Topic: Watching amateur finance types flail - page 7. (Read 35334 times)

Bitcoin could certainly be in a mania, or in a bubble, or could ultimately fail to be widely adopted, etc, but it is certainly not a ponzi scheme, not an investment, not meant for speculation, does not pay a return, and is not a business. So much for Nagle's arguments.

it's funny what qualifies as a rebuttal on this board.
the best thing you can come up with "you don't understand this technology".

well, you don't understand manias. you assign value to something based on the potential of a technology.
good read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Mania

if you leave fantasies of what "could be" aside the fundamentals dont justify a price exceeding 1/100th of what is currently paid for a bitcoin. probably less.

rest of it here http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=21702.0

I prefer this chart:

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=22404.0

My eyes !!!


I can't see anymore!

Now you have me wondering how to pronounce "diphthong".

Nagle: Those are quite possibly some of the worst straw men I've seen against bitcoin. They all boil down to, "if bitcoin is supposed to be X, then it is failing miserably at that!" But bitcoin is not supposed to be X, or Y, or Z, or any of the other things you claim it to be.

Seeing as I am coming into this discussion 8 pages late, I will leave it at that, as others have already elaborated on the specifics (e.g. user ezl above).

But didn't you see the chart?  That means it must be a ponzi scheme!

Technically, the sound of U doesn't start with a consonant, but with a diphthong, which for the purposes of the a/an rule is about the same thing... A Euro, not an Euro.

And this is only because we're all bored out of our minds waiting for 15:00 Zulu (gmt), and then we can sit and watch the fireworks.

It's "an massively waste of time to still be arguing about this" when it's not germane to the economics of Bitcoin.

Also.

Correct.  But it's "An MMORPG".  You don't say the entire acronym out in your head when you read it, hence you pronounce it as if it started with a vowel.  It's the same as something like "Give me an M!  Give me a U!".  M is a consonant, but when you say the actual letter, it begins with a vowel.  U is a vowel, but when you say the actual letter, it starts with a consonant.

xD +1

OP's "points" are garbage. they boil down to:

1. look at the chart, if you don't know who the sucker is, its you. Not an argument.

2. BTC is "supposed to be a currency, but _actually_ its a speculative vehicle". What does that even mean? What distinguishes a "currency" from any other asset (hint: the relevant subset of the population USE it as a common value of store. And many currencies are widely treated as speculative vehicles.  Not an argument.

3. Organizations are flaky, my evidence: "2 guys in tokyo run one website" (False, insufficent research), "We don't know much about Tradehill (Again, "I haven't done much research"), "they don't have published addresses" (How would a published address make a greater case for legitimacy?)

The "classic signs" he mentions (pump and dump, bucket shops, pyramid schemes) exist WIDELY in otherwise trusted ecosystems ("trusted" might be a loaded description, but the majority of America still has money in the Wall Street money machine).

The one comment by the OP that is worth discussing is: "The system generates no revenue". Bitcoin is not a BUSINESS. It doesn't have to generate revenue to _create value_.  This is an important distinction. If a subset of the world population decides to adopt BTC as a store of value for barter, and have decided that anonymity and instananeous transfer are desirable characteristics in an asset to the point they are willing to pay for it, then it has value.  As the set of users who value BTC's characteristics grows and creates an ecosystem around that particular asset, it increases the utility of BTC and continues to encourage valuation growth.  Its not about "generating revenue", its about creating value for its users.

It's "A Massively Multiplayer Role Playing Game"

Make a list of all your major predictions that didn't materialze in over the last decade, and a list of the ones that did materialize.  Weigh them by how much money you personally put behind each prediction.   Then tell us the ratio.

If the ratio of correct/incorrect predictions isn't higher than 0.5 you have no credibility IMO.


Logical fallacy:

Ponzi schemes exhibit exponential growth
Bitcoin exhibits exponential growth
Therefore Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme.


No it's not. My bitcoins don't just have speculative value. They have value to me because they give me a low friction, low cost way to send money to any other bitcoin user in the world, without filling out paperwork or asking anyone for permission. That's a powerful tool.


This statement shows that you are clueless about bitcoin and haven't properly researched the technology you are advising your investors not to invest in.  



So they haven't encumbered themselves with endless red tape and unnecessary overhead.  Boohoo.

When I use a service, all I care about is whether the business delivers. The rest is unimportant.

Mtgox has always delivered for me so far, and that's why I will keep using them.  As an adult, I can judge for myself whether a business is trustworthy. I don't need a royal stamp of approval.

Obviously this is a very young economy and I can't expect bank-level security from a startup like mtgox.  But I wouldn't keep more than $1000 USD on mtgox either.

I quote that, i've never seen a faster, simpler and more secure (if you know what you are doing) system to transfer money

i like your attitude

No, it's not.
"an em em oh arr pee gee"

It's about how you pronounce it, not about how you spell it.

apparently time collided and we can interact with some folks from the future in this thread =)

It's 7 pages...but since when is 1 day "ages"? 

(I made the same point on page 6) 

Watching professional finance types flail