxes because of X". "No we shouldn't, you cheated on your wife!"), or it can be a reasonable objection given the right context ("We should forbid gay marriage. Only the marriage between man and woman is free of sin." "Oh really. So how come you cheated on your wife?")
legendary
Activity: 1762
Merit: 1011
Chuckee - Registered August 16, 2014, 06:56:52 PM

Its amazing watching the same shit play out every freaking year on this forum. I've seen the same posts by the latest noob troll over and over and over.


Ad hominem attacks just show us you don't have any arguments.

The argument here isn't an ad hominem. The argument, if you want a catchy name, is perhaps best called 'extrapolation from pattern'.


Could be a false equivalence, as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
legendary
Activity: 889
Merit: 1013
That was a really cool youtube video though, thanks!
hero member
Activity: 742
Merit: 500
The important thing to keep in mind is: If you followed rule number 1 in investing/trading ("never invest more than you are afford to lose") you'll be fine no matter what happens.

Yes, bitcoin's value is partly speculative, but comparing a stuffed toy to the first peer to peer open source money/banking system? That's hysterical.
Agreed.

The article is hilarious shit eheh.
legendary
Activity: 889
Merit: 1013
Wow, this guy really nailed the beanie babies bitcoin connection
http://quantiger.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/the-future-of-bitcoin-my-predictions/

in 2012 Wink I hope he's rich.

Yes, bitcoin's value is partly speculative, but comparing a stuffed toy to the first peer to peer open source money/banking system? That's hysterical. Also, you address your post to everyone saying someone else made money on bitcoin, but it wasn't you. Posting that on bitcointalk is pretty odd, considering most of the people who have made money on bitcoin hang out here.
hero member
Activity: 531
Merit: 501
Chuckee - Registered August 16, 2014, 06:56:52 PM

Its amazing watching the same shit play out every freaking year on this forum. I've seen the same posts by the latest noob troll over and over and over.


Ad hominem attacks just show us you don't have any arguments.

The OP didn't have any arguments either.

Also if bitcoins are beanie babies what should we call deposits in Cypriot banks?
legendary
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1007
Chuckee - Registered August 16, 2014, 06:56:52 PM

Its amazing watching the same shit play out every freaking year on this forum. I've seen the same posts by the latest noob troll over and over and over.


Ad hominem attacks just show us you don't have any arguments.

The argument here isn't an ad hominem. The argument, if you want a catchy name, is perhaps best called 'extrapolation from pattern'.

Which you can reasonably find questionable still (after all, the 'bubble, crash, next bubble' pattern has only been on for ~3 years - which depending on your perspective is either an eternity or nothing), but at least give the NamelessOne credit as to what his argument actually is based on.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
Chuckee - Registered August 16, 2014, 06:56:52 PM

Its amazing watching the same shit play out every freaking year on this forum. I've seen the same posts by the latest noob troll over and over and over.


Ad hominem attacks just show us you don't have any arguments.
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
Nah, Bitcoin is more like Scotch or fine wine. Let it age and grow in value and flavor.
legendary
Activity: 1762
Merit: 1011
Beanie Babies and PEZ aren't anything like the technology behind Bitcoin. Not to say that Bitcoin can't fail, but it won't fail because of any similarity to some collectible toy.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
So basically:

Bitcoin = Beanie Babies

Dogecoin = Digital gold
hero member
Activity: 510
Merit: 500
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
--------------->¿?
It's not going to happen to you if you don't invest more than you can afford to lose. That's all.
legendary
Activity: 4200
Merit: 4887
You're never too old to think young.
Chuckee - Registered August 16, 2014, 06:56:52 PM

Its amazing watching the same shit play out every freaking year on this forum. I've seen the same posts by the latest noob troll over and over and over.

Hilarious isn't it?
Pages:
Jump to: