Topic: Denial - page 2. (Read 7039 times)

sounds legit to me

no way.  explain the fallacy in that argument.

give me a break dude.

honestly, whats with you and the early adopters?  geez.  i'm not one and i respect them for what they've done.  they spent all those hard earned USD's and time in the form of hardware, electricity, labor, and innovation in verifying and securing all those early tx's that went on before the ramp in the Spring.  they took risks when Bitcoin was worthless.  how many billions of USD's do we pay the banksters to verify and secure our corrupt banking system?

so why shouldn't they be paid off via a ramping Bitcoin price?

To be honest, I barely even read your second statement because all it is is another poor rationalization for how fucked up the bitcoin economy is and how early adopters deserve to profit off of doing absolutely nothing productive, and profit in the millions of percent ROI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory

It's a massive correction, not a decline. Bitcoins should have never been worth more than a buck or two.


But M0 is physical currency... M1 which includes "funds that are readily accessible for spending" is around 25% today of M2, and was 30-35% in 1990--all for the US, obviously it differs from country to country.

edit: I see M1 includes fractional reserve. So there is no real total measure of liquid, non-debt based assets. Pretty shitty.

you clearly know nothing of how Bitcoin works nor anything about economics.  your posts are getting more and more frenetic and insane.

Supply has been overpowering demand for the past few months, one of the reasons we're in decline.

You are asking others to release their holdings, what do you think would happen if there were 3 million bitcoins offered for sale at the same time? - super cheap bitcoins, and who knows how that would be treated by the market and rest of the world. Wouldn't people be asking themselves if early adopters mass selling their holdings, is it safe and worth getting in to?

I state that 50% is the optimal figure for the maximum growth potential. 10% would also be fine for bitcoin but we are far far away from that....

I guess we'll have to take your word for it.

Or, instead of "buying in" with hopes of "cashing out" (most inappropriate terms ever), we could use it whenever it's better than the alternatives and not invest in it as if it's a business.

Is developing tools for it to be useful considered naive too?

It is written PLAIN AS DAY in how the bitcoin economy has progressed. Even if the scenario you propose were true, it is still Satoshi's fault for designing the currency this way. I mean fuck, can none of you add the pieces together? Inability to trace who controls what coins, completely buttfucking anonymous creator, creator has disappeared without a word of what his intentions are... and you just buy this shit up and assume he's doing it for the good of the world? How naive do you have to be?


Because companies in the real world hurt the real world economy in pursuit of their own greed, that makes it ok for bitcoin to do it and should be a system you recommend to everybody? I'm not sure I see your logic, broseph.

Well people are certainly in denial about something....  

I could go on about secondary circulation and how increases the value in a healthy economy but people just don't wanna hear it.  

do you begrudge all the hedge funds and investment banks that rented out all those oil tankers at sea to store oil in anticipation of higher prices?

how do you know this?   its quite possible every single early adopter has already sold out  all their coins to people who brought in real cash to pay for those coins and have become the new hoarders.  how would you begrudge them?

You are confusing the amount of actual paper with the total amount in circulation, FYI. And the vast majority of currency not in the "supply" per se in an inflationary economy is in investments. Bitcoins are in hoarding in hopes of future scarcity.


As in, keeping the price from going to $2 to $35 to $2? Or do you think that this is a good thing?

The same could be said for $10000, $100000, 1mil, 10mil or any figure you could come up with.
Bitcoins will never be reach that figure without a economy behind it so this argument is invalid, sorry.

It's the iterated prisoners dilemma all over again... we are seeing the consequences right now.

And you are explaining it via a "completely incorrect" concept. If you truly believe that is what is going on here, you need to educate yourself. Since I know you won't believe me, here you go: http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/wiki/Deflation


No. I don't know. Regardless, the risk is at most a few dollars per month multiplied by a few months or years. There is no real time investment except for whoever coded the software. If there could be some guarantee that the early adopters would relinquish their hold over the economy, I wouldn't have such an issue with bitcoin. But they haven't, and haven't given any indication that they will. So while they possess those coins, they control the economy. And until this is no longer the case, I will never buy in to bitcoin. Instead of allowing the economy to grow naturally, they hoarded with the intent to drive up the price and popularity, in what I can only assume was hope for an even bigger payout. What other motivation would they have for not getting the coins out there? It certainly is not Mises's principles.


Um, yes. Ease in, ease out for one--with the majority of coins being awarded in the middle of the distribution. That would not effect early adopters with nearly so much control. It really wouldn't be that hard to figure out a dozen others. The intent is quite clear that latecomers should be sucking on the teat of early comers. And this fosters people like you who do the advertising work for them.


No, but I would like to know that if I plan on investing a lot of money in crypto digital trash tokens that 5 or 10 people control 10-20% of all the tokens to ever be produced while 60,000 fight for 300, soon to be 150, coins an hour.


You are just asking to get internet bitchslapped.

how would you know?  if Bitcoin goes to $1000 or whatever the true equlibrium price is assuming its higher than current, then hoarders would be happy to spend their Bitcoin and redistribute them.

The fact that the masses aren't going to keep 100% of their coins in circulation so in order to to compensate the people owning the upper 50% of all bitcoins issued have to spend some of them.

Well they don't but the economy needs 50% in circulation to be as healthy as possible. So any moral obligation is pretty much irrelevant.

He has a point though. Some people don't seem to realize that they have a responsibility to spent a fraction of massive bitcoin holdings if the economy should get booming so there is a overall 50% coins in circulation.
[/quote]

Responsibility? As in a moral obligation? Why is that?