Bear post of the Day | Bitcointalksearch.org

humanitee

hero member

Activity: 1302

Merit: 502

Quote from: ElectricMucus on March 21, 2013, 03:38:07 PM

So people have been complaining that we bears try too hard, I've not been trying at all lately.
In my absence prices did rise tremendously.

Ok here you have it, definitely not a bubble:

Disregard last weeks doji, I commend you!

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

So people have been complaining that we bears try too hard, I've not been trying at all lately.
In my absence prices did rise tremendously.

Ok here you have it, definitely not a bubble:

Disregard last weeks doji, I commend you!

netrin

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 251

FirstBits: 168Bc

Quote from: netrin on February 18, 2013, 10:14:15 PM

Quote from: DoomDumas on February 18, 2013, 02:44:23 PM

I would be very very surprised if BTC/USD ratio gets under 20$ ever !

According to my tea leaves, there is a good chance the price will peak soon around $40 and drop to the August price range, perhaps in the teens. After climbing above $20 again, I think you are right, it will never drop below $20 again. Or so says the good oolong.

$49 was an exuberant surprise, but the rapid collapse was not. Indeed, I'm hoping for a little more deflation ('hope' in this context is reserved for threads titled "Bear post o'dae"). I don't suppose the Untiring Sceptic cares to see astrological charts that indicated the peak in the 40's, that expects further decline, followed by a huge long term up trend?

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Ok, fine

I admit the law is actually more liberal than I assumed, that I have to grant you.
This page mainly is concerned with house mortgages and I have yet to find a suitable example.

Nevertheless this depends on the circumstances and I am certain that defaulting on a loan for a house is something different than choosing a non-seizable asset. And since I doubt people were granted a loan for speculating there is also the case of using the loan for other purposes as intended. In the case of Bank margins and credit card I am not certain, in that case when default occurs assets are seized. I say the interference with the seizing of assets is pushable not the default itself.

Melbustus

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1004

Quote from: ElectricMucus on March 02, 2013, 12:41:55 PM

You are twisting the meaning of malice.

Not really. It's unclear why you found that particular word relevant for the discussion anyway.

Quote from: ElectricMucus on March 02, 2013, 12:41:55 PM

here: http://creditcardforum.com/blog/credit-card-default-consequences/

Quote

4. There might be the possibility of a lawsuit (and jail?)

This isn’t a common practice but it still is a possibility. If the collections process is unsuccessful a lawsuit may be filed.

So what are the default consequences if a lawsuit is filed by the creditor? Well assuming the debt is valid (it’s really your debt) then odds are a judgment will be issued against you. If you were properly served the court papers and choose not to show up, the judgment can still be issued against you.

In case of Bitcoin there is no way to collect them, but there are ways to prove that Bitcoins were used on purpose to avoid seizing of assets in case of a default. (Mtgox bank statement for example)
This is financial fraud which is punishable by jail.

Did you think I wouldn't click the link? From the same section:

Quote

It’s important to remind you that being arrested is extremely uncommon and has only occurred in a few states.

And:

Quote

Even if you do live in one of the few towns or counties that practice this, odds are probably very, very slim it will be an actual consequence for your defaulted account.

Up to this point, I've generally respected your arguments, despite disagreeing with them. I have to say, though, that this last round suggests to me that you're really really reaching to make your points. If I felt like you had a different opinion but weren't willing to blow a very remote possibility way out of proportion in order to make your point, I'd be more inclined to continue to respect your arguments and respond. But this last exchange has made me consider this more a waste of my time than anything else.

I'll check back on this thread in a few weeks and see what I think then.

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Anyway lets leave this topic behind us, we shall see and find out what happens.

Today we are at the publicly perceived value of bitcoin.

Apparently the people who write articles about it are selling.
http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/02/bitcoin-reaches-an-all-time-trading-high-of-over-33/

Quote

Disclosure: Upon hearing of the all-time high today, I sold my final bitcoin at a price of $32.50.

The rats are leaving the ship. But people partying on the decks probably won't notice...

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

You are twisting the meaning of malice.

here: http://creditcardforum.com/blog/credit-card-default-consequences/

Quote

4. There might be the possibility of a lawsuit (and jail?)

This isn’t a common practice but it still is a possibility. If the collections process is unsuccessful a lawsuit may be filed.

So what are the default consequences if a lawsuit is filed by the creditor? Well assuming the debt is valid (it’s really your debt) then odds are a judgment will be issued against you. If you were properly served the court papers and choose not to show up, the judgment can still be issued against you.

In case of Bitcoin there is no way to collect them, but there are ways to prove that Bitcoins were used on purpose to avoid seizing of assets in case of a default. (Mtgox bank statement for example)
This is financial fraud which is punishable by jail.

Melbustus

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1004

Quote from: ElectricMucus on March 01, 2013, 03:50:31 AM

Quote from: Melbustus on March 01, 2013, 03:47:14 AM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on March 01, 2013, 03:17:26 AM

Quote from: Melbustus on March 01, 2013, 03:06:50 AM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on March 01, 2013, 01:44:34 AM

...
Well, there is the general possibility of a long squeeze, or to say people having to choose between jail or selling the bitcoins they bought on debt.
...

You know jail is not what happens to people who default these days, right? What happens is that they can't buy (another) house on credit for anywhere between 2 and 7 years. Default is often strategically correct (thinking only in net-worth terms here), and plenty of people do it when they have other options. They do not go to jail.

Are you speaking of some specific jurisdiction where people *do* go to jail for default? Where?

Everywhere, when it is done on malice.

...
That's just false. Anyone can intentionally run up a credit card bill and default, with pretty much no consequences other than a bad credit rating.
...

I guess that is for the curt to decide. Roll Eyes

Protip: Any psychological condition, drug addiction or similar personal problems might be viewed as mitigating circumstances.
PS: Buying a house which you can't pay off isn't malice. Think about the word "strategic" default very carefully.
PPS: I really hope you aren't in this situation....

I don't know where you're getting this stuff. If you're not in the US, that makes more sense - things may be different elsewhere - but here in the states, this stuff doesn't even get to court very often. (Sidenote: Perhaps this is actually the way it should be, since the nature of a debt-based monetary system requires default; hence, it's not looked upon harshly by the law.)

Re: PS: Defaulting on your house when you have the means to not default is pretty ethically shady, and it happens all the time. Plenty of people also took out loans that they *knew* amounted to highly risky bets. If it worked out, great, they made money on asset appreciation. If it didn't work out, no problem, just default and walk away (after living in the place for free for a year, *and* with the possibility of being handed a principle reduction!).

Re: PPS: Heh, no, thanks for your concern, though. :-) I just live in one of the markets that was hardest hit by the real-estate collapse, so I see first-hand how people are handling things and thinking about these issues. I moved here *after* the collapse.

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Quote from: Melbustus on March 01, 2013, 03:47:14 AM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on March 01, 2013, 03:17:26 AM

Quote from: Melbustus on March 01, 2013, 03:06:50 AM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on March 01, 2013, 01:44:34 AM

...
Well, there is the general possibility of a long squeeze, or to say people having to choose between jail or selling the bitcoins they bought on debt.
...

You know jail is not what happens to people who default these days, right? What happens is that they can't buy (another) house on credit for anywhere between 2 and 7 years. Default is often strategically correct (thinking only in net-worth terms here), and plenty of people do it when they have other options. They do not go to jail.

Are you speaking of some specific jurisdiction where people *do* go to jail for default? Where?

Everywhere, when it is done on malice.

...
That's just false. Anyone can intentionally run up a credit card bill and default, with pretty much no consequences other than a bad credit rating.
...

I guess that is for the curt to decide. Roll Eyes

Protip: Any psychological condition, drug addiction or similar personal problems might be viewed as mitigating circumstances.
PS: Buying a house which you can't pay off isn't malice. Think about the word "strategic" default very carefully.
PPS: I really hope you aren't in this situation....

Melbustus

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1004

Quote from: ElectricMucus on March 01, 2013, 03:17:26 AM

Quote from: Melbustus on March 01, 2013, 03:06:50 AM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on March 01, 2013, 01:44:34 AM

...
Well, there is the general possibility of a long squeeze, or to say people having to choose between jail or selling the bitcoins they bought on debt.
...

You know jail is not what happens to people who default these days, right? What happens is that they can't buy (another) house on credit for anywhere between 2 and 7 years. Default is often strategically correct (thinking only in net-worth terms here), and plenty of people do it when they have other options. They do not go to jail.

Are you speaking of some specific jurisdiction where people *do* go to jail for default? Where?

Everywhere, when it is done on malice.

That's just false. Anyone can intentionally run up a credit card bill and default, with pretty much no consequences other than a bad credit rating. Heck, people do that with houses! There's been a little bit of that happening in the past few years, if you haven't noticed...

No one audits you for "malice" when you don't pay your CC or even when you don't pay your mortgage. In the latter case, you may even be handed a principle reduction! At *worst*, you'll get rejected for a short-sale or, in some states, may be found responsible for the taxes on the loan deficiency since it can be treated as income. But if you're $200,000 underwater on your home, it's strategically correct to fork over the $60k in taxes to be able to just forget about the other $140,000 in debt. But like I said, that's the *worst* case. Most of the time, you just walk, and you're no longer on the hook for the $200k. Done. Your credit just gets nailed for a few years.

Where have you been, man? This is happening everywhere. Where did you get this idea of jail time and "malice"?

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Quote from: Melbustus on March 01, 2013, 03:06:50 AM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on March 01, 2013, 01:44:34 AM

...
Well, there is the general possibility of a long squeeze, or to say people having to choose between jail or selling the bitcoins they bought on debt.
...

You know jail is not what happens to people who default these days, right? What happens is that they can't buy (another) house on credit for anywhere between 2 and 7 years. Default is often strategically correct (thinking only in net-worth terms here), and plenty of people do it when they have other options. They do not go to jail.

Are you speaking of some specific jurisdiction where people *do* go to jail for default? Where?

Everywhere, when it is done on malice.

Melbustus

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1004

Quote from: ElectricMucus on March 01, 2013, 01:44:34 AM

...
Well, there is the general possibility of a long squeeze, or to say people having to choose between jail or selling the bitcoins they bought on debt.
...

You know jail is not what happens to people who default these days, right? What happens is that they can't buy (another) house on credit for anywhere between 2 and 7 years. Default is often strategically correct (thinking only in net-worth terms here), and plenty of people do it when they have other options. They do not go to jail.

Are you speaking of some specific jurisdiction where people *do* go to jail for default? Where?

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Quote from: usagi on February 28, 2013, 10:35:15 PM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on February 28, 2013, 02:43:05 PM

At last we have the real impact on the market which, since this is Bitcoin is the only thing that really matters in that regard. The possibility of a fuckup.
So far every price collapse was initiated by some sort of hack/scam/fuckup people loosing money and the market confidence in one way or the other. The possibility is there, it could happen with the coinbase takeover or or not in which case there will be another catalyst.

No, this is not true "since this is Bitcoin". You need to think.

Plenty of screwups began with a market crash, but certain people like to perpetuate the myth that it's the other way around. This is damaging to the community.

The real problem here is that we are not ready for "P2P finance". People who were never taught finance in school, now think they know all about money because they have been spending it all their life. Or something equally puerile, like "because Bitcoin". "Plenty of first-hand experience," or something like that.

Well, there is the general possibility of a long squeeze, or to say people having to choose between jail or selling the bitcoins they bought on debt. If the bubble doesn't burst soon this will be the ultimate end of it. That is difficult to quantize though.

Other than that market confidence isn't lost because of price movements but the other way around. There is no way you can talk me into thinking that price movements cause fuckups. That is basic logic, cause and effect there is nothing to dispute.
The term "this is bitcoin" refers to the cargo-cult mentality and herding behaviour of this community which is, quite frankly quite unique. But if you know something similar I'm all ears. Roll Eyes

usagi

vip

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

13

Quote from: ElectricMucus on February 28, 2013, 02:43:05 PM

At last we have the real impact on the market which, since this is Bitcoin is the only thing that really matters in that regard. The possibility of a fuckup.
So far every price collapse was initiated by some sort of hack/scam/fuckup people loosing money and the market confidence in one way or the other. The possibility is there, it could happen with the coinbase takeover or or not in which case there will be another catalyst.

No, this is not true "since this is Bitcoin". You need to think.

Plenty of screwups began with a market crash, but certain people like to perpetuate the myth that it's the other way around. This is damaging to the community.

The real problem here is that we are not ready for "P2P finance". People who were never taught finance in school, now think they know all about money because they have been spending it all their life. Or something equally puerile, like "because Bitcoin". "Plenty of first-hand experience," or something like that.

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Ok todays post is concerning the current situation with mtgox vs coinbase.

There have been ideas that the extended services would provide a shorting possibility for entities with deep pockets and cause the price to collapse.
This is not true. Leveraging doesn't have an impact on the direction of the market, just the fundamentals do.

On the other hand we have the bull cheering for panic buying because the possibility of accounts getting under scrutiny of US tax collectors. This isn't true either, at least at this point of the bubble.
The risk of buying BTC at this point while not being able to get out within a 1hour window is just too much risk for anybody who isn't in for the thrills.

At last we have the real impact on the market which, since this is Bitcoin is the only thing that really matters in that regard. The possibility of a fuckup.
So far every price collapse was initiated by some sort of hack/scam/fuckup people loosing money and the market confidence in one way or the other. The possibility is there, it could happen with the coinbase takeover or or not in which case there will be another catalyst.

Melbustus

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1004

Quote from: ElectricMucus on February 27, 2013, 07:12:04 PM

@Melbustus

Yes, the underlying technology Bitcoin uses has may different uses which reach far beyond what BTC currently does. What is of my concern is that a good part of the potential application would require a hard-fork just like increasing the block limit does. So that brings the potential innovator in the situation where rewriting the software from scratch to make it more extendible, versatile, or whatever becomes more and more attractive.
Some of those solutions could include a currency aspect, not directly competing with bitcoin but still making it obsolete in the context of which it is used.

We are seeing the first step in this direction with ripple, which is just a tiny one and there is a long way ahead. It is possible that Bitcoin remains relevant throughout this process, although I wouldn't bet on it.

Yeah, I can see this argument to a degree. One of the few cases I see where bitcoin doesn't go "all or nothing" is if a competing crypto-currency is developed which offers some superior features, but which bitcoin can't directly incorporate for some reason. I think such possibility is limited, but still possible, of course. That'd relegate bitcoin to a niche within a niche.

To your point about bitcoin needing to be re-written from the ground up to serve other purposes; yeah, that indeed might happen. The only good reason for it to NOT happen (and for such things to piggy back on btc) is the huge hashrate lead that bitcoin has. It would tough to convince people to dedicate huge resources without financial incentive, which is, in turn, tough to do without having your use-case be a monetary system in and of itself. So, I suppose that comes right back my assertion above that I think it's unlikely a superior crypto-currency is developed whose features can't be absorbed into bitcoin. But who knows....it'll be interesting, for sure.

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

No new bear post today, in appreciation of the ATH.

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Looks like you got mad at me for some reason.

Please don't interfere in the debate.

Odalv

legendary

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1000

Quote from: ElectricMucus on February 27, 2013, 07:12:04 PM

@Melbustus

Yes, the underlying technology Bitcoin uses has may different uses which reach far beyond what BTC currently does. What is of my concern is that a good part of the potential application would require a hard-fork just like increasing the block limit does. So that brings the potential innovator in the situation where rewriting the software from scratch to make it more extendible, versatile, or whatever becomes more and more attractive.
Some of those solutions could include a currency aspect, not directly competing with bitcoin but still making it obsolete in the context of which it is used.

We are seeing the first step in this direction with ripple, which is just a tiny one and there is a long way ahead. It is possible that Bitcoin remains relevant throughout this process, although I wouldn't bet on it.

Looks like "I'm saying nothing, but my words will be proven"

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

@Melbustus

Yes, the underlying technology Bitcoin uses has may different uses which reach far beyond what BTC currently does. What is of my concern is that a good part of the potential application would require a hard-fork just like increasing the block limit does. So that brings the potential innovator in the situation where rewriting the software from scratch to make it more extendible, versatile, or whatever becomes more and more attractive.
Some of those solutions could include a currency aspect, not directly competing with bitcoin but still making it obsolete in the context of which it is used.

We are seeing the first step in this direction with ripple, which is just a tiny one and there is a long way ahead. It is possible that Bitcoin remains relevant throughout this process, although I wouldn't bet on it.

Topic: Bear post of the Day (Read 8679 times)