Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 5240. (Read 26723314 times)

Explanation

... your "length of the thumb to measure furniture" argument was quirky, but mostly just a half-baked attempt to come up with a unit-of-account refutation of Hal's point but you maybe onto something here that actually points the way to why Hal was right and it has to do with the competing functions of store-of-value and unit-of-account for a sound money

... a monetary good should perform 3 primary functions; 1) medium-of-exchange, 2) store-of-value and 3) unit-of-account

... now we should expect the global reserve money to perform the best at all 3 functions when fully adopted; bitcoin performs well at 1), okay at 2) but poorly at 3) due to it's transitory volatility while it is being adopted. What would a monetary good have to do to perform well at the 'unit-of-account' function? It would need to be relatively stable in value with respect to all other assets, in fact it would need to be the most stable asset.

... for the monetary good to be the global reserve, i.e. perform unit-of-account function (the denominator function for all wealth), it would need to have around as much wealth stored in it as in all other forms, or else it would swing around in a volatile manner due to the difference in magnitudes of the relatives sizes of the markets (store-of-value competing effect) ... I believe the italicised text was almost exactly what Hal stated without expanding on the why

Numeraire extraordinaire

Bat country is nothing compared to Bazooko Circus, it's going to get crazier than this, imagine when upwards doesn't really mean anything.

Explanation

Google "Goldman Sachs profit" and you'll see that the $2.9 billion penalty is a drop in the bucket for them. They just need to bribe a few more sheikhs to make up for it.

If the government had the balls to make it $29 billion (a couple years worth of profit) then maybe it could have been newsworthy.

Explanation

I wonder why I didn't know about this?

How does this news "slip between the cracks"?

Are you guys slacking too or was it posted and I missed it?


https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/goldman-sachs-charged-foreign-bribery-case-and-agrees-pay-over-29-billion


I just watched "The Kleptocrats" documentary, otherwise never would have know about this.

Its nice seeing Ballsacks getting their just deserts!

edited documentary name duh.

When I look at 9 years ago, I see a bitcoin price around $5 per coin.. so it is not a trivial amount, whether it was mined or purchased.  That is around $3,750 for 750 BTC.

Otherwise, I do not really have anything to add because I believe that I said my part in regard to the plausibility of the 9 year coma or whatever other possible reasonable way of framing a situation in which coins would be ignored for 9 years in which the BTC price appreciated in value around 6,600x.  Not a trivial matter in which one would just completely ignore without either having other resources or having had been in a coma.. and the first of which seems quite a bit more plausible to this here electronic cat.



Yes, I was thinking about 1 order of magnitude as adding or subtracting a zero too, and as you seem to imply Dabs, it seems way too premature for Spaceman to be suggesting that either Hal was off or which direction that might be, if so...   

Explanation

Well, we know he didn't need to touch it for 9 years, and he took care of the keys so he could move it at the current time. People who would have been into bitcoin 9 years ago most likely didn't need the money as it was no way for anyone back then to profit from immediately.

Someone bought pizza for 10k coins ...

He couldn't have possibly predicted he'd have $24 million today. Maybe he did? He didn't need the coins for 9 years, an additional $3 million ... in addition to any income he currently has now or whatever wealth he has, on the assumption he was an early adopter of bitcoin that did not need the money, but actually believed in the tech, or decided, "hey I'll buy like $100 worth of bitcoin today" 9 years ago or however much 750 coins cost him if it wasn't mined or earned otherwise.

We don't really know, we are all speculating ...


I did add another zero to the estimate, at $100 million per coin. Would that be considered off by 1 order of magnitude? I also understand you can be going in the other direction, which would mean $1 million per coin ... That's also an order of magnitude lower.

I already gave my argument.  I think it is a non sequitur that the value of money should equal the total amount of wealth in the world.  I tried making an analogy with the measuring in thumbs thing (it might not be the most elegant of analogies), see below:


I don't how else I can or should make my argument.
What is your point?  Do you think the value of money should equal the total amount of wealth in the world?  Why?

No, it wasn't a horrible estimate.  I would guess it is probably off by 1 order of magnitude.  Yes I suspect bitcoin will absorb a lot of the value in gold, fiat, bonds, and to a much lesser degree housing and stocks.  But I don't see why it would need to be as large as all real-estate, companies, commodities, bonds etc. put together.  

I will try to leave it at that.  I know I have a tendency to become a bit pedantic and argumentative, and I don't want to hijack the thread.

Explanation

That sounds sensible, not paranoid. There's a saying that "when you're using free services, if you don't know what the product is, you are the product".

Also, if you are using electrum you might connect to a node someone set up to find linked addresses in wallets. There's probably profit in running such nodes for chainalysis.com and other companies like it. You can run your own electrum server/node and only connect to that, or a server/node you trust to counter that.

Explanation

Oh gawd.  

If one of Hal's main points was to attempt to characterize aspects of bitcoin's asymmetric bet like Marcus mentioned (edit, and mentioned in a subsequent post that was posted 5 10 minutes before this post of mine), then why get so fucking caught up on the details of how Hal might have been wrong about some details or how people might worship him, when none of that hardly matters... and the points that Hal had been making were more than valid as overall points and even proven largely correct through history.. so who gives any shits or wants to be persistent about quasi-irrelevant details.. in regards to our buddy pal, aka Hal - the - man.  Go HAL!!!!!!

In udder words, bitcoin still remains an asymmetric bet at this very point as I type this post and perhaps even a better bet today than it was in 2009 - even though in 2009 the potential for gain in terms of starting with almost no price was greater, so devolving into seemingly nonsense jealousy regarding how Hal might be worshipped too much by the masses (which is also hardly relevant to anything - except to perhaps want to drag down bitcoin's history) does not take away from the point that Hal asserted that BTC was an asymmetric bet, and so far bitcoin has shown itself to continue to be an asymmetric bet, and whether we are further down the path than Hal expected in terms of BTC price appreciation or if it is going to take longer to get to $10 million or whatever other high-side value (or inflation-adjusted or all the world's value - who cares) might not matter so much because the point stands that bitcoin was a very promising asymmetric bet in 2009 when Hal was contemplating ideas around it and bitcoin remains a great asymmetric bet in the present while at the same time, even asymmetric bets are not guaranteed to come true even if someone might point out some specific guidelines in terms of where the thing (referring to BTC price here) may well go.  

If you have not done so already Spaceman_Spiff, you might want to pick up a wee bit of bitcoin,  in case BTC might catch on... and by the way, you might not need to buy very much to get rich as fuck.. that's the nature of an asymmetric bet.. that has been playing out for more than 12.5 years and likely to continue to play out for quite some time into the future... so what is the point of denigrating where bitcoin might be going or what Hal said about it 5 years before he died..and then even with Bitcoin being a asymmetric bet, there have been a whole hell of a lot of people wanting to hoard BTC, so if you can get it with lower prices, you should probably consider ur lil selfie as lucky rather than wanting to denigrate bitcoin's upside potential as if it were not important in terms of capturing the wealth of the whole world or whatever other hyperboles might be made from time to time in order to communicate the idea that bitcoin is likely one of the best investments that anyone can make in these here times and seems to be damned well a part of a BIG ASS wealth transfer that is going on even if diptwats like ur lil selfie seem to want to poo-poo such idea and quibble regarding largely meaningless details.

... you're not actually refuting anything Hal talked about, all you are doing is stating he is wrong, on a specific point that's been pulled out of context from a different argument, without backing up that claim.

... and he's actually not that far off for a rough order-of-magnitude estimate, the total float of all the monetary goods in the world, includes fiat M0-M3, gold/silver acting as money-equivalent, real-estate, bonds and other financial assets that are presently being 'monetised', used as stores-of-value, (since fiat money is being inflated) would be quite close to the total worldwide household wealth ... this is the addressable market for a liquid global reserve money

.. argue otherwise or stop repeating your baseless claim?

Explanation

His broader point about game theory was spot on, but I don't think I pulled his reasoning for arriving at the 10 million usd number out of context at all.  He clearly says  "if BTC becomes dominant, then it should equal the value of all the wealth in the world".
Which is faulty logic.  I don't like pointing this out as Hal seemed to be a very likeable and smart person, and given his early involvement deserves to be seen as a hero of sorts.  But people throw this number around as if it was some magic truth predicted by the prophet, and it's just wrong.

After a brief showing yesterday 350BTC buy wall observed on Stamp again!

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_RETURN