Topic: Do you think Buffett was right? - page 6. (Read 11612 times)
The whole idea of value is that something is worth what someone else is willing to pay is it not? If we are all willing to pay $500 a bitcoin that is what it should be worth.
He really doesn't understand tech.
He is trying to stay away from things he doesn't understand.
His generation don't trust computers or anything to do with them.
Really poor analogy. You can not compare Bitcoin to checks.
Not in this case, but the check analogy and postage is good when it comes to transaction fees. Postage should be related to the number of checks you place in the envelope, not the value of the checks. Similarly the transaction fees should be related to the number of bytes you transaction takes up and not the value of the transaction.
Speaking of Buffett, he may be a good investor but he himself admits there are a lot of things in the financial world that he doesn't understand. He's not even a good trader. I've owned Berkshire Hathaway A for almost 20 years (bought 1 share in the 90's when is was only $80K) and it has done well, but it certainly has not been my best performing investment,
I do agree for the transaction fee's. Correlates pretty much perfectly. When referring to a check, though, what I believe he is undermining is the fact that a bank provides the piece of paper with value. With Bitcoin, you don't have anything to determine it's value. To your point about Warren Buffett, that's pretty much true. I see him as being extremely lucky to be in the position he's in. Not sure about his intellect, but he got to his net worth somehow. Probably just making the right decisions at the right times and using his wealth to reinvest. Not all entirely too sure on what Buffett did exactly but that seems to be the pattern for all wealthy people worth billions.
He really doesn't understand tech.
He is trying to stay away from things he doesn't understand.
If more than 10,000,000 people consider bitcoin as the payment future, then Buffet was wrong, as of now, I think we can conclude he was wrong
The largest benefit for bitcoin is to set you free from the slavery of debt based fiat money system, but it is not the time yet
"Modern fiat money system is slavery. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Business men, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people bitcoin trying to save. But until it does, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them hate bitcoin. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to use honest money. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it."
"Modern fiat money system is slavery. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Business men, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people bitcoin trying to save. But until it does, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them hate bitcoin. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to use honest money. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it."
His track record speaks for itself. It also tells us that the combination of tech and certain PM esque qualities are both fundamental turn offs for him and always have been.
He's an investor. At the moment this whole space is speculation. They are totally different beasts.
He's an investor. At the moment this whole space is speculation. They are totally different beasts.
He is (was) a value investor. Analyze companies, find those with a promising future that is currently undervalued by the market. Good luck with that in the current QE/ZIRP environment.
The subject of the discussion is clear, my posts are consistent and easily verifiable.
The reader will be the judge.
The reader will be the judge.
You've been consistently wrong and/or unwilling to admit that Bitcoin is money, so I can't fault you for consistency.
"Why bitcoin has such a high value today is really a mystery."
The mystery was solved for you plainly like a page ago: It's because Bitcoin is money, and people speculate on currencies.
The discussion was always about the majority of people, you can simply look at the past posts. All is consistent.
Oh here, I looked at the past posts:
"It's a method of transmitting money."
Wrong. Bitcoin is money.
Is it really? I don't see why most people should use it for day-to-day transactions.
Mainstream adoption? We're all the way back on the #25th post of this abortion of a thread and you made it clear you don't understand the definition of money.
How can you even expect to have a discussion about Mainstream adoption when you don't understand the underlying concept of money that the mainstream would adopt?
You're also making the assumption that Bitcoin has to be accepted by the
Quote
majority of people
when that is garbage, too. Here Bitcoin is, not adopted by the mainstream, and 6 years after inception we're sitting at $285.
"Why bitcoin has such a high value today is really a mystery."
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10643328
The subject of the discussion is clear, my posts are consistent and easily verifiable.
The reader will be the judge.
The discussion was always about the majority of people, you can simply look at the past posts. All is consistent.
Oh here, I looked at the past posts:
"It's a method of transmitting money."
Wrong. Bitcoin is money.
Is it really? I don't see why most people should use it for day-to-day transactions.
Mainstream adoption? We're all the way back on the #25th post of this abortion of a thread and you made it clear you don't understand the definition of money.
How can you even expect to have a discussion about Mainstream adoption when you don't understand the underlying concept of money that the mainstream would adopt?
You're also making the assumption that Bitcoin has to be accepted by the
Quote
majority of people
when that is garbage, too. Here Bitcoin is, not adopted by the mainstream, and 6 years after inception we're sitting at $285.
Of course money will change, my point is that bitcoin, in the current form, will not replace it.
Bitcoin is not used as money by most people who own bitcoin. If the majority of people who own bitcoin don't use it as money - then it is simply not money. This is what I mean when I talk about treating money as an investment.
From sniffing around it seems that it's a lot of different things to different people at the moment. Some people are using it purely as money. Others are speculating and nothing but. Many are a combination.
Some are super keen for it be fully integrated into the existing financial system. Others would boil their miners if that happened.
Assuming it continues to survive and grow, what do you think its place in the world might be?
I don't love speculating, but a quick look through dataispower's post history shows that it's littered with Dogecoin-moon posts, and includes this gem:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10032317
Quote
The question is, will the Dogecoin network effect overtake bitcoin?
Maybe shedding some light on where he thinks (wants) BTC's place in the word to be?
Irrelevant to the discussion.
It's quite relevant after reading your posts. It sheds light into the manner in which you've lead this "discussion" - which is mostly around in circles. The fact that you think Dogecoin could overtake BTC (or more likely want Dogecoin to overtake BTC, because of vested interest) shows a translucent bias.
The discussion is about bitcoin value, and the question why should the majority use it. We're talking about the practical use cases of bitcoin, how people could benefit from using it.
The majority don't need to use it. There's plenty of practical use cases, just like there are with any other form of money, even your Dogecoin.
We're talking about mainstream adoption here, so let us not change the subject.
Mainstream adoption? I'm not sure when you were having that conversation. I've been responding specifically to this:
By "need" I mean that there is a demand for gold for different applications other than store of value.
Bitcoin has to provide something of value, a practical use case.
To say that bitcoin is valuable because we believe it has value is not good enough.
Bitcoin has to provide something of value, a practical use case.
To say that bitcoin is valuable because we believe it has value is not good enough.
I'm not surprised you're trying to move the conversation back away from that, though, since the last page and a half of you claiming "BTC isn't money" looks really bad.
You've edited your post. The discussion is about mainstream use of bitcoin.
Yes I did, to put emphasis on the point of ridiculousness in which you were asking for use cases of money.
The discussion was always about the majority of people, you can simply look at the past posts. All is consistent.
Of course money will change, my point is that bitcoin, in the current form, will not replace it.
Bitcoin is not used as money by most people who own bitcoin. If the majority of people who own bitcoin don't use it as money - then it is simply not money. This is what I mean when I talk about treating money as an investment.
From sniffing around it seems that it's a lot of different things to different people at the moment. Some people are using it purely as money. Others are speculating and nothing but. Many are a combination.
Some are super keen for it be fully integrated into the existing financial system. Others would boil their miners if that happened.
Assuming it continues to survive and grow, what do you think its place in the world might be?
I don't love speculating, but a quick look through dataispower's post history shows that it's littered with Dogecoin-moon posts, and includes this gem:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10032317
Quote
The question is, will the Dogecoin network effect overtake bitcoin?
Maybe shedding some light on where he thinks (wants) BTC's place in the word to be?
Irrelevant to the discussion.
It's quite relevant after reading your posts. It sheds light into the manner in which you've lead this "discussion" - which is mostly around in circles. The fact that you think Dogecoin could overtake BTC (or more likely want Dogecoin to overtake BTC, because of vested interest) shows a translucent bias.
The discussion is about bitcoin value, and the question why should the majority use it. We're talking about the practical use cases of bitcoin, how people could benefit from using it.
The majority don't need to use it. There's plenty of practical use cases, just like there are with any other form of money, even your Dogecoin.
We're talking about mainstream adoption here, so let us not change the subject.
Mainstream adoption? I'm not sure when you were having that conversation. I've been responding specifically to this:
By "need" I mean that there is a demand for gold for different applications other than store of value.
Bitcoin has to provide something of value, a practical use case.
To say that bitcoin is valuable because we believe it has value is not good enough.
Bitcoin has to provide something of value, a practical use case.
To say that bitcoin is valuable because we believe it has value is not good enough.
I'm not surprised you're trying to move the conversation back away from that, though, since the last page and a half of you claiming "BTC isn't money" looks really bad.
You've edited your post. The discussion is about mainstream use of bitcoin.
Yes I did, to put emphasis on the point of ridiculousness in which you were asking for use cases of money.
Of course money will change, my point is that bitcoin, in the current form, will not replace it.
Bitcoin is not used as money by most people who own bitcoin. If the majority of people who own bitcoin don't use it as money - then it is simply not money. This is what I mean when I talk about treating money as an investment.
From sniffing around it seems that it's a lot of different things to different people at the moment. Some people are using it purely as money. Others are speculating and nothing but. Many are a combination.
Some are super keen for it be fully integrated into the existing financial system. Others would boil their miners if that happened.
Assuming it continues to survive and grow, what do you think its place in the world might be?
I don't love speculating, but a quick look through dataispower's post history shows that it's littered with Dogecoin-moon posts, and includes this gem:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10032317
Quote
The question is, will the Dogecoin network effect overtake bitcoin?
Maybe shedding some light on where he thinks (wants) BTC's place in the word to be?
Irrelevant to the discussion.
It's quite relevant after reading your posts. It sheds light into the manner in which you've lead this "discussion" - which is mostly around in circles. The fact that you think Dogecoin could overtake BTC (or more likely want Dogecoin to overtake BTC, because of vested interest) shows a translucent bias.
The discussion is about bitcoin value, and the question why should the majority use it. We're talking about the practical use cases of bitcoin, how people could benefit from using it.
Did you just seriously say we should talk about practical use cases for money??? It's money. That's the use case.
The majority don't need to use it.
You've edited your post. The discussion is about mainstream use of bitcoin.
Of course money will change, my point is that bitcoin, in the current form, will not replace it.
Bitcoin is not used as money by most people who own bitcoin. If the majority of people who own bitcoin don't use it as money - then it is simply not money. This is what I mean when I talk about treating money as an investment.
From sniffing around it seems that it's a lot of different things to different people at the moment. Some people are using it purely as money. Others are speculating and nothing but. Many are a combination.
Some are super keen for it be fully integrated into the existing financial system. Others would boil their miners if that happened.
Assuming it continues to survive and grow, what do you think its place in the world might be?
I don't love speculating, but a quick look through dataispower's post history shows that it's littered with Dogecoin-moon posts, and includes this gem:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10032317
Quote
The question is, will the Dogecoin network effect overtake bitcoin?
Maybe shedding some light on where he thinks (wants) BTC's place in the word to be?
Irrelevant to the discussion.
It's quite relevant after reading your posts. It sheds light into the manner in which you've lead this "discussion" - which is mostly around in circles. The fact that you think Dogecoin could overtake BTC (or more likely want Dogecoin to overtake BTC, because of vested interest) shows a translucent bias.
The discussion is about bitcoin value, and the question why should the majority use it. We're talking about the practical use cases of bitcoin, how people could benefit from using it.
The majority don't need to use it. There's plenty of practical use cases, just like there are with any other form of money, even your Dogecoin.
We're talking about mainstream adoption here, so let us not change the subject.
He also said it could not be trusted because "this Satoshi guy" could have hidden something in the code to steal your coins. Warren Buffet does not know dick about bitcoin. Why would he?
Of course money will change, my point is that bitcoin, in the current form, will not replace it.
Bitcoin is not used as money by most people who own bitcoin. If the majority of people who own bitcoin don't use it as money - then it is simply not money. This is what I mean when I talk about treating money as an investment.
From sniffing around it seems that it's a lot of different things to different people at the moment. Some people are using it purely as money. Others are speculating and nothing but. Many are a combination.
Some are super keen for it be fully integrated into the existing financial system. Others would boil their miners if that happened.
Assuming it continues to survive and grow, what do you think its place in the world might be?
I don't love speculating, but a quick look through dataispower's post history shows that it's littered with Dogecoin-moon posts, and includes this gem:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10032317
Quote
The question is, will the Dogecoin network effect overtake bitcoin?
Maybe shedding some light on where he thinks (wants) BTC's place in the word to be?
Irrelevant to the discussion.
It's quite relevant after reading your posts. It sheds light into the manner in which you've lead this "discussion" - which is mostly around in circles. The fact that you think Dogecoin could overtake BTC (or more likely want Dogecoin to overtake BTC, because of vested interest) shows a translucent bias.
The discussion is about bitcoin value, and the question why should the majority use it. We're talking about the practical use cases of bitcoin, how people could benefit from using it.
Did you just seriously say we should talk about practical use cases for money??? It's money. That's the use case.
The majority don't need to use it.
Of course money will change, my point is that bitcoin, in the current form, will not replace it.
Bitcoin is not used as money by most people who own bitcoin. If the majority of people who own bitcoin don't use it as money - then it is simply not money. This is what I mean when I talk about treating money as an investment.
From sniffing around it seems that it's a lot of different things to different people at the moment. Some people are using it purely as money. Others are speculating and nothing but. Many are a combination.
Some are super keen for it be fully integrated into the existing financial system. Others would boil their miners if that happened.
Assuming it continues to survive and grow, what do you think its place in the world might be?
A proof of concept for the blockchain technology.
Of course money will change, my point is that bitcoin, in the current form, will not replace it.
Bitcoin is not used as money by most people who own bitcoin. If the majority of people who own bitcoin don't use it as money - then it is simply not money. This is what I mean when I talk about treating money as an investment.
From sniffing around it seems that it's a lot of different things to different people at the moment. Some people are using it purely as money. Others are speculating and nothing but. Many are a combination.
Some are super keen for it be fully integrated into the existing financial system. Others would boil their miners if that happened.
Assuming it continues to survive and grow, what do you think its place in the world might be?
I don't love speculating, but a quick look through dataispower's post history shows that it's littered with Dogecoin-moon posts, and includes this gem:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10032317
Quote
The question is, will the Dogecoin network effect overtake bitcoin?
Maybe shedding some light on where he thinks (wants) BTC's place in the word to be?
Irrelevant to the discussion.
The other poster made a good point, in that you probably need to do a little more research about what money is, and why certain monies became what they did, when they did.
Money didn't come around because of a need - Money happened because it was easier than bartering. Nobody said "hey you know what, we need these seashells to trade back and forth." It made sense, and it made the act of trading easier.
Money is our way to get around the Coincidence of Wants dilemma, It is a common medium of exchange, whereby everyone agrees to trade for money instead of other objects.
Remember when I talked about the seashells? People used that as money. People used silver and gold as money. People use paper in the form of dollars as money now. Nothing is to say that we won't look back at paper in another 50-500 years and find that antiquated as well.
Again, it's not about need - it's about something performing the function of money better (or differently enough to warrant a place) than its predecessors.
Bitcoin does that.
The other poster only showed that he is unable to differentiate between real questions and rhetorical ones.
In the current form, bitcoin can't preform better than the money we use today. You can't solve volatility if you treat money as an investment and not simply as a tool. You are not supposed to invest in money, you supposed to use it.
Of course it can, that's why even banks and the fed are now scrambling to come up with their own version of BTC that they have control over - precisely the reason why BTC is superior than any of their versions would be.
Money isn't in an investment? You are not supposed to invest in money?
Have you ever heard of forex??? Let me Google it for you:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/forex/f/forex-market.asp
Speaking of Google, it's part of what we call the internet. The internet was also not needed back in 1990.
You're missing the big picture that money can, and has changed many times over the history of mankind. It's not going to stop changing now because dollars are some perfect system.
Of course money will change, my point is that bitcoin, in the current form, will not replace it.
Bitcoin is not used as money by most people who own bitcoin. If the majority of people who own bitcoin don't use it as money - then it is simply not money. This is what I mean when I talk about treating money as an investment.
Who said anything about "replacing"?? Bitcoin doesn't have to replace anything. It can carve out it's own place.
You're trying to use your own definition to determine what is and isn't money. The problem is that it's just -your- definition.
Let's use some more magic of the internet to look up what money is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money
Do people use gold as money today?
That sentence tells us all we need to know about your understanding of money, or lack thereof.
You're claiming after the fact that it was supposedly a rhetorical question, but after more discussion it honestly seems more likely that you don't have a good grasp of what money is.
The discussion is about bitcoin value, and the question why should the majority use it. We're talking about the practical use cases of bitcoin, how people could benefit from using it.
Jump to: