Topic: Great time to buy - page 2. (Read 8731 times)

^ For someone that doesn't believe in the need for cryptocurrencies you sure do spend a HELL of a lot of time on a forum dedicated to them. 

The world doesn't need a cryptocurrency, it might need distributed ledgers technologies, but a distributed ledger technology that makes sense doesn't necessarily need a cryptocurrency in order to work like in the bitcoin the currency-blockchain system.

You could use distributed ledger technologies in order to send fiat currencies internationally for almost zero fees (like the ripple network is trying to do, again, not ripple the coin, and again, ripple is just an example, hyperledger and others are trying to do similar things), use it for applications such as smart contracts and others. Basically for all the reasons you are saying bitcoin is great, bitcoin THE CURRENCY IS not only unnecessary, but it creates more problems than it tries to solve, such as irreversibility (0 consumer protection, a chimera any payment system should avoid like the plague), slow transactions, higher fees in the future, volatility, scalability, and countless others. And overall, fiat currencies work just fine, a new volatile irreversible currency is not what is useful or needed.

That why I am using the "cryptocurrencies = pets.com" analogy and that's why I am taking tulips only for the chart comparison as an example of a bubble that bursted even tho the two don't share much fundamentals wise.

The chart you posted is just on a different time scale.

There is all the time in the world for the BTC price to "drop completely" (as you say, but again, tulips never went to 0 so they didn't actually "drop completely") like tulips did    



[/img




Lol. "go off a tangent?"
My point is that bitcoin is a bubble, the pets.com analogy is arguably even more relevant to the point than the tulip chart comparison.

I take it as, "I don't know how to answer that and I don't want to go in depth"


Ok, I take it you are gonna continue nitpick about semantics for the rest of the discussion.

I'm sorry that English isn't your first language.  Considering that we're conversing via an English forum, it's important that we're all working with the same ground rules, or else there's no point in attempting honest communication.

Claiming that "tulips going from their ATH -> zero in half a year" is exactly the same as "BTC going from it's ATH -> 1/6th of the ATH in a year" is inherently false.  Chalking it up to semantics is a bad look.

If you're going to try and base an argument off of a false premise, you also have to accept that some people will choose to ignore you after that - because it ends up becoming a waste of time.


I agree that they show a lot of similarity, up until the last portion - again where Tulips drop completely and BTC hasn't dropped anywhere near close to the same point.  In fact, BTC has now been hovering just around where the previous ATH was.  The Tulips' chart didn't do anything remotely close to that.



Again, I honestly don't wish to go off on a tangent in this discussion about fundamentals and trying to correlate BTC -> Pets.com now.  I don't blame you for trying to shift the discussion away.

I'm simply tearing the weak argument that Tulips = BTC apart, and not having to work very hard to do it.

In all seriousness, trolls were comparing Tulips and BTC back in early 2013, and midway a bit, and could almost get away with it.  It just doesn't work anymore.

English is not my first language, so problems you have with the words I'm using may be because of that? Who cares?
The two charts show a "High degree of similarity". That is what I meant and it's just obvious they can't be 100% the same.

I hope everybody else can see you are just nitpicking about semantics, but whatever  


Still no mention of anything regarding the pets.com analogy I posted, that works better if we are talking fundamentals.
Y u no talk bout that?

There we go, good to see some acceptance of your earlier flawed argument.

Now, then - what else makes BTC similar to Tulips?

Take a real honest moment there and read what you wrote. 

You said:

"look identical" != "identical"

Now ask yourself why I would try to struggle through deciphering more of your enigmatic self-made vocabulary in a whole other maybe-related post?

Wow, okay so you're saying that "look identical" != identical.

This is why I won't be reading whatever other nonsensical post you're trying to point to.

"retraces completely, Given enough time?" oooookay... let's look at the time

Here's your picture:


Looks to be about half of a year that it retraced from the highest point there down to zero.

Now let's look at Bitcoin:



That's strange.  Here we are using a technology that is able to be transferred quickly and globally, with quite a few exchanges and on the 2 year chart we're still not at zero.

That doesn't look anything look tulips at all.



Thanks, I guess? I was arguing that they didn't share it, and it was the closest thing that they both had in common besides a bubble.  I literally was throwing that in there to try and help you out, but now you're down to the only comparison between tulips and BTC being two charts that are vaguely similar, which in your mind vaguely similar=identical/looks identical/exactly the same.


...and now you're admitting that the tulip chart was drawn on graph paper by some unknown person, possibly using incorrect or flawed data? 

Don't forget that you were the one that brought the chart up to try and make your point that BTC = Tulips.

You're doing all my work for me on disproving your point, man.

Comment on the pets.com analogy instead of talking semantics.

Again, of course they are not 100% identical and they won't unfold in EXACTLY the same manner. What the hell?
Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

Also, there is all the time in the world for bitcoin to go way lower than what it is now, don't be so impatient.

Nope, bitcoin is going to drop to $0.065 in few months
BTC going from $1200 -> $0.065 = tulips going $64,000 -> $3.50

@ThatDGuy:

Jesus Christ dude, are we talking semantics now?

I said "look identical", not identical, of course they can't be "exactly 100% identical" FFS.
What I meant is that  the charts show a bubble that doesn't retrace completely (the first tulip bubble I circled) that continues to pump fairly quickly in another one that then eventually retraces completely to reach very low prices, given enough time.
Two bubbles relatively close in time, as the initial charts I posted shows.

Simple. As. That.


Yes, in 2011 BTC was easily "pumpable", a lot of penny stocks easily pump to $1B-$10B marketcap, so anything that has a marketcap A LOT smaller than that can be easily pumped. There are countless famous examples of penny stocks pump&dumps.
It was easily pumpable especially compared to the current marketcap ($2-$3 B).

If you can't understand the difference between pumping bitcoin at $2 to reach a high of $32  and beyond and pumping it at $250 to reach a high of $1200 and beyond I don't know what to say to you.



Whatever, my point is that scarcity doesn't matter. Such similarities/differences between the two items/assets are just details.
And yes I took the occasion to talk about the so called "scarcity argument" and to say that it is a non-argument for bitcoin. So?

Why don't you comment on the pets.com analogy I mentioned instead of talking about details such as scarcity of tulips and bitcoins?



PS: can't you understand that the tulip chart I posted is highly simplified and that it probably never went to zero in the first place?

On "December 05, 2013" you posted an accurate prediction.
Here we are again, and now it is a great time to buy.   

So you're saying that Bitcoin's a somewhat better investment than tulip bulbs?*
I guess for now, before the price really tanks.  Give it a few months/year

---

*If you bought said bulbs at peak price

Are you sure you're trying to make this point now? It would significantly detract from your prior, still-flawed argument.

Tulips look to be about $3.50 on that site, in today's dollars, whereas at the peak of tulipmania when an average tulip bulb was running $64,000.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/12/when-certain-tulips-cost-more-than-a-house/

So you're trying to say that BTC going from $1200 -> $244 = tulips going $64,000 -> $3.50?

Math can be hard sometimes, but come on.

Let's take a step back: the link I grabbed was from -your- tulip bubble chart.  Not mine.  I would not have referenced someone who ended up postulating a theory proven false and then try to claim that today it's true.


You're making a lot of weird assumptions now to try and support your point, such as BTC being easily pumpable or whatever.  Those are getting thrown out.  The main point you appear to be trying to make is that BTC is just like tulips because when looking at one view, their bubbles have a similar form - and even that is false.

Right here:


You keep using this word "EXACTLY"...



Because, in the chart that -you- brought up, it very clearly shows Tulips going down directly to zero.

Bitcoin has never once done that, it didn't do it after the first bubble, it didn't do it after the second, and it hasn't done it after the third

Zoom out or in to any point you want, but you appear to be adding your own speculation that it will go to zero and then trying to make the subsequent claim that tulips = BTC.



I don't know what the value of a tulip bulb is today - however, the evidence that you provided to create your theory shows this:



If you'll note, at the bottom where the line stops, that number is zero.  We are using your own graphs here, so if you have an issue with it, you're more than welcome to throw it out.

Now, conveniently you say this:


The reason why it's convenient, is that once again you've contradicted your own evidence, by saying that Bitcoin will have a price that is not zero.  Here again, you're admitting that Bitcoin provides value, while Tulips went up, and then went to zero.  They never had another bubble.  The sheer fact that Bitcoin exists and has relevance *after* the bubble also disproves your theory.



Identical? No.  Nothing is identical about the two charts you posted.  I've shown it clearly many times, and your refusal to accept that is starting to become indicative of your refusal to accept the fact that words have meanings:

Identical: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/identical
Adjective
1. Similar or alike in every way

Exactly: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exactly
Adverb
1. in an exact manner; precisely; accurately.



No offense, but nothing you've written here gives me any confidence of your ability to construct a well-thought-out argument supporting a theory.  If you want to start talking about fundamentals somewhere else, you're more than welcome.  Your original point was that BTC's recent bubbles and tulips' bubbles were exactly/identically the same (therefore, they are comparable?) but that is false.  The fundamental differences between tulips and BTC are so wildly different that bringing them up here in anything other than a cursory mention would just further derail the discussion.  I can absolutely see why you would want to derail it now given that your initial premise was inherently flawed.


Awww "you bitcoiners"? Now you're showing your true colors.  In no way was I trying to suggest that BTC's scarcity is what provides it with value, but here you've gone and taken one aspect of what I wrote and attempted to turn it into something of a point.

What you missed was that I brought up scarcity as one of the only similarities between tulips and BTC, and even then it was only a quality they shared for part of the time, as Tulips scarcity was never limited.  BTC's scarcity is limited by design.  I was arguing that tulips' scarcity was part of what drove their prices higher and the inability to limit said scarcity was certainly a contributing factor in their swift demise.

Summing everything up, your two charts were never identical/exactly the same.  Attempting to use those two charts and try to say that BTC=tulips is just poor trollsmanship.

Exactly my point  

They still have a price that is not zero, of course  

AFAIK tulip bulbs are expansive 
http://www.hollandbulbfarms.com/items.asp?cat=Cheap-Tulip-Bulbs&Cc=cheaptulipbulbs

If you take offense to it it must be true.  I don't insult people who make valid points, I only call the truth, sorry if it hurts.

Who is talking about infrastructure? I am saying the world doesn't need cryptocurrencies, not that a shitcoin is gonna replace BTC lol

When people here says something you don't like you start to insult them with empty personal attacks. Classic.


I don't give a fuck about no shitcoin son, never did.