Topic: ETH = Game Over - page 6. (Read 40467 times)

Thanks for your clarification. O.k.  I will concede that I was likely conflating terms such as ponzi scheme, pyramid scheme and greater fools theory and attributing all of those to your criticism of bitcoin.  In the end, I doubt that it matters regarding the degree which you are criticizing bitcoin, even if we agree to stick to the lesser definition of "greater fools theory."  Even with such "greater fools theory," I think that you are oversimplifying what is going on with bitcoin and failing/refusing to adequately recognize value in bitcoin beyond your simplified assertion of "greater fools."

Nah, don't try to denigrate  criticisms of your position by asserting that they seem religious, because then you are going to become even more ridiculous.

Each person is going to come to any matter with knowns and unknowns and leaps of faith in terms of logic to support such conclusions and observations.

There is little value to assert that opinions that vary from yours are religious merely because you either do not agree with the facts or the logic or the extent of weight that is given to either facts or logic.





Great.  At least you agree with that part, and part of my point was that your arguments directed at the alleged ponzi scheme nature of bitcoin were starting to seem like those same arguments from folks who fallaciously argue that social security is a ponzi scheme.




Of course there is value creation.. how many times do I have to repeat and point out the various values.

For example, has there ever been a secure decentralized immutable ledger/storage of value. Go ahead, name one?

In its current state and its current history, Bitcoin is absolutely paradigm shifting, even if it could take 20 years for the price to follow? or there is a possibility that it could end up getting destroyed in some kind of way.




Maybe you are mixing up terms?  zero sum game is different from scarcity or limited supply or whatever you are attempting to mean by your description of bitcoin as a zero sum game (which implies lack of value apart from the coin itself).




bitcoin is a kind of asset that is different from any that have come before it, and sure it is intended to have monetary attributes.  


http://www.economicsdiscussion.net/money/top-8-qualities-of-an-ideal-money-material/609

"An ideal money material should possess the following qualities:

General Acceptability:
Portability:
Indestructibility or Durability:
Homogeneity:
Divisibility:
Malleability:
Cognizability:"

Bitcoin's white paper frames these attributes a bit differently, but similar ideas as the ideas in the above linked post.




Yes, those are decent descriptions of a couple of the use cases of bitcoin to transmit value and to store value.

 




I don't completely understand what you mean by "lossy?"  There are expenses in using any system that stores and transmits value, and so these cost benefits are going to be relative to one another.  Some systems will be more efficient than other systems, and some systems will hold their value better than other systems.  In the end, it could take years and years (and maybe even decades) to suss out the relative value of each, but also in the end, each of us needs to consider the value for ourself and the value of such systems in order to determine for ourselves the extent to which we may choose to invest or gamble in one system versus another.
 




Sure, but don't delve into oversimplification by attempting to describe things that you do not know, there is a variety of values that are subjective and objective... and those values also are going to change over time and depending on circumstances.  An apple is going to have a whole hell of a lot more value for someone who is starving than a bitcoin, but if the person is not starving then a bitcoin would likely have higher value, because currently, he could sell such a bitcoin for nearly $600.
 
  



 You and I have different opinions regarding the value of market cap as an indicator of value when it comes to bitcoin.  Sure, bitcoin's actual market cap is very important because  it can show relative value compared to other financial systems, assets or possible investments, and it can also help to demonstrate liquidity and ability to manipulate prices, and it can also help to analyze the extent to which there is overvalue or undervalue in terms of the price per unit.



 no disagreement, here.



 who cares?  I am not going to live 1,000 years, so I could give a ratt's ass what is going to live for 1,000 years, and sometimes 50 years could be too long to plan depending on how long someone expects to live or even the person believes that 50 years may matter in terms of the present value.  

Currently more relevant timelines would likely be less than 50 years, because the further we attempt to project out probabilities the more difficult it becomes and the more irrelevant it becomes to what should be our own personal calculations.



 again, so what?  There is going to be some higher levels of profit from early adopters in any system that appreciates in value and early adopters recognize the value of holding the asset.

We also know that rich people have more abilities to get rich and stay rich as compared with poor folks.  Also, people who are informed about matters have more abilities to profit from the information that they know as compared with uninformed folks.  There are a lot of injustices in the world, and bitcoin likely has the potential to address a lot of those injustices in substantial and material ways, even though it may not cure all injustices and some folks are likely to disproportionately benefit from being an early adopter... so fucking what?  Those are current dynamics in the world, but it does not necessarily make bitcoin a bad thing or a ponzi scheme or a scam or a zero sum game as you continue to assert.



 I agree that there are going to be lifecycle aspects to any asset or money that may cause it to be more or less valuable to other assets and money, and each of us has to determine the extent to which we are going to invest in one system or another, and sometimes we may not have access or information to help us with our diversification decisions, and we do the best that we can to invest and/or diversify based on information and access that we have available to each of ourselves.



 This is seeming repetitive... about whether we are gambling or investing and what factors and access do we have and find relevant.



 Sounds like you are just making up some factors and attempting to apply them to all assets/money... which is not very convincing at all.



 sounding like goofy logic and theory to me.



 Sure this happens, but again oversimplification when attempting to describe these kinds of lifecycles for all assets and to suggest that you have any kind of clue regarding what stage any asset is in, including bitcoin.



 Yes, you seem to be repeating points that you already made that you believe that there is too much value in bitcoin that is associated with speculation,and you attribute little to no value to speculation.  Fine.  We differ in our assessment and how much weight we give to the usefulness of speculation and how much speculation that we believe is actually taking place in bitcoin as compared with other cryptos.




O.k.. whatever, you are not really justifying any further your repeated conclusion with this additional analysis.  Let's just agree to disagree to the extent to which bitcoin can serve as an investment in comparison to pure speculation, gambling or ponzi scheme.

Agreed Dinofelis.. another dumb comment from ming1

And this right here is why we have to keep posting.
Because all year round these guys have been pounding this place into submission with manipulative lies.
I watched as dev's long ago realized they could "win" by sock-puppet account spamming bullshit here.
It actually works on the peons here who eat it up.
Basically if you post a lie enough at Bitcointalk it becomes truth to "investors"
Such as ?
There was a FUD campaign as you all love to put it LOL
On Quark way back guys kept saying it was premined.. so the audience here ended up believing it !

There is manipulative pricks here that know the game well.
They have no interest in truth & honesty ..they are here to make money period .

People always say to me why don't you mind your own business basically.
Well..
Why is it i am the ONLY one in all of Crypto that remembers then brings up
how the Doge dev said it was launched as a joke and how he said he quit because of a lack of community support ?

Why is it i am one of the very few people who ever mention the scammy bullshit with Ethereum ?
It's been a suspicious swirling vortex of scammy activity since before it even launched.
And hell most of these idiots here don't even know when it launched.. yet they are arguing about it..
I just posted to some guy defending ETH it was from 2014 when he said ETH was "only 10 months old"
or..
Like FEBO does with Monero or or or ororororooror ro or o ro r or or or oro ro ro ro ror or
It goes on & on.. morons show up late and a dollar short lying their ass off & crying FUD for bucks.

And it fucking disgusts me because they should fuck the fuck off out of my Crypto scene !
It's mine not theirs and they can leave not the other way around.

Pack your bags scammers and GTFO !  

You know Butters has not DENIED any of the accusation on him or Ethereum since day one.
He simply stays silent and won't show his face here but the Army of puppet accounts pop up here to do his bidding.

They also randomly banned me from their IRC channel to censor me too.
Which i have logged in full so there is no way to bullshit their way out of that either.
I did nothing wrong.. they just manipulate.. it's all they do in Crypto.

Explain to me who was buying blocks of 100 BTC worth of ETH on ICO launch day in 2014.
Don't tell me it's the same guys who pumped the fuck out of it in 2016 two year later.
And who mysteriously had millions worth to publicly admit to dumping.. V. BUTTERS ?
Yeah.. Butters ! ..he admitted it !
And no he never did say where he got the money either !

And what in gods name was up with Coindesk ?
Do you all remember the massive intense spamming campaign they were doing with ETH in 2014 ?
I had mentioned lots back then it was mighty fucked up how they latched onto ETH and were constantly running these massive "Stories" that were basically advertisements.

..on a coin ICO no one had even heard of or even cared about.

Did you all know that ?

NO YOU DIDN'T
Because you are all fucking dipshit noobs who know fuck all yet loiter around here arguing like you KNOW THINGS.

Or you are a fucking fraud.

How do i know ?
Because YOU would be the mother fucker bringing this shit up ..not me EVERY DAMN TIME !

I know that you know that i know pricks.. and i have known ALL ALONG
And guess what ?
You can't win.. i am god damn bullet proof.

Spoetnik posts FUD and 8 NOOB accounts pop up with a hollow proclamationa..
"I like XYZ coin"
"XYZ coin is good"
"XYZ coin will over take Bitcoin soon"
"XYZ coin has a good community"

and so on..


I know your game and i am better at it than you.. YOU CAN'T WIN

Trying to bump your "FUD" away and bury "the turd in the punch bowl"
But it won't work..  

I'm not talking about a Ponzi scheme.  You should differentiate "greater fool theory" with a Ponzi.  A Ponzi is a scam, because there is an entity ENGAGING in providing great returns on the basis of a system which must fail for sure.  The scam resides in the impossible engagement.  It is of the same nature as selling you the moon.  If I engage into selling you the moon, I'm a scammer if you accept the contract, and I do not deliver the moon.  No matter how crazy my engagement is, as *I* make it, *I* am responsible for providing it and if I know from the start that I'm not capable (because of mathematics) to do so, I'm just an outright scammer.

A Ponzi is a scam, because there is a contractual engagement into delivering high returns whereas my method for OBTAINING these returns is based on a pyramid scheme which has to fail.  So the Ponzi scammer is taking engagements he knows he cannot keep.

However, "greater fool theory" is not an engagement, but a *behaviour* in the belief that you will find a fool that will buy that asset at a higher price than you did (acting as the "greater fool" for the person selling to you).

The pyramid construction is the same, but in the case of "greater fool" you are participating willingly, and you (should) know that at the end of the line, the last fool will lose, but you are gambling on the fact that it is not yet you, while in the case of a Ponzi, someone has made false engagements based upon revenue supposed to come from such a pyramid.

What is sure, is that each time, such a system crumbles.  But in the case of a Ponzi, the losses result in an engagement not kept, while in normal "greater fool theory", you've just been gambling that you're not the "last fool", which can, or cannot, work out.

TL;DR: a Ponzi is a scam, "greater fool theory" is a bet.

Of course leadership is centralization.  It is not compulsory centralization, but it is centralization nevertheless.  In the same way that a de facto monopoly is a monopoly, even if it is not imposed with state violence but "happens in the market".

Only a leaderless system can pretend at decentralization.

Ethereum is the most decentralized project there is. chandler guo, probably the biggest miner in the world, only controls ~100gh/s out of almost 6th/s. Leadership is not centralization. You're bad at trolling sir.

It seems as if I'm hitting some kind of religious sensibility here

Social security is not a ponzi scheme, because you're not "investing" in social security to get out more when you hand it over to a greater fool.

The reason why I say that "investing" in bitcoin (and any other crypto) is a zero-sum game, is simply because it OBVIOUSLY is, and that should be obvious if you look at the value flows: there is no value creation !  There is no production of any good or service.

That is not something negative: hell, it was DESIGNED to be a zero sum game, because that is what a monetary system ideally is !  A monetary asset is something, that ideally, is just a transport/store of value, not a generator of value.  If it is a store, then at best, it is zero-sum.  In reality, it will be lossy (in fact, bitcoin IS lossy: all the mining and all the fees on exchanges are losses to the bitcoin value storage).

So, you can use bitcoin to store value for a while, between two transactions: one where you deliver value (as goods and services), and obtain the store, and one where you hand over the store, and obtain value (as goods and services).  Yes, you can also deliver other stores of value and obtain again other stores of value if you find that practical.  
Bitcoin is lossy, but not so much: the mining fee, the inflation, and the exchange fees eat something, but this is competitive with other stores of value like fiat or so.

But, as we said, there's no value creation in a monetary system, apart from its very existence, which has the created value of all those things that you can do with it that you couldn't do without it.  In other words, yes, bitcoin and other crypto HAS a created value as such by its usage, like a truck has value because it can transport stuff, if that transport *improves* production quality of goods and services, but not if you are just riding around with an empty truck.

As such, a monetary system derives its utility from its usage, and hence, its value from its usage (I'm talking about the system an sich, not about the value stored in the system).  This justifies the fact that the system is somewhat lossy, and "burns value".

The value of a monetary asset system, however, should not be confused with its market cap.  They have not much in common.  In fact, the value of the system itself is difficult to estimate.  A good analogy is the value of a truck as an capital good, as compared to the value of the contents it transports.  The value of the truck as a capital good is the amount of value that using the truck allows to create: the fact that you can transport things with the truck, instead of with a train, allows for a more efficient creation of goods and services.  THAT is the value of the truck: the competitive edge it brings you.  But that has nothing to do with the value of the stuff it transports.  Whether it transports detritus (negative value) or very expensive furniture (high value) has nothing to do with the competitive edge the use of the truck brings you.
The "market cap" is what a monetary system *transports* in a certain way.  That is not an estimate of the value of the system itself (the competitive edge it brings you over other solutions to the same problem of storage of value like fiat, gold, ...).  If bitcoin *transports* 10 billion, it doesn't mean that it is *worth* 10 billion, not more than if a truck transports 5 tons of gold, the truck itself would be worth 5 tons of gold.

So you can store value in a monetary system for the short term (between earning it, say, as a salary, and spending it, say, to buy food), or you can store value in a monetary system for the long term (between "putting something aside my whole life" and "profiting from it when I'm old" or "leaving something for the kids").  But the hypothesis is always that the value "in" is of the order of the "value out".

Most monetary systems, apart from gold, come into existence, and then die off.  There's no reason to assume that this will not happen with any crypto too.  In the beginning, when the system "takes value" (loads the truck) there is some seigniorage taken by "early adopters", which is compensated by the losses suffered by the "late users" (when the truck is discharged) - exactly because it is a zero-sum game.  However, if that monetary system exists for a very long time, these two "side effects" are negligible ; early adopters will have obtained gains at the expense of the future generation that will suffer the losses when the system dies, but that is, if the monetary system is really used, a small effect compared to its USAGE as an intermediate store of value during the whole period when it was in steady state.

I mean by that, that the period where the value of the monetary system is stable, and hence "value in" equals "value out" grossly as a store of value, will last hopefully much longer than the "rise" and the "fall" periods ; it is during this period that the monetary system really works as a store of value.

There's no value to be made during that period, and that's the aim: it is a store, nothing more.  You can hence not "invest" in it.

You can gamble on the rise, and if you do so, you are just profiting from those that will lose out on the fall.  And yes, it can work.  But that is a temporary phenomenon (during the rising phase), and, at the expense of others (during the falling phase).  This is not a durable "investment" at all.

So essentially, the phases in a monetary system's existence are:
1) a phase of "greater fools" when you can find greater fools, and you make benefit
2) a (hopefully long) phase of "same fools": value in is about value out, and the thing is a store of value
3) hyperinflation and the end of it, value lost.

The benefits made in 1) are financed by the losses suffered in 3).  This is why this thing is zero-sum.

As it should be.

Again, compare this to the typical life of a company.   A company issues stock, and with that money, it makes production capital and creates goods and/or services.    At the end of its life, it goes broke, and the stock becomes toilet paper.

However, in as much as at every moment in time, the stock is correctly evaluated (in practice impossible but let us assume that...) the stock price always reflects the diminished cash flow of all future dividends minus a risk aversion fee.  The initial stock holder is hence just rewarded for the value he permitted to create (that didn't exist before).  It doesn't come out of the pocket of a looser.  The successive stock holders will get something, in as much as the initial stock holder compensated for his risk and didn't take everything.  When the stock is dead, in principle, nobody lost any money if all estimates were right, because they have been compensated with dividends which are a NET INFLUX of value because there is VALUE CREATION.    This is "investing": allowing for value creation, and taking the reward for that.

The FUNDAMENTAL difference between stock and a monetary asset is that stock returns dividend, and its value estimation is based upon the estimation of the dividend ; while a monetary asset is based upon an infinitely recursive belief system (which is necessarily wrong because no monetary system lasts forever).   Stock value estimation can integrate the finiteness in time of its existence ; a monetary asset derives its value from the denial of that finiteness in time.  A monetary asset only has value in as much as one believes in its eternity (which is obviously going to be false).

That said, in as much as a monetary system is used as a store of value on storage times *much shorter* than the life time of the system itself (say that bitcoin will "live" for 40 years, then a few years of storage is "short"), it is useful and the service provided by that storage can overcome the potential losses when the system comes to an end.  But for that, the system has to be used as a store of value for real.  So, saying: I have access to a certain value right now because I sell some land, which I want to store and use 10 years from now, when my kids go to college, is a right way to use a monetary asset, if you believe that the monetary system will not collapse within 10 years (if it does, you have been financing the gains of early adopters with the value of your land).

And now we come to the bad effects of *dominant* speculation.  Speculation an sich is good: it is the "oil" that fluidizes the market, that brings extra information to price.  Ideally, speculation should be almost impossible if the market is efficient, but speculation is necessary to make the market efficient.

As long as speculation has only a marginal effect on the overall price of an asset (essentially, is only of the size of the volatility), speculation plays its role as lubricant.   
The problem however, with a price of an asset made ESSENTIALLY out of speculation, is that this price is totally unstable.  A monetary asset normally has a price given by Fisher's formula: the price is set by the DEMAND for the asset to use it as store of value (the amount of value, and the average storage time ; the inverse of the average speed of circulation).  The usage of that store of value is normally determined by its competitive edge over other stores of value, and hence you can compare that price to the price of any other market-determined good or service: its price is set by its usage and the competitive edge it brings.  This price is quite robust as long as the usage pattern is robust ; as long as there are good reasons to use this store of value over another.  However, this is not the case with a speculation-dominated price.  That price is entirely dependent on belief, which can change from one day to another.

And the problem with most crypto market caps is that they *essentially* consist of speculation, and only marginally of the price set by the demand for its use (given by Fisher's formula).  This makes that these assets are totally unreliable, *especially* as store of value.  So this domination of speculation kills the usage of it.

But my conclusion remains that one cannot "invest" in a monetary asset.  One can USE a monetary asset to transport value from today to later.  Early adopters will gain, at the expense of late users, but this phenomenon is not an "investment".  An "investment" is an action where you use value today not to consume directly, but to do things that create new value in the future.  That is not possible in a system that only TRANSPORTS value.  If you get more out, that means that someone has lost it on the other end.  Which is not the case with an investment.

Dinofelis.  You seem to be a fairly smart guy; however, you are just coming off as a bit wrong-headed in your attempts to characterize markets, etc, including the value of bitcoin in comparison to other cryptos.

To me, it seems that your oversimplification is likely going to get you into trouble regarding recognizing the value of bitcoin and various methods of investing that go beyond gambling, pyramid schemes and ponzi schemes.

This concept of investing in bitcoin is a zero sum game comes off as ridiculous, and it sounds like some of the same incomplete nonsense arguments that are made regarding social security being a ponzi scheme... ridiculous.




I doubt that it is really worth it to get into these kinds of comparisons with you. Sure, crypto currencies are like stocks in several ways and they are not like stocks in several ways, and in the end, we can evaluate the differences between various cryptos and we can evaluate the differences between various stocks.  Performance of stocks and cryptos are going to correlate with various conditions in the market and they are also going to correlate (and accordingly differ from one another) based on various fundamentals that are attributable to particulars that are individual to that stock, asset or crypto.




I am beginning to get the sense that it is a waste of time to engage with you about these kinds of wrong-headed theories.  Sure, you are free to have those kinds of beliefs and to spout your opinion, and I get the sense that you are losing quite a bit of insight regarding the value of bitcoin and potentially regarding the value of a variety of other matters in life by suggesting that bitcoin is a kind of ponzi scheme that relies on "greater fools" as you like to suggest over and over and over..




Yes, you are free to invest accordingly, if that is what you believe.


Yeah right.  We are not all dumb, merely because we don't see your conclusion here. 

I agree with you that some cryptos are likely kinds of ponzi schemes, but we are getting repetitive here if you expect that anyone here (including me) wants to get lured into distracting and baloney arguments to continue to differentiate the various cryptos... people are free to engage in such differentiations for themselves and come to their own conclusions... and really this thread is supposed to be about matters related to "ETH game over" blah blah blah, and we seem to be getting quite far afield.



I think that I already made my various points regarding this, and in essence if you believe one asset is either over valued or undervalued then you should invest accordingly.  And, therefore, it seems that in accordance with your viewpoints,  you should have little to no investment into any cryptos.  I have different conclusions, especially in regard to bitcoin, and I am already investing according to my viewpoint, and it does not matter too much to me whether you have a negative viewpoint or not, I am recognizing you as getting caught up into overlysimplified and erroneous assessments based on your perceptions including the value of speculation and the underlying fundamental values, which differ from my assessments.



Of course we differ in views and an asset is worth as much as folks are willing to pay for it.  Accordingly, the security of bitcoin could allow for a $100k price point per BTC, but surely it could take some time to get there and I am NOT holding my breath.  In other words, I have the sense that the odds of bitcoin going up is greater than it going down, and you can hold out for $10 per bitcoin if you like, and good luck with that.



O.k.   We kind of agree that bitcoin is used more than ethereum, and in essence, there are probably not too many folks who could point out actual useage locations for ethereum (besides trading), though I am sure that a few exist , and some of the die hard ethereum folks may know about these obscure useage avenues of ethereum.

The point is that, when one compares crypto currencies, one has tendency to look at the market cap.  Bitcoin is champion there for the moment, and probably still for quite some time.  However, that market cap is essentially a measure of the greater fool theory gambling, and as such, meaningless. 

I have nothing against speculation an sich.   However, speculation in a zero-sum game is quite ridiculous (that said, if you're good at it, you can become rich, I won't deny that), because the gains of some, are the losses of others.  All people participating in such a game are just trying to rip one another off.

This is totally different with investing and speculating on the stock market.  The stock market is not a zero-sum game, because there is influx of dividend and there is economic growth (increase of production capital value).  If I hold stock of a small company in which I invested, say, $1000,-, and if that stock grows, it means that my $1000,- have been used very well by that small company to acquire production capital in such a way that it produces a lot of value, and generates economic growth.   When I sell that stock for $5000,- to someone else, I'm not ripping off anybody, because that stock is now really worth $5000,- with the dividends that go with it.  Of course there's a part of speculation, in that when I sell my stock, I hope to sell it to someone that will OVER estimate the value of that stock.  But even if I sell it at the "right price" if I did a good investment, I make benefit, in the sense that I *get some of the produced value and the economic growth*.

In other words, on the stock market, everybody, or most people, can get benefit.

Not so in the zero-sum game of trading tokens.   The $10,- you spend on a bitcoin in 2011 didn't bring any growth, capital investment, or what so ever.  The fact of selling that for $600,- today is not the fact of getting a reward of an investment in production capital.  It is only "greater fool" stuff, which works, as long as there is "more adoption" (more greater fools).

The last layer of adopters will have paid for all the benefit of everybody in bitcoin.  Like with black tulips.  And that last layer will have run out of 'greater fools'.

Now, there's nothing "morally wrong" with participating in a mutual rip-off scam, but at least you should know that it is that and nothing more.

But the big problem with all that, is that the market cap is WAY TOO HIGH.  This attracts a lot of troubles, like regulators intervening, institutions getting interested in bitcoin and all that. 

As you say, some speculation is unavoidable, and even good for the fluidity of markets.  But when an asset is essentially driven by speculation, it gets denatured and its true purpose gets drowned by the speculative activity around it.

I would by large have preferred bitcoin to have been at $10, of which $9 is demand for real usage, rather than $600, with probably something like $10 from demand for usage.   Thats $590 of trouble and regulation for nothing, harming its real usage.

I have to say that I have no idea about the "real usage" of bitcoin versus the "real usage" of ethereum.  Both are tiny.  I guess you're right that bitcoin is somewhat more used (I use it, not much, but it is essentially my only "activity" in crypto, to buy stuff), simply because I have NO IDEA where ethereum is used "for real" that is not gambling, betting or another form of lottery.

Sure, of course, there is some truth to what you are saying in that there continues to be a lot more speculation in bitcoin rather than utility use, but so what?  Most of my point in responding to your earlier post was to assert that there is a lot more to bitcoin beyond speculation and should not be compared as an equivalent of ethereum, even though both of them share this speculation aspect.

Maybe bitcoin is 92% speculation, and if that is the case then ethereum is 98% speculation.  Alternatively, if bitcoin is 75% speculation, then ethereum is 90% speculation, and no matter what your attribution of speculation is, you are likely getting too distracted if you attempt to assert that both of them are similar based on the speculation component that concededly each of them have.




Well, maybe you are correct, but you are still seem to be attempting to focus your entire analysis on the speculative component, and losing some of the dynamics of bitcoin and the differentiations between bitcoin and ethereum by maintaining such speculation focus.

Almost any new asset that has any liquidation at all is going to invite speculation, and especially when such speculation has shown to be profitable, and so what?  it is merely a component that evolves, and likely is more pronounced and present while the opportunities for growth are greatest and as the news gets out about its profit making potential, whether that be to the upside or the downside.






again, so what?   Surely, aspects of speculation can be aggravating, especially when it causes price movements that destabalize the user base in various ways, but it remains an apparent necessary evil because it also brings investment and attention and allows such an asset to potentially develop based on the infusion of money and incentives for such development.  Despite a lot of speculation, there is also fundamental added value - especially with bitcoin that brings a kind of secure immutable decentralized value transmission and storage that had not been previously seen by mankind.

Sure, Ethereum brings some value too and in different ways, and also it would not be fair to completely criticize ethereum in terms of it ONLY being speculation - yet I would argue that the value brought by ethereum and the value brought by bitcoin are sufficiently different - yet bitcoin trumps ethereum in several ways because of its secure immutable decentralization - and also, it is quite likely that all of the components of ethereum can be absorbed into bitcoin, to the extent that they are useful, and it is a bit ludicrous to think that the same can be said about ethereum to absorb all of the aspects of bitcoin... hahahahahaha.. ethereum is not secure enough for such absorption, and recently, they have also demonstrated that they lack decentralized immutability.



Sufficiently enough difference to make a material difference, and as I already asserted several times that sufficient and material difference is in terms of secure decentralized immutability.

Maybe we can agree to disagree about this point about whether there is a sufficient and material difference?  This will most likely play out in the market in the coming years, and I will concede that sometimes the better tech does not always prevail because there is more to the success of any development beyond which is better.

Nonetheless, in this case, I personally remain of the belief that bitcoin is fundamentally heads and shoulders above ethereum and above any competition that in the longer term it is likely to prevail, unless somehow it loses aspects of its secure decentralized immutability.




My point is that there's no such thing as "investing" in crypto.  You only *gamble* on crypto if you pretend "investing".  You gamble in a greater fool theory casino.  Which doesn't mean that you cannot win a lot of money, but that is at the expense of other gamblers.