Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 3463. (Read 26712700 times)

Explanation

 Why you gotta be like that? 

Explanation

The argument that Bitcoin should be used as money is sound.  It does not logically lead to the conclusion that we should blow up the blocksize—a non-scaling non-solution which would wreck Bitcoin, like taking cyanide to cure a headache.  Strawmanning me with bigblockers is rather unjustified, don’t you think.  Do you do the same to Bitrefill, or to the people who build Lightning checkout terminals for literal purchases of cups of coffee?

I redouble what I said:  A thing that exists only for the purpose of trying to resell it for a higher price is a SCAM and a textbook Ponzi scheme.  If you try to contradict and rebut that, you are inviting that your arguments be used and quoted to shill for thousands of worthless shitcoins in WO.

I did mention in an earlier post that I have a “cordial contempt” for anyone who buys into Bitcoin only to seek a profit—for “ONLY speculating”, as you put it here.  (See end of linked post.)  I explained why.  I absolutely stand by my words there.


Bitcoin is NOT A STOCK, it is NOTHING LIKE A STOCK, and I will rain hellfire on any suggestions that treating it like a stock is somehow acceptable behaviour.  I have an absolute, no-compromise, non-negotiable zero-tolerance policy for mistreating Bitcoin as if it’s a quasi-stock.

You misunderstood my point about that.

Want to buy and hold Bitcoin as a speculative investment in a deflationary currency?  Fine.  HODL.

Want to trade Bitcoin for profit?  Fine.  Have fun trading high-volatility forex.  Indeed, BTC should be a delight to pro forex traders who get bored with chasing a few bps on the EUR/USD pair, or whatever.

Bitcoin is money, i.e., a currency.  A stock is not a currency.  A stock is nothing like a currency.  And in altcoinland, I have recently experienced up-close what happens when people treat an alleged “cryptocurrency” like a stock:  Fungibility gets broken, investors with losses demand some sort of a refund (!) based on how much they paid (!!), and greed-blinded scammers throw the door wide open for securities regulators to crack down on their illegal unregistered securities scheme.

Your tolerance of thinking of Bitcoin like a stock will lead to:

• 1 BTC ≠ 1 BTC.  People who bought BTC for $67,000 will demand special rights and higher equity—because they paid-in a capital contribution larger than people who bought BTC for $200, or for $0.01, or for pizza at a notional rate of 0.0002 unit pizzas per 1 BTC.  They will complain that it’s unfair that they paid literally >26,000,000x more for BTC than some other people paid for BTC.  Unfair!  Think it can’t happen?  That is exactly what happened in Terra, where it was deemed “unfair” that some people paid $100 for LUNA, and others paid $0.000003 for LUNA—all in fair-market trades.  (Bitcoiner honesty:  “A trade happens because both parties think they’re getting a good deal.” — Laszlo Hanyecz.)
• Regulation as a security.  Existing laws not only allow, but require securities regulators to regulate stocks.  This includes anything that behaves like a stock, on grounds of “looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck”.  Some altcoins, some ICOs, and some of the weirder NFT projects have gotten in trouble on such grounds.  And if Bitcoin, a decentralized system with no boss, gets infected with the brain-damage of treating BTC like a stock, then there is no way to stop people from corrupting it so that BTC really behaves like a stock.
• Shareholder rights.  People who own shares of stock have rights accorded by law and custom.  People who buy BTC in the belief that it’s “like a stock” will naturally start to demand those types of rights.
• This list could be continued.  I think I’ve made my point.

Bitcoin is now a topic of mass-media headlines.  It is attracting buyers who have no idea what it is.  I have spoken to people both online and IRL who are just now getting curious about Bitcoin—curious enough to be interested in buying BTC.  Not infrequently, their uncomprehending search for a familiar analogy leads them to:  “So, Bitcoin is sort of like a stock.”  That is innocent ignorance, but it is dangerous ignorance:  Dangerous to them (it’s a great way to lose money!), and even more dangerous to Bitcoin.  It must be corrected—kindly corrected, in the many cases of good-faith confusion, but corrected firmly nevertheless.

As a longtime Bitcoiner, I have a duty to Bitcoin to help keep it healthy by educating the clueless newbies:  Bitcoin is absolutely nothing like a stock.  Bitcoin is a currency.  The correct analogy:  Buying BTC is like exchanging your USD to EUR, JPY, etc.

This means, among other things:

• When you buy BTC, your paid-in equity is zero.
• You are not making a capital contribution to an enterprise.
• Accordingly, Bitcoin has no memory of what you paid for it.
• When you “buy BTC”, you are exchanging one currency to another.  Your then hold that currency, and your holding is denominated exclusively in that currency:  1 BTC = 1 BTC.  “1 BTC” has no dollar equivalent, no dollar value—except for the freely-floating market exchange rate of an independent currency, Bitcoin, trading against the dollar.
• By analogy, if you exchange your USD to EUR, the ECB does not keep track of how many dollars you paid-in to their system.  You did not make a capital contribution to Europe—not in the sense of purchasing an equity stake in an enterprise.  You swapped one currency for another.  You now hold hold EUR, not USD.  EUR does not have a dollar-denominated value:  The value of EUR is denominated in EUR:  1 EUR = 1 EUR.  That is easy to understand, and it is nothing like investing in a stock.

These are not nitpicks, and not idle theories.  They are issues both of profound principle, and of grave practical import.  Observe my use here of some terminology that has precise, highly significant legal meanings.


Bitcoin has many use cases.  Treating it like a stock is NOT one of them, but it does have many use cases.

Medium of exchange—store of value—sure, why not both.  However, the cart cannot come before the horse.  Bitcoin’s utility as a medium of exchange is an intrinsic, inseparable part of what gives it the fundamental value that makes it a good store of value.  It is not a tangible pretty thing like gold, so its only fundamental value is its nature as a superior form of money.


All of those theories about Gresham’s Law and network effects stand on my premise that Bitcoin is money.  Not a stock.  Definitely not a Ponzi that exists only for resale to the greater fool.

I’m not sure why you are arguing with my premise, when it is a prerequisite for your conclusions.


I did hint that “go out and spend your coins!” is, in itself, not exactly the best financial advice.  I myself hate to spend my BTC savings; if possible, I prefer to use Bitcoin as a payment rail, sort of like my own personal version of Strike.  When that is not a practical option (as it often is not), I have developed over the years some methods of personal finance accounting that help me to reduce or avoid the negative effect of spending my BTC—in essence, ways of managing currency exchange risk when I hold an extremely volatile currency.

Since I keep my primary savings in BTC, aversion to spending BTC is a part of how I got in trouble with debt.  A few months ago, I tried settling some BTC-spending transactions by borrowing dollars against BTC, using the dollars to buy BTC, and then immediately spending what was effectually margin-buy BTC.  I thought it was a clever way to avoid spending my BTC—and to avoid exchange rate risk, since I was essentially doing an unprofitable arbitrage trade on margin.  Needless to say, this use of debt turned out to be a very bad idea (although doing similarly with fiat cash would probably be wise).

Much though I loathe spending my own BTC, I also actively seek to use BTC as money—to use it one of my most preferred payment methods, and to support vendors who accept BTC.  The effort and the unfortunate risks that I have taken to reconcile these two conflicting goals shows, at least, that I put my money where my mouth is.

hahahahaha

Look at you...

Look at you ...

The new and improved OOM - never makes no mistakes, anymore.  

Hey, by the way, I might just be a bully (or at least a meanie without a cause).. yet I do remember being wrong a few times too, and from time to time, I even question if there might be better ways for me to attempt to make my point(s), if I happen to have any point(s), that is?  

Explanation

some unknown grease... meh

however good ol old school LARD.. now were talking. thats the good stuff. load me up.

bacon is its own food group.

I had to click on the underlying link because I was a little bit confused about what was being described in the short-version of the tweet.  Here's the link:
 https://twitter.com/saylor/status/1534256455456530441

Essentially it seems that using the 1458 day moving average (simple) is overly complexifying the matter with too much data and too many tiny (daily)candles, and the 200-week moving average is nearly the same result (but it is 8 weeks short of a full 4 years), so the 208-week moving average would be more accurate for showing 4 actual years; however, no one (except I was using it for a little while) hardly even uses the 208-week moving average (because it is not standard), but probably even fewer of anyone who is anyone uses anything approximating the complexity of having the 1458 days of moving average daily candles.

One thing about the 200-week moving average is that it is a much more standard and a commonly used reference point that might be compared with other weekly moving averages of shorter or longer duration.. but it is very close to 4 years, has a bit less clutter because of fewer candles so it is easier to see each weekly movements, so the 200-week moving average just seems to be more straight-forward as a reference point since it can be found in a quite afew places, as I already suggested.

Explanation

LOL.
Those abominations look like what happens when I attempt to prepare poached egg on toast, an old breakfast favorite of mine. (with Heinz baked beans, also on toast, of course.)
It’s all in the presentation.
I mean honestly, those poached eggs would taste exactly the same as a well presented one.
As long as the egg white is cooked solid white and not slimy and the yolk is runny, I'm all good with it.
Having said that, I would never serve up those ugly things to guests. That’s just wrong.

Like I always think to myself...

People: *Proudly eat plates of grease and carbs for every meal*

Also people: "Hmmm, I wonder why my health sucks so bad?"

Explanation

A functioning society requires, at some level, that people behave decently and in good faith.

If a society degenerates so badly that people take more than they can eat from an all-you-can-eat buffet, then maliciously sneak the destruction of food to evade a policy against waste, then that society is toast.



The people in that society should mind the old proverb, “People get the government that they deserve.”

What government is deserved by the type of spoiled narcissist who is outraged at being penalized for abusing a buffet?

Aside, although Bitcoin is designed to prevail in a hostile environment by exploiting greed for altruistic purposes, I also don’t forget that it needs people who sincerely have idealistic motivations.  If you want to see what a cryptocurrency looks like when almost everyone involved is just plain greedy, I can show you plenty of examples from altcoinland.  Do Kwon got rich and popular while ridiculing poor people (something that I did not see timely due to not following Twitter).  I remember that someone out there worked hard to make that food at every step, from the farm field to the buffet; I also remember that there are hungry people who lack that food, who suffer without that food, who would appreciate that food unlike that idiotic whiner in the Daily Mail article.

I can see why you're not eating that plateful of grease.  Yuck.

I think that I sufficiently made my points in my responsive post that I would not proclaim to be the only ones that I am allowed to make. 

Of course, we have all kind of things going on in bitcoin at the same time in terms of what makes it useful and what makes it valuable and what kinds of liquidation avenues exists (and what kinds of onboarding ways exist).   The mere fact that guys might not be searching ways to buy coffee with their bitcoin does not automatically translate into their ONLY "speculating" bullshit dichotomy that you suggested in terms of SCAM and inferences towards those other various dumbass talking points that we heard from the bigblocker nutjobs in 2017 and we hear them repeated from time to time.

We know that Bitcoin is multi-faceted in its use cases. We know that there is a lot of why not both.. and your attempt to suggest that there are some deficiencies with some guys if they might not be striving to spend their bitcoin (aka lil precious ones) and they are using bitcoin accumulation (and HODL) as an investment, way of building wealth and like a stock (which is perhaps only part of the story or a temporary status for whatever that bitcoiners might be doing and uie-pooie don't like it) .

I should not even need to be responding to any pints that I made, but hey.. I am willing to entertain matters to some extent including to point out that we know that Gresham's law exists too, along the side of at least 7 network effects that are still building in connection with bitcoin and are at various stages of their growth as well as that some of those same network effects build upon others, snowballing and feedback loops.. but sure there is a lot more going on in bitcoin than merely being able to buy coffee or to go out and seek to spend our bitcoin because of the bullshit problematic aspects that I already pointed out in my earlier responsive.. that also mentioned the idea of options that seems to already come from having bitcoin, so long as we do not put our own lil selfies into some kind of pickle in which we spent most or all of our bitcoin, included but not limited believing that we have some obligations that are imposed on us from others.. or that we margined them away or got involved in various shitcoins because we thought that was going to help bitcoin that we speculate on shitcoins because we used to have had accumulated some bitcoins that we no longer have because we fucked up but we were employing our bitcoins in an "acceptable" way. 

There are plenty of us who have transacted with our bitcoin through the years in a variety of ways and who have also engaged in some spend and replace too.. depending upon how we might have considered managing our own BTC accumulation, maintenance and/or liquidation targets and who are likely to continue to spend our bitcoin (to the extent that we have any left or that we have figured  out ways to balance our BTC and dollar balances in ways that provide us with more, rather than fewer options than if we were to ONLY have dollars), but we can make those kinds of choices, too. 

Furthermore, in the spirit of Gresham's law, if we already can appreciate  that Bitcoin is the best of moneys, why would we want to spend it first (as I already referred to that)?..  Anyone who holds bitcoin for a long time is going to want to have more liquidation avenues in bitcoin, and so with the passage of time, some of these liquidation have developed, and some of them have shrunk away.  There are ongoing developments, and there are all kinds of ways that people are promoting bitcoin and attempting to increase liquidity avenues, which still does not necessarily mean that any of us should feel compelled to spend our bitcoin, even though I have no problem with spending my bitcoin if there are ways to accomplish such. but does not mean that I have to go out and evangelize bitcoin or evangelize liquidation avenues. 

There are a variety of reasons for changes in liquidity avenues, and I doubt that I have any need to get into those kinds of discussions any more than I already mentioned a few of the balancing issues that are likely to vary quite a decent amount between HODLers/accumulators.. and surely, it seems that lighting network is also helpful for increasing the various ways that BTC HODLers might be incentivized to part with more of their lil preciouses... but there is no need for them to part with their lil precious until they feel that they want to or need to including that they can treat bitcoin as an  investment .. for sure, bitcoin happens to be one of the strongest investment vehicles that have been made available to normies on a widespread level, so surely it would not hurt to consider bitcoin as an investment...  and in a lot of cases quite preferable for normies to consider bitcoin as an investment since so many folks (normies) tend to have a lot of difficulties investing, but bitcoin could help thing  to at least ave access to an pristine asset that might not have really been historically available to them or their ancestors... so don't get fucked out of your bitcoin, merely because someone on the interwebs (perhaps a delusional bigblocker or a shitcoiner) tells you that you have an obligation to participate in the increasing of bitcoin liquidity avenues.. blah blah blah.

pump it up, buddy boy!
 

On a serious note, I am not sure why the doldrums.
That much noise about such a small (currently & relatively) asset class?
...amazing...hopefully pertains to AT LEAST 10X increase in 2-5 years.

Explanation

Explanation

Yeah, ignoring the blahblahblah Nully man will certainly save one from wearing out one’s scroll wheel…