Topic: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;) - page 287. (Read 907227 times)

do you share this? - would probably be interested in this for interest/scientific purposes

...
 Most every time the benefits of a new technology, properly applied, have benefited the average Joe sooner or later.
...

Just follow the exponential trendline. It is already like 900. By buying now it is very difficult to lose. Yes, I have spent countless of hours analysing it.

1. I generally disagree with this one. Never in the history of mankind has the average Joe won in mass, IMHO. Somehow I don't believe it will magically happen now that Bitcoin is around.

Hasn't hit 500.. yet. So technically he's still right (for how long I'm not sure)

1.  The Average Joe will win.  He will be jealous of his friend who had the foresight to purchase coins at $10,000 / BTC, but he will see that a transition to bitcoin represents a jubilee for his unmanageable debt load.

2.  The already rich will win.  They will retain ownership of the productive capital they already control.  The will also read the writing on the wall before average Joe and possibly amplify their financial assets too.  

3.  The already politically-powerful will win.  Why fight to destroy bitcoin when you can stealthily work to make it grow and increase your independent power and wealth?

4.  Established institutions like the IRS, Fed, NSA, IMF will lose.  However, many of the talented individuals currently working in such institutions will win by hastening their demise and exploiting their insider knowledge.  

Risto said no more $500 coins ever.

If I can't trust his predictions who's can I trust?...

Risto said no more $500 coins ever.

If I can't trust his predictions who's can I trust?...

Which would you prefer, Creekbore?  #1 or #2.  

We both think cryptocurrency is here to stay, for when has a useful technology ever been abandoned? 

We both agree that there are two "end states" for government in a high-technology word:

(1) a totalitarian one-world government with vast surveillance infrastructure and abusive control;

(2) a highly-decentralized world with small local self-governed communities interacting freely with other communities. 

You think (1) is more likely while I think (2) is.  AnonyMint, we are witnessing the beginnings of a social movement to break free from oppressive bureaucracy, regulation, and invasion of privacy.  We are choosing to "opt-out," we are choosing to decentralize.     

Peter R no offense please, but I think this post is illogical, but I can't articulate until after I get some sleep.

Since bitcoin is undervalued (for the reasons you point out), its price and user-base will continue to grow.  The probability that it succeeds increases with a growing user-base (all other variables held constant) such that your net present-value calculation remains greater than its present trading value.  The dynamics of bitcoin growth represent an unstable feedback system with only two equilibrium points: becoming the dominant global currency, becoming nothing at all.  

The only way I can imagine the bitcoin network would stop growing (over the long term) would be for it to become no longer useful.  It would be no longer useful if secp256k1/sha256 was quickly broken, if the network was constantly under relentless 51% and Sybil attacks, if efficient and coordinated government action made it extremely onerous to use, or if a much better idea came around.    


I disagree.  

I think we could transition from fiat to bitcoin reasonably peacefully and quickly.  The important thing is that bitcoin can still facilitate the global trade required to provide a constant flow of goods and energy into the major cities (unlike a sudden transition to a gold standard).  As long as global trade doesn't quickly break down, reasonable social order will be maintained.  

Most people will benefit from the "collapse" and will work to make it happen.

1.  The Average Joe will win.  He will be jealous of his friend who had the foresight to purchase coins at $10,000 / BTC, but he will see that a transition to bitcoin represents a jubilee for his unmanageable debt load.

2.  The already rich will win.  They will retain ownership of the productive capital they already control.  The will also read the writing on the wall before average Joe and possibly amplify their financial assets too.  

3.  The already politically-powerful will win.  Why fight to destroy bitcoin when you can stealthily work to make it grow and increase your independent power and wealth?

4.  Established institutions like the IRS, Fed, NSA, IMF will lose.  However, many of the talented individuals currently working in such institutions will win by hastening their demise and exploiting their insider knowledge.  

5.  People reliant on government entitlement spending for lavish pensions will lose, but hopefully their kids were bitcoiners!

A few billionaires will be demoted to 100 millionaires, and a few (some from the forum no doubt) will take their place.  But otherwise, the social mobility will be a lot less than what people imagine.  

It's only money after all.  

Excuse my prose I haven't slept and am delirious .

For something to be a currency then it needs to be accepted by many different types of merchants. A few dozens of merchants targeting us white males who are invested and want to spend using BTC to show support for our investment isn't necessarily going to the critical mass needed.

Hey I would be all in favor of a crypto-currency even if it had limited adoption. But to have utility to me, I would need to be confident that the government can't just shut it down at-will by regulating the exchanges. Otherwise what is the point?

You all are rather betting big. You require that Bitcoin changes the world in 2 years. Your extrapolations are that severe.

Actually what Taleb says is that risk is near impossible to predict and therefore should be more or less discounted.  Investments should be done via extremes or a "barbell" approach as he calls it, ultra-conservative and ultra-risky.  Bitcoin should fall in the ultra-risky category but make sure you have the other side of the barbell covered too  

I wrote upthread that if Bitcoin doesn't morph into an offchain currency with all the conveniences provided for the masses, then it appears to be limited to the white male demographic. So that would limit the upside price to much less than the projections of $100,000+. If it morphs, then it can become those other things. Two scenarios.

Just want to point that how do we know if that isn't mostly investment flow in and out of speculation on BTC's price?  I don't consider that to be commerce, rather just the BTC speculation bubble itself.

It is truly amazing to me.  Consider:  While there are many unknowns and unforeseen eventualities, BTC is currently the only candidate for replacing the entire fiat monetary system.  There is no fundamental reason why it cannot do so, the opportunity to do so remains open, and the eventual replacement of that system by a successor technology is essentially inevitable, be it bitcoin or a modification of bitcoin, or a revolutionary expansion built upon bitcoin technology -- which would probably be most accessible via bitcoin in its initial stages in any case. 

I will make what I consider to be pessimistic assumptions:  (1) No growth in GDP globally, ever.  (2) 5% chance of bitcoin evolving to replace fiat currency and gold.  (3) 20 year horizon for the replacement.  (4) 8% discounting rate, 5.5% USD inflation.  In that case there is a 5% chance that the net present value of a bitcoin spent 20 years from today is some number north of 500k.  On those assumptions, a fair present price for a single bitcoin would be at least 25k.  Bitcoin appears to be undervalued by a factor on ther order of 100x.

But, humans tend to discount the future rather more aggressively than is rational (Areily), and to discount low probability events rather more aggressively than is rational (Taleb).  So it is not terribly surprising, in that case.