Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 28994. (Read 26610002 times)

I am NOT going to waste my time arguing point by point the bullshit nature of the article b/c it should be abundantly clear to you, if you were to know anything about bitcoin, that material changes are occurring within the bitcoin network, including billions of dollars of investment going into its infrastructure and its wider and wider network of acceptance and use.. which sooner or later (more likely sooner) is going to be reflected in increased prices and exponential growth of prices (absent some very material flaws or problems with bitcoin - which we have NOT yet discovered).

What's been logically proven to be wrong in the article being discussed?

Nancy Lieder claims that she is the sole human conduit of extraterrestrial travelers from Zeta Reticuli, a binary star system roughly 30 light years from here. And if this is true, they’ve obviously put a lot of time and effort into the relationship. She told me that she’d been groomed for this position since childhood, while in her teenage years she participated in the development of Zeta / Human hybrids. She is still in contact with her half-Zeta son, a friend of Al Gore (who has his own hybrid stepfamily). Lieder has written extensively about this, pointing out that custody battles between parents of human-alien hybrids are quite rare.

...

By doomsday, May 2003, Nancy had become a celebrity in the insular world of UFOs. It must have been something of a relief when it passed without any sign of Planet X. If ninety percent of the earth’s population were to die, where would she find new fans?

Nancy still stands by her claims. She's just fudged the timeline a bit. The real return of Planet X, Lieder says, is indeed imminent, but the Zetas have adopted a new policy: no more exact dates. Which, if you ask us, seems like the best idea they’ve had yet.

walls up

arm fiat torpedoes, full spread!

FIRE!!!!!!!!!!

They have already been logically proven to be wrong. To date they have had no predictive value. You can't make up for lack of substance with repetition and volume. I like a good scary story. Scare me. These weak ass objections would be boring if it weren't for the schadenfreude they provide.

Your outright dismissal of the article is exactly the type of cultish behaviour the author is talking about - dismiss anything that doesn't fit the faith view.

What concrete contributions has bitcoin made? It certainly hasn't changed the world yet, and it's highly unlikely it will without some drastic change to the limited exchange problem. The killer app for BTC could be transferring money online, but that only works if it can be easily converted to local currency

the way bitcoin seems to polarise opinion eventually these articles will be one of 2 things. Either these articles will be right or these articles will be wrong.

If they are right then there will be no need for an "original" critique.

Now, on the other hand, some of the shenanigans and the seemingly ponzi schemes with some of the alternative cryptocurrencies, may snuff out some of bitcoin's energy... but we are going to have to see how those distractive dynamics play out before putting our nails in a bitcoin coffin, as you seem anxious to begin such bitcoin funeral preparations.

your responses to my points are very inadequate and seem to exist in some kind of lala land universe.  

Now, on the other hand, some of the shenanigans and the seemingly ponzi schemes with some of the alternative cryptocurrencies, may snuff out some of bitcoin's energy... but we are going to have to see how those distractive dynamics play out...

This is the repetition technique of propaganda: Just keep repeating the same falsehood until those who stand up to refute it finally get worn out, and move on.  At that point most of those listening to you get only your message, so they are easily led to believe it.

Sure, cash under the mattress is definitely a bad investment.  On the other hand, the stock of a good company usually has a positive net expected value, typically around 5% of the price plus inflation.


When I started paying attention to bitcoin, a few months ago, one of the two main "selling" points used to convince people to invest in it was the demand/supply argment, ostensibly proving that its price would rise to six figures or more when, at some not too distant future, everybody starte using bitcoins.  (A few days ago someone posted a photo of a projected slide showing such numbers for various scenarios, ending with "investment/pension funds keep their capital as bitcoin" and some astronomical number beside that.)  And in this thread, the "hodlers" apparently still believe in that math.

There were (there are) several things wrong with that argument, the main one being the implicit assumption that cryptocoin = bitcoin.  A year ago, the salesman could jump from "cryptocoins are so nice that everybody will want to use them" to "bitcoins will be used in X% of all e-payments" without people noticing the gap.  Back then, altcoins were only a theoretical possibility, which was dismissed by claims about the "Network Effect" and "First-Movers Advantage".

Well, since then altcoins became a reality, did not fail as predicted, and some of them seem to be strong competitors to bitcoin.  One thing that bitcoiners missed is that any "Satoshi" who creates an altcoin can make a lot of money by selling his pre-mined coins at the right moment, even if the coin flops later on. Clearly the Network Effect and First Mover Advantage weren't strong enough to counter that "Copycat Advantage".  Moreover, some altcoins do have some advantages over bitcoin, such as faster processing, democratic distribution of pre-mined coins, or a lethally cute puppy face.

Anyway, now bitcoin salesmen cannot do that jump any more. They must keep saying "cryptocoin" instead of "bitcoin" all the way to the final demand/supply formula. But since the supply of cryptocoins is infinite, not 21 million, the conclusion will be that "when cryptocoins are used to their full potential, the price of a cryptocoin will be at least zero." In other words, that demand/supply argument just went poof. 

The sad fact is that now there is no argument or statistical analysis that will justify any claim about the value of a bitcoin in that ultimate future.  It definitely may be zero, even if cryptocoins succeed beyond all dreams.


That is a very different "market", namely the speculative investors who aim to make money by buying and selling as the price changes.  Indeed, because of its high volatility, bitcoin may appeal to those speculators who believe that they are smarter than their peers.  However, short-range speculation is basically a zero-sum game. In practice, it is a negative-sum game, because of trading fees and time wasted. So, the expected value for a randomly chosen speculator is negative, like that of a lottery ticket.

And, anyway, that use is not what cryptocoins were invented for.  One thing that the world does not need is another financial instrument for speculators to play with.

That same argument could be used by any belief system dismissing an article pointing out the behaviour.

That same argument could be used by any belief system dismissing an article pointing out the behaviour.

Because we've read countless articles like that for 3 years.  These people obviously don't do research or they would understand that they are making very old arguments. What is cultish is to expect the same failed tactic to work this time. If you want to persuade us "cultists" of the error of our ways, then at least come up with a new argument.
If you're going to be a critic, at least be an original one.

WWGD?

What would Gox Do?

WWGD?

...

$666ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............

Because we've read countless articles like that for 3 years.  These people obviously don't do research or they would understand that they are making very old arguments. What is cultish is to expect the same failed tactic to work this time. If you want to persuade us "cultists" of the error of our ways, then at least come up with a new argument.
If you're going to be a critic, at least be an original one.