An interesting case of a widespread misconception - page 3.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: lionheart78 on June 19, 2020, 04:02:07 AM

It is possible that those who bet against Bitcoin was hit by FOMO and started buying. This thing happens, when people were hesitant at first then when the price starts to pump, they are the ones to jump on the train last and start panic buying

Then they are no longer betting against Bitcoin

There is only one way holders can become richer in case of a purely speculative asset (just in case, I don't necessarily refer to Bitcoin here), and this is when someone buys it. When someone sells the asset, this adds to the sell pressure, which ultimately forces the prices down. So, holders cannot become richer because of someone betting against the hoarded asset

Quote from: amishmanish on June 19, 2020, 04:29:46 AM

Misconception or not, this debate about "getting rich by hodling" sees a lot of virtue signalling by people who get salty that they weren't there earlier

Every bull run ends with a bull trap

gentlemand

legendary

Activity: 2590

Merit: 3015

Welt Am Draht

Quote from: amishmanish on June 19, 2020, 04:29:46 AM

I wish that the wealthy elites who once frequented the forum much more than they do now were here to assuage the newcomers that they are actually getting together to build a seastead, end poverty, find a cure to cancer and give employment opportunities to the poorest.

One of the more prevalent OG Bitcoiner attitudes is extreme libertarianism which means overwhelming selfishness. Benevolence is not a trait that shines through many of their proclamations. The best you'll get is 'we helped nurture this to let you help yourself.'

If you were sitting at home going over your seed and one passed by they'd kick the door in, stamp on your neck, have your coins away and tell you to take it as a lesson in personal responsibility.

amishmanish

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1159

Misconception or not, this debate about "getting rich by hodling" sees a lot of virtue signalling by people who get salty that they weren't there earlier. Heck, I bet everyone from 2017 onwards has felt that once. It is hard to accept the someone like the MtGox scammer should be sitting on a billion dollar stash.

I wish that the wealthy elites who once frequented the forum much more than they do now were here to assuage the newcomers that they are actually getting together to build a seastead, end poverty, find a cure to cancer and give employment opportunities to the poorest. (Although, Thanks for the Sig campaigns fellas..LOL) I hope they have a secret society of the sorts that geeks and cypherpunks have always accused the "powers that be" to have. I would be very surprised if an early group of cypherpunks haven't formed such a secret society of super-rich bitcoiners.

Although, now that i think of it, i doubt if they are up to any good. We hit the ATH in 2018. Those guys supposedly got rich. and then 2 years later, you give us fucking 2020??!!

lionheart78

legendary

Activity: 2954

Merit: 1153

It is possible that those who bet against Bitcoin was hit by FOMO and started buying. This thing happens, when people were hesitant at first then when the price starts to pump, they are the ones to jump on the train last and start panic buying.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Here I want to discuss a rather popular misconception that many still seem to have as revealed in this Reddit thread where I stumbled upon this post:

Quote

So when bitcoin goes up and people get rich by holding, who pays for that? Those who bet against bitcoin. Completely fair

The point is, those who actively bet against Bitcoin cannot pay for people getting rich by holding because they are actually dragging the price down. Betting against Bitcoin assumes selling it, probably on margin (i.e. without first buying the cryptocurrency). Conversely, it is those buying bitcoins who drive the price up, and through this making holders richer. It is an interesting case because a plausible and convincing explanation is in fact absolutely wrong, and as such could lead to ruinous decisions if taken into consideration without much thought

Topic: An interesting case of a widespread misconception - page 3. (Read 713 times)