Topic: THIS CRASH IS DIFFERENT than previous crashes... The FEDERAL RESERVE is why.... (Read 1577 times)

I share some of your skepticisms regarding leaders, but I still doubt that you are describing people in any kind of an appropriate way because there are leaders in all kinds of capacities, and sometimes there are needs to have one person be responsible for a certain area or activity, but that does not mean that s/he leads in all areas merely because s/he is chosen as a leader..   

Somethings need leaders and other things do not, but if you do not have any leader and there are discretionary matters, it might not really matter so much which of the choices are made, but a choice needs to be made, even if there are discretionary matters that are presented to the leader or the group.. and we cannot have everyone trying make all decisions and even decisions for the group's interests.

Another matter relates to decisions regarding whether to uphold decisions that had already been made in previous times or to make changes to existing systems, sometimes there are values to keeping existing systems, sometimes there are needs to tweak and sometimes there are needs to totally abandon certain systems and to establish new ones.  We would not want leaders to go beyond their authority, so we want leaders with good judgement, and surely the qualities of good leaders is not easy to find, but sometimes these kinds of people are needed, and it depends on the situation and the scope of the responsibilities whether some people are capable and how are they chosen and whether it might be better to not have any one leader or do we have everyone decide certain things?  None of these are easy answers... even if you seem to be suggesting that it is a deficiency in people to want to have leaders.


There are a lot of so called "libertarians" who are anti-government who seem to think that the world would be better without any government, or they want to describe what kind of government is good and what kind is not good, but sometimes the answers will depend on the will of the group.. which is a kind of government to the extent that there might be a belief that group interests exist that will not necessarily resolve on their own (through voluntary efforts).

I am pretty sure that bitcoin does not take away the need for government and leaders, but there are likely ways that bitcoin will continue to inspire various changes in incentives in connection with money and value  which has been a way that governments and leaders have been  corrupted through a large portion of human history because there seem to be a lot of ways that money system have devolved into abuses, even if there may have also been times in which monetary systems have brought value to various societies.. and surely some players have been able to profit more than others (Cantillon effect) even when the systems might have been relatively more fair than other systems.

Thank you. That's what I think too. If we discard very unlikely events, we can say that we are there, near the new bottom now. It doesn't mean it's time to sell everything and buy BTC. I bet some people can ignore Bitcoin completely during the next couple of years, and still be doing OK. Like you can ignore Kindle, and think that it will never be as good as paper books, but the reality is, it is better, the future of reading  belongs to it, same as the future of money belongs to Bitcoin.

Well surely that same principle could be applied to many different financial models.... Sell it to make a profit or keep it. What is new in that?

You are wrong.... bitcoin does have as much intrinsic value as you would like to put on it. For example, what would you do with your $10, £10 or €10 notes if you could never sell them? By you alluding to bitcoin being some sort of ponzi scheme clearly indicates you have a very limited understanding of what bitcoin is.

VERY WISE observation !!!   Unfortunate but true....

^^The reason why there are so many people who just listen to other people is a bit more about human nature. We always feel ingrained to pick a leader, even if you get like 10 people together then you pick a leader. The human nature is to look up to someone, and let "some" of your freedoms go and be decided by someone else.

This is a horrible knowledge that many would argue against, and even prove revolutionaries as examples, but even there we have leaders. Hence, the idea of "letting all the work go, relax, sit down watch some netflix shows and allow another dude to decide on my financial future" seems easy and natural to many people in the world.

there are alot of stuff to go through..
but the value of a possible bottom can change not as violently as the price. but the underlying value can and does change.

some examples of factors that can change it in a downward direction
EG (extreme catastrophic event scenario(unlikely))
 if all hashrate was to die off today by a majority amount, for instance back to CPU hash mining speeds. where by costs go back to pennies. it would take time for the difficulty alterations to reflect that hashrate drop meaning those remaining mining would still have costs for a long while above pennies. it wont be an overnight 'zero' effect, it would take time even in a hashrate drop of magnitude scenario

EG in reasonable presumed normal events this change happens alot less.. unless alot of people look at the same metrics and then become the cause of changing it.

EG by giving out a ultimate bottom value.. below the price.. just causes people to react.. EG
shorters think although the price is higher then that number now.. that lower number can be achieved. so they sell to put a ask in at lower price.. thus causing a new dip..

also inefficient miners react to a dip by deciding to either get efficient to compete at that new lower level.sending the value number on a new direction..
 or drop off.. which can cause more reward for the remaining asics = more profit= more selling opportunity. again causing a dump. sending the number in a different direction

..

so all i will say is based on all miners on the planet. from iceland to japan range of costs.
those in japan would love to buy coin and hate to mine it. as their costs to mine are up neat the ATH 2021 level
so buying for them is extremely cheap option.
for the most efficient miners. they are not making huge gains. there is not much margin left right now. they are mining to hold or only selling off old coins from years back that are still in high gain area.. they are not selling coins mined this year while making huge profits off them

the PRICE inbetween that is speculative is in the cheap very valuable range right now its not in the premium


so calculate the value window for yourself and just gauge where the price is in regards to a simple "is it in cheap range near bottom or is it premium in range of top". just so you have an idea of if you want to buy or not.

the answer is.. the price is not at the $70k premium and so it must be cheap.
..
as for wanting spoonfed answer to an exact bottom VALUE. for emphasis: the bottom VALUE can move. due to many factors. as soon as a number is seen by a majority.. it would in fact end up being the cause of shifting that number.
so any number given, is outdated as soon as its given.

but right now, bar any catastrophy of a major code bug or world wide power outage, etc.. the price is in the very good very cheap value range near the bottom

Alright, first off, Thank you for taking time to explain all of it with such thoroughness.

Can you please say what's in your opionion is the ultimate bottom for BTC? Yeah, I know it will be just your opinion, not a financial advice, but still it would be interesting to know your opinion on this matter.


Good point, mate! I was thinking on replying him, but then I read your reply. I couldn't do it better.

hard facts major issue is that he thinks that the price he bought in at was where bitcoins supported and stable value was and that it then "crashed" unexpectedly(to him).. he thought it could/should have only gone higher.. and only ever gone higher

he does not realise prices can go up and down. its a waiting game.. not an instant win get rich quick thing..
no one gets to buy in at the perfect bottom and sell at the perfect top.. no one is that lucky. or psychic. FACT

but im going to emphasise this. he thinks that when the price was at the top he thought that was the stable supported number where the chances of crashing correcting down to the amount that it did, were very small.. not realising that the top was not supported and the chances of correcting down were significantly high chance.

what he does not realise is that the ATH was the PREMIUM .. the TOP. the temporary unexpected exception.. and that the price is now settling back down to the cheap value it should be at

he does not realise that prices are not predictable and they do go up and down.. somewhere between the top and bottom and no one can be a psychic to buy in at the perfect bottom and sell out at the perfect top. so what they do is buy in when they think its reasonable to buy in, accepting the risk:reward balance of their choice.. and WAIT, whether it be the next current cycles speculative hype(if they are lucky) or wait for the next cycle of a deflationary currency raise of the supported bottom to influence the value of the market to which then influences and brings the next cycles prices higher..  to sell.

hardfacts has the dis-illusion that when someone buys, they 'want' the price to go up after their buy. he doesnt realise there is an equal seller that 'wants' the price to go down after the sell. he doesnt realise that there are other people, thousands/millions with other price points on both sides. whereby the markets fluctuate due to this diverse mindset of many buyers and sellers sentiments at many price points between the top and bottom.

now for my funny thought part..
i think what hardfacts has got confused with. is that he was actually watching a music video when he should have been researching bitcoin/economics/markets. because i think when hardfacts was NOT researching economics/markets/ and basic trends, he was instead listening to "Yazz - the only way is up" and that song got stuck in his mind and influenced his buying decision at a higher price than this month.

maybe now is the point he does start researching economics.. or if he prefers listening to music videos.. try "Take That - patience"

Exactly, Michael Saylor is doing great from the first deal, sounds really good doesn't it     You could sucker in a lot of fools with that statement....

The LIE is when Michael Saylor told investors and the public in an interview that MicroStrategy is doing great on the first amount of Bitcoin purchased at near 11,000...  But FAILING to disclose that his overall cost averaged investment is near 30,000 price point, and this his total Bitcoin investment is now at more than a 30 % LOSS, more than a billion dollar LOSS.

Franky1 comment is typical of the mental gymnastics, and downright dishonesty of most people in this forum  

WARNING for those reading that are rational investors that want accurate information.  When you see dishonesty and denial like this, do not walk away, RUN away from anything these type people are trying to sell.

first purchase price was at ~$11.65k each.. hmm. seems he is doing well from that first deal

VERY GOOD EXAMPLE 

1.  Michael Saylor LIED about his Bitcoin gains multiple times on TV.  Michael Saylor Quoted his first major purchase price and called Bitcoin his best investment instead of admitting the investment was a 30 % LOSS, over 1 BILLOIN DOLLARS at the time.   Who needs to LIE to investors and the public to pump up his investment  

2.  MicroStrategy is NOT, NOT major institutional money.  They are a small fish in a very big sea.    The fact that you think MicroStrategy is " intuitional money " shows complete macro economic ignorance on your part.

3.  Micro Strategy borrowed to purchase its bitcoin, and will have a MARGIN CALL soon, and be forced to sell its Bitcoin at a huge loss.

IMPORTANT PREDICTION:   You and many others here will not let reality get in the way.  When MicroStrategy is bankrupt, you will be full of apologetic excuses.     

what is forgotten here is that its not a "coming down" from a stable/supported higher number (AKA crash) its actually a correction and stabilisation from going up very high the previous year from an unexpected amount that was not backed up by any underlying support

try to remember that the $70k was not the "norm" it was not the stable number that should have remained
the $70k was the premium temporary event, it was not the expectation

the expectation in 2020 of what 2021+ would bring was the $20k(based on the events of 2017-18) the $70k in 2021 was the exception..

So you were saying about no big institutions are going to invest in bitcoin with prices going down around 70% ? But don't if you are active on the market watch and seeing how big players are taking advantage of these dips because they are smart to play with money and take returns from them but on the other side you always miss the opportunity to do so and blame bitcoin for it.

To contrary what you expected MicroStrategy has invested another $10 million to acquire additional 480 bitcoins to their reserves


So do market research about what you are writing and will advise you to read and have technical working of bitcoin and why people are investing in it and using this financial freedom tool with complete decentralisation and you will come to know the difference between legit and Ponzi schemes also.

 Advantages? You need one of the most corrupt organisations in history to enforce this thing, that will go to 0 anyways. Does it sound sound natural if it was really a sustainable working system? This is a sign of poor design, not an advantage.

Wouldn’t an ideal money be used voluntarily? Because it could store everyone’s wealth better, acts as a worldwide medium of exchange, and is a better unit of account. Being beneficial to everyone and making trade easier for the economy on a whole. You don’t need to put a gun on someone’s head if you’re really offering them something beneficial, it’s the opposite you put a gun on their head if you want them to do something that is against their own will/ interest/ benefit. If it was beneficial to them they would start to use it voluntarily, after they understood it. In fiat they don’t even teach most of the population how it works. Coincidence or is it better for fiat if no one actually understands how it works? You’re literally supposed to not understand how it works, just use it and then shut up. And if you don’t they force you. Does this indicate an advantage, or something that is wrong with the thing they designed?

Something i noticed is that Bitcoin haters tend to be conformists that love to be dominated/ want their life dependent on authorities.

If it was weaker than fiat, so how did it survive everything so far? Against the organization you mentioned above. It didn’t need to put a gun on anyones head to survive and yet still did survive and is thriving. So how?

Nah, you should come up with a reason why people won’t pay for it anymore. Im waiting.

You said it yourself. There's something forcing you to treat it as valuable. If you don't, and so does every person of the nation, it's a worthless pile of paper notes.

False. Bitcoin is backed by all the goods and services people are willing to exchange with it. Every new merchant is a new asset for the community, and every new merchant prefers being paid in a free, cheap, censorship-resistant and private type of money wherein he's in complete control rather than one that's opaque, weak, inefficient, censoring and provably fallible.

But, a ponzi scheme:

• does have promised high returns.
• does have misleading statements.
• is completely obscure.
• once it crashes, it never recovers.

Bitcoin meets no such criteria.

But, you're on a bitcoin forum, talking about bitcoin, in the Bitcoin Discussion board. If you want to state your opinion about cryptocurrencies in general, acknowledge that you're going off-topic.

You are VERY WRONG...   US Dollars has the assets and the full force of the US Government, Its assets / Military / law behind it, so there is some backing even if it is not enough....  Even with all this advantage, fiat currencies eventually go to zero anyways.

Bitcoin has NONE of this behind it, Bitcoin is worse and weaker than FIAT, it is nothing more than a Crypto / Ponzi Scheme.   NOTHING backs Bitcoin but what some greater fool will pay for it.  No one has come up with any use case for Bitcoin when the day comes that people will not pay for it anymore  

The Crypto world is even worse, it is Ponzi schemes built on top of Ponzi schemes.  We are already starting to see the very first stages of various crypto schemes blow up...

It doesn’t, i never even said this, it is a better store of value, doesn’t have the inflation problems and yet it failed as money. That’s all i said. If one of the best store of values in history, failed as money like this, it might be worth looking into why. Fiat is better except in the store of value aspect. Maybe you don’t look outside that much, but we’re experiencing one the highest inflations since a long time at the moment, so any sane person would get that reference. That fiat is a terrible store of value and not a sustainable form of money in its current form. And requires trust to work, so it won’t ever work for everyone.

You officially need a psychiatrist, but i wouldnt want any person to have to deal with this. I literally said fiat replaced gold, that the money that makes trade easier/ more efficient wins.


https://www.seekingtherapy.com/online-therapy/

You’re welcome.

Please just don’t reply to any of my posts in the future and i won’t reply to yours either, it’s the best way to go forward.

i know exactly what you said.
but when you shake your head at the choice of fiat vs gold being money or not..  means that YOU think gold should have been  more common used as money...

this moment here show your hidden emotion of wanting to think gold is/was in your mind more (ideal) money than fiat buy shaking your head to the reality that went against your secret opinion.

yes you then tried to explain off the shake your head to try to consolidate /change your mind of your secret opinion of why you shouldnt be shaking your head. by trying to understand why fiat is actually treated more like money then gold.

but yea its obvious you preferred if people treated gold more commonly. you just trying to justify to yourself the reason to change your mind.
however by you slipping in the "scarcity" criteria. shows your mind is still leaning back towards (bias in favour of) still wanting think gold is better (IDEAL) money in your mind

yes you mention it doesnt fit your criteria perfect and you call out the flaws of both. but you head shake and slips in of scarcity reveal your real secret preference

my goal was to see that your still bias in favour of a scarce money being ideal money. and give you a clearer idea of what others see as money.
scarcity is not part of money criteria. and common acceptance is the main one.

as for your definition of store of value.. . no you described the sentiment of values...
values(sentiment of feature) and value(economic amount) are different things. ones a feature, ones an economic amount.

store of value is an economic amount

Lmao the amount of bs this guy is trying to put into my mouth is insane, saying things i didnt even said. Fiat is real money, an ideal money would fit all the properties i mentioned above, but no form of money did so far. And it has nothing to do with the gold standard. Can you even read or are you mentally challenged in some way, or just some weird psychopath? Fiat has its unique problems, gold has them too. But now for the first time the money problem could actually be fixed with Bitcoin. You’re a fool if you think money can’t have different forms and characteristics that separate them and make one form more suited over the other.

It has nothing to do with fiat, Internet professor.

Store of value - Scarcity(Supply relative to other goods), Durability(No loss in functionality with repeated use)


Medium of Exchange - Acceptability(Used and accepted by others), Portability(Easily moveable across distances)

Unit of Account - Divisibility(Easily dividable into smaller units), Fungibility(1 unit is the same as the other)

These are the common definitions, not the bs you mentioned.

this is where people need to separate PRICE, VALUE, VALUES
to understand how each impacts each other

golds values(features and benefits give it desire/demand)
gold value(underlying all this, is the underlying basic cost of acquiring it no one wants to sell below)
gold price is the value+values(underlying cost plus speculative variable of the desire/demand)

golds price is not its store of value. golds store of value is less then the gold price
golds store of value is about $900 right now whilst golds price is about double that.
the double(premium) of the price is a variable caused by the speculative whimsy of sentiment about the desire and demand based on what peoples values(sentiment of features/benefits) are.

..
now whats creates the value(underlying cost).
if no one wants it... miners wont bother mining it. meaning that they dont put much money into it.  

when something has a low store of value but a high speculative price.. that is a BUBBLE
when the price is low but the value is high. that is CHEAP/DISCOUNT/great price:value..

the value(economic amount) is not the same as the value(features,benefits utility)
what makes something a good currency. is its utility/values(features/benefits). the more features it offers the more benefits it offers. the more used it will become and more desired.. which then impacts the value and price

money(sub category of currency) has specific values it has to achieve

as for the criteria used by previous poster.. id tweak that abit to:

common - (accessible and acceptable by broad community)
Store of Value - (underlying cost no one sells below)
Medium of exchange - (commonly agreed to a price (variable/separate to value) for other goods/services/labour/assets)
Unit of Account - (Divisibility, Fungibility, easily transferable)

'scarcity' is not a feature of "money" because the most common money is fiat.. and thats not scarce.

i know previous is trying to say he doesnt see fiat as being real money and hasnt been since de-pegging the gold standard.. but if enough people accept it as common then it becomes their money, even if its no longer scarce