Topic: r0ach's Cryptomarkets Watch & Scamcoin Observer - page 19. (Read 47262 times)

I see even an oligarchy controlled Bitcoin as better than Paypal, because:

1. Bitcoin is a global politik; and thus even the Chinese mining oligarchy (cum banksters pulling the strings behind the curtain) can't do anything which isn't politically correct globally.

2. Thus Bitcoin will retain many attributes that Paypal as a corporate offering can't provide such as inability to deny any person in any account equal opportunity to access, inability to enforce holdbacks, block certain industries, and other arbitrary shit Paypal does which make my head want to explode. Bitcoin is a trojan horse launched by the global elite to subvert any localized attempt to block/control the shift to digital currency.

3. Thus I predict enormous adoption for Bitcoin, but just remember it will be owned and controlled by the global elite (aka the banksters). And the global socialism will enforce a global confiscation/expropriation of those with wealth, in the coming years. It will be a bittersweet success.

I very much doubt it becomes a "better" Paypal for the masses for the simple reason that it isn't better.

I would be bet on failure over widespread usage of a coopted system. In fact I'd lay significant odds on that bet. (Though failure is somewhat difficult to define precisely -- let's say significant loss of value and usage.)

You and Armstrong are both wrong on the future of BitCON:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14854131

As for the price action I predicted, stay tuned...


It is not clear if it will destroyed or merely turned into a tool to confiscate wealth, and a better Paypal for the masses. My bet is the totalitarian variant of the future. Click the link above to find out why. Men need a tyrant.

But still, there's an intriguing side point. Is there a fellow who can truthfully brag about living in a "Bitcoin-only" economy, in which he makes his way by earning BTC and spending BTC - and not touching fiat?

You're right: such a person - if such a person exists - is almost certainly "living the Bitcoin lifestyle" with the perhaps-unknowing aid of Coinbase, et. al. But the new has gotta grow within the old: that's a law of economic life. The first industrial use for steam engines was not trains, it was pumping water out of mines (a centuries-old extractive industry.)   

Here is another one.

Altcoins to Bitcoin is what gold is to traditional portfolio of stocks and bonds. It is often a recommendation to save 10% in gold, it's not unwise to apply the same ratio(nale) to a cryptocoin portfolio.

What part of your rent is not a consistent BTC price month-to-month did you not understand?

The rent is priced in dollars. You convert the exchange rate.

And Bitcoin has more upside, but from $50 it has 10X more upside than from $500.

Don't pretend has suddenly become less volatile. It is only a $6 bullion mcap.

I agree, gold is less of a gamble. It still is not a unit-of-account anywhere in the world and it can be confiscated, albeit not as easily as Bitcoin.

It is funny you mention that.  I often read stories about people asking their landlords to accept BTC on the forum and it usually seems to work.  Apparently most landlords are just thrilled to be receiving some type of payment on time at all, whether it's Bitcoin or Kyle Bass paying them entirely in nickels.

Your rent is not priced in BTC. Please look up the definition of unit-of-account.


That doesn't stop me from handing it down to my offspring as an heirloom. Eventually it becomes legal again.

Gold can't go "poof". Bitcoin can, just by the future government control over the protocol is able to turn off your number. You'll never get it back.

I think Anonymint is biased against Bitcoin due to living in the Philippines.  I can live entirely on Bitcoin in the US no problem, while attempting to do the same thing with gold would be an act of comedy.

Gold has been banned many times in many countries, including the beacon of liberty, US in 1933. Gold is also a gamble. Significantly less risky than Bitcoin or rather a different risk category but a gamble. Bitcoin and cryptocoins in general are more risky but cheaper and you can move value in them across borders. The point I am trying to make, everything is a gamble. Can you name one asset class that is not a gamble in the Orwellian future you picture? I don't understand what you mean by gold is a unit-of-account, nobody prices stuff in gold ounces or grams, people measure their gold investment in what fiat value it can be sold for. Ditto for Bitcoin. Both of them are not unit-of-account, only a store of value, gold being a much more popular store of value.

Because everyone knows they can't trust a new untested technology. Gold has a couple 1000s years of reliability under its belt.

And people don't hold gold as an heirloom because it is a unit-of-account. They do it because it feels impressive in their hand, and they feel confident it will represent a store-of-value that will outlive their offspring. No one can claim that with a straight face about BitCON.

People are holding BTC in the expectation it will be worth more and spendable on the Internet during and beyond the crisis we face. This is why Bitcoin needs to decline to $50 in order to scare some of them into selling. Once all the weakest of the strong hands have capitulated and their confidence broken, then we will be ready for a new speculative fever in BitCON again.

We need many people to hate/dismiss Bitcoin again like they did after the crash from $30, to reset the speculative opportunity again. Speculative pumps are created by people who can buy very cheap. Remember this, BitCON is not an ideology. It is a speculation. We tend to forget why people buy BitCON (because they conflate a lot of ideological tinfoil hat crap into their muddled thought process[1]).

Ditto gold.

I still think the low is not yet done. But I might be wrong.


[1] Look I used to do that too. I now realize why I lost my 18,000oz of silver was partially due to being irrational about ideological tinfoil hat type fears and thought processes. I also lost it for other unrelated reasons, but the tinfoil hat delusion shit was one of the reasons.

How do you know this?

Nobody uses gold coins as their unit-of-account for the major expenditures of their life, they hold gold to pass from generation to next or exchange for fiat when they need to buy something. Why do you think some people don't hold Bitcoin for the same reasons?

I never said you should sell and wait for the dip. That is your decision to make. I also didn't say a V crash is certain, but rather contingent.

I didn't even get into counterparty risk of where to store your alternative value if one chooses to exit Bitcoin now in anticipation of lower prices later. You could definitely hold physical dollars ($20s not $100s) and probably be sure of being able to convert those back into BTC. But there are issues such as how much cash you can convert at a time and that does move you back through the anti-money laundering rigmarole.

Other options are to short Bitcoin. But timing is very critical and also exchange risk.

Personally if I still had any money (which I don't!) I would sell some BTC and hold dollars. Then I would prepare to buy gold < $1050 (probably $850ish) with the cash. Down the line I could convert that gold back to crypto again. If I got lucky to buy BTC < $150 with any of that cash, then I would do that.

In short, I'd diversify.

Not selling any of this deadcat bounce from $230 up to $470, is I think foolish. Always sell some of the rallies. Never HODL everything, except for heirlooms.

No; heirloom is defined as something that you pass from generation to next, such as collectibles and include gold coins.

Everyone is holding Bitcoin in expectation of making more money on it, not because Bitcoin is their unit-of-account. Nobody uses Bitcoin as their unit-of-account, except for as a reserve currency for crypto gambling & speculation, then they do count how many BTC they gained or lost. But no one is using it as a unit-of-account for the major expenditures of their life. No one. Not one. (and anyone who is, is tinfoil hat insane)

Not using as a unit of account but using as a store of value IS holding it as a heirloom. Long shot speculation? Yes, like most everything else.

Anonymint is totally overlooking counterparty risk of banks here and it makes 0 sense to me.  Physical cash, Bitcoin, and gold is the only three things I'd want to hold during it.  You cannot play carpet bagger and "buy the dip" of whatever asset using physical cash or gold because...you simply can't.  You're basically advocating storing all your money in a bank as digital fiat of no value during the biggest financial crash in history with the objective of day trading it, which doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

Look guys it is very simple. Bitcoin is not the fiat that everyone uses as their unit-of-account, thus fiat up, Bitcoin down just like every other speculative (hot money) asset in a liquidity crunch.

People invest in Bitcoin to make money, not to hold it as a heirloom. Thus when shorting becomes the new profit trend, the speculators chase the trend. The loaners of BTC raise their rates. Everybody is happy. Bitcoin goes down.

2008 took silver from $21 to $9. Bitcoin is more volatile than silver.

Come on guys, Bitcoin is not cash. That is the dumbest thing I've ever read. Bitcoin is a crypto gambler's addiction. Period. You guys need to get out and get some fresh air and look at yourselves more objectively.

I don't see any of this happening with BTC. I agree with r0ach that it is a lot like cash here. In a bank run, banks fail because people want cash, not deposits. Exchanges may fail because people want physical BTC but it won't make physical BTC less valuable, it will make it a lot more valuable.

But paradoxically people may want USD, especially cash, even more than BTC, which wouldn't be anything new, so the BTC price in USD may fall even though the deleveraging of BTC shorts is acting to push it higher.

r0ach, the problem is that most of BTC's current value is risk-on speculation. If speculators want to de-risk, then BTC goes down. That competes with wanting hard assets (driving BTC up), and it isn't clear which effect dominates. I suspect down, because I don't think BTC has matured enough to be viewed as a safe haven by anyone other than a few crypto heads. Someday it may get there, but not yet.