If it survives until the halving next year, maybe it isn't just a Tulip-mania or Beanie Babies scenario. If it last that long, could it be......Legit???
It's already lasted 6 years, like you mentioned.
Anyone using the phrases "tulip" or "beanie baby" as a parallel is a fucking idiot, and has been for a while.
You should buy more and prove the analogy wrong, so far it's working out decently well.
[/img
What I never understand when people do this kind of comparison is the lack of understanding that no matter what bubble you zoom in to, 2011, 2013, whichever, they ALWAYS look like the tulip graph.
The difference is that bitcoin always has a next one
The tulip bubble fits better than any other bubble in history chart wise.
The tulip bubble had 2 major bubbles as you can see.
The BTC bubble had 3. The last 2 of them look exactly as the tulip ones, the first one (the 32$ to 2$ one, on mtgox) was done when price and market cap were more than 100X less what they are today, so a lot easier to pump and insignificant in scale as the other ones.
What's your point?
His point is exactly what he said, pay attention because reading comprehension is important:
What I never understand when people do this kind of comparison is the lack of understanding that no matter what bubble you zoom in to, 2011, 2013, whichever, they ALWAYS look like the tulip graph.
The difference is that bitcoin always has a next one
To illustrate this, I'll use the exact tulip chart you linked. It came from this site:
http://seekingalpha.com/author/dan-naumov/instablogWhat's unintentionally funny about your post is that you used a picture that this guy posted trying to compare BTC to tulips back in April of 2013. The top line of that blog post read as follows:
"Bitcoin Breaks 100$"
...he proposed his version of the theory and put it up on 4/2/2013.
Put very simply, He tried to say
exactly what you're saying now almost two years ago. He was wrong then. It turned out to be a false analogy based on only the value aspect of BTC to something else that had value at some point in history. Trying to claim the same thing now comes off as either stupid, FUD, or trolling - or some combination of the three. Your user name and lacking content shed light on which of those three your claim is largely comprised of.
Now, the author was correct in saying BTC was in a bubble at that time. Plenty of people were saying it and were right. He then went on to incorrectly make the assumption that
because BTC was in a bubble that it would behave identically to something else in history that also went through a bubble... despite the two assets/items in question having
nothing else in common. At one point in their history, tulips did have scarcity in common with BTC - again, given that we're discussing ridiculously different assets, their scarcity was not limited by their design. Supply of tulips started to catch up. The supply of BTC is fixed.
Guess what happened after he wrote this? The bubble popped, BTC corrected, did lots of sideways movement, corrected more and then went through the fucking roof. Again.
Just like it did when it went up to $266 from $10.
Just like it did when it went up to $32 from <$1.
Getting back to your flawed point:
The tulip bubble fits better than any other bubble in history chart wise.
Except that it doesn't. The tulip's value bubble correlates with all of BTC's bubbles for possibly 90% of the initial duration. The ridiculously important detail you missed was the last 10% when Tulips go right to 0 and BTC corrects down, does some price finding and then survives, and has historically gone on to do it all the fuck over again, and see a new ATH due largely to speculation.
