Then 1BTC=1BTC will be true when the price is more stable.


I don't have to imagine it. That's what happens to me. What I earn in signature campaigns I spend and what I buy is for HODLing. So, with Bitcoin I HODL I can think that 1BTC=1BTC because I don't care about the rise or fall of purchasing power since I'm not going to spend it in a long time.

But in the Bitcoin I spend, I experience the decrease, because now for example I get paid the same amount in Bitcoin as when I was in the [banned mixer] campaign, and my purchasing power then was about twice as much.

I have commented on this in another thread but it seems to me that this deserves a dedicated thread specifically.

When there are market downturns, and in bear markets like this one, the community repeats the mantra that 1BTC is 1BTC as a consolation.

And I understand that it has its logic for someone who acquires Bitcoin and will HODL it for a long time, but not if we conceive it as a currency, as a P2P cash as Satoshi conceived it, because if it is a currency we are going to use it frequently, in the day to day to acquire goods and services. If it is a currency, the purchasing power has been reduced by 70% or more.


If you acquire Bitcoin as an investment, and you are going to HODL it for a long time, I understand that you repeat the mantra that 1BTC is 1BTC.

Tautologies are apparently evident true statements, but if we stop to analyze them, they have many nuances.

For example: Poker Player is Poker Player. Do we agree with that? Surely we do. But is Poker Player when he was 7 years old the same as Poker Player when he is 70 years old? No way.

Sure, sure.

Meltem Demirors, the one doing the analysis, was one of many who predicted that Bitcoin would reach at least $100k:

CoinShares' Demirors predicts bitcoin will more than double in Q4

I don't know why we should believe her prediction now.

These "predictions" have to be put in context: they are advertising for the company, and as has been discussed in this thread, without so much analysis it makes the most sense for ATH to come at least months after what the analysis predicts.

This story has more to do with hoping to get merit (unsuccessfully so far) than with actual facts.

This is not the first time we have seen such a story, especially on this board. It's something like the threads in the B&H section that praise the merit system, higher ranked members or things like that.

Don't you realize what a contradiction you are falling into? You defend that 1BTC is 1BTC despite the loss of purchasing power at the same time defending that it is a currency.

The tautology that 1BTC is a 1BTC is logical to defend if we see Bitcoin as an investment, as a financial asset, and not as a currency because precisely if it is a currency we are not going to HODL it for 30 years as the above image suggests:


By the way, in that image I miss those Bitcoin holders who die during those 30 years.

If Bitcoin is a currency, you are going to use it to buy things, and the fact is that months ago, assuming that for example buying a loaf of bread cost you $1 or its equivalent in Bitcoin, with 1BTC you would buy 69,000 loaves, and today you buy only 20,000, which is a considerable difference.

What guarantees do you want him to give you? Poker is a game of skill, and doing the same course different people can have different results, which will depend mainly on the talent and effort of each one.

In what you say you reflect that you are not clear about one main difference: the one between poker and blackjack or poker and casino games.

Casino games have a negative mathematical expectation, which means that for every $1 you bet the potential return is always less than $1. In the short term you can get lucky and win more but the more you play the closer your results will be to the mathematical expectation, meaning that the more you play the more money you will lose.

In poker, on the other hand, you can make positive mathematical expectation plays, which is what winning players do, and in this case it is the other way around. Even if they have losing streaks, they make money in the long run.

Playing poker every day is harder but with a course and starting at the lowest levels, called micro-limits, it is easy to be a winner, what happens is that you will win pennies.

And what is Bloomberg UK's credibility on the subject? After seeing so many failed predictions by so many experts I almost better wait for a monkey throwing darts at a dartboard to get it right if it's going to be $30k or $10k.

I like to speculate on price because it is a way of trying to guess the unguessable, although sometimes you can get close, but Bloomgerg's prediction saying what is most "likely" is like saying nothing at all.

It does not have to be this way. The problem with discussing all these things theoretically is that reality has many nuances that are not foreseen in theory. And there are theories that defend the opposite: that a world without state intervention would tend to equilibrium, instead of inequality, as you propose.

For me in principle I would like a more decentralized world, with less regulations and less taxes, although I think some are necessary. But the trend in the world is the opposite and if you look at Bitcoin the same, people buy Bitcoin on sites like Coinbase, there are more and more KYC etc. so the decentralization of Bitcoin is very tiny, not to mention that if I hire you to do a job for me, I pay you in Bitcoin and we do not pay taxes, we are committing an illegality.

So, leaving theory aside and thinking realistically, I believe that the decentralization brought by Bitcoin will be very limited.

I see this question as too theoretical and without much sense, to be honest. Aside from the characteristics pooya87 cited why people trust Bitcoin, it is true that one is its scarcity. So, asking something that goes against the essence of Bitcoin doesn't make sense to me even if it is theoretically possible, it's like asking if there could be a consensus to make Bitcoin centralized, which I guess in this hypothetical and almost impossible case, would require a hard fork.

In my case playing poker the threshold I have is more mental than economic. If you play EV+, even if you are losing it's worth to keep playing as long as it doesn't affect your mental state. But if you have been losing a lot and you start to feel a bit tired or something, it's better to stop playing.

I have the same opinion, and it is one thing I have commented on in several threads regarding ATMs.


They are really profitable. Once the initial investment has been made, they only need electricity to operate and a technician to check them from time to time, and if they are located in shopping malls or similar places, the owner doesn't even pay for the electricity.

But the ATMs you have seen are KYC? It sounds to me that in the USA they all require identification, as is increasingly happening in Europe, and I do not understand how people use it because of the above, unless they are people who see the machine and buy Bitcoin like someone who buys a lottery ticket.

Of course, 1 Bitcoin is 1 Bitcoin and a chair is a chair, but if we leave tautologies aside, it is not the same to have 1 Bitcoin now than when it will be worth $1M, if it ever arrives, in the same way that it is not the same to have 1 Bitcoin in 2010, when it was not worth $ 0.01 than now, and we can see this reflected in the fact that almost nobody who had Bitcoin in 2010 has HODL them until today.

When a thing is worth almost nothing people don't care much about it and at that time many people lost their private keys or sold when they got a return of 10x or similar.

I agree 100% with this. When it is said that 1BTC= 1BTC I say to put things in perspective, because it is not remotely the same 1BTC in 2010 than in 2022.

I understand the OP's perspective, that if we look long term and HODL the price will recover and surpass $69k. If you do not sell, you will not realize a loss. The one who HODLs will have a scarce and limited good whose purchasing power tends to grow, unlike fiat currencies, but the one who bought at $69k has lost 70% of the purchasing power he had.

Well, it's not surprising, in a world whose global trend is more regulations and more taxes, but anyway, 0.5% is not a very high percentage either and anyway, as hatshepsut93 comments in order to pay for goods and services if you have it in Bitcoin you are also going to have to pay fees that probably exceed that 0.5%.

Do you mind saying in which country this happens? I have searched and I don't see anything recent.

What a false statement, and 4 have quoted you after your comment without mentioning it.

The lottery is designed for nothing more than for the lottery owners to make money, and it works very well because you give people the false hope that with a probability of about 0 it will change their lives.

For a reason it is known as the tax of the poor or the stupid:

The lottery is a tax on poor people and on people who can't do math.

The French philosopher, Voltaire, is reputed to have said that “lotteries are a tax on stupidity.”

I am going to emphasize something else that has not been emphasized before:


Centralization goes against the very essence of Bitcoin but more is being achieved every day and I understand that regulations will go along these lines. For shitcoins it doesn't matter but Bitcoin P2P was created in a decentralized way.

It seems to me that P2P Bitcoin transactions are going to take the same path as P2P cash payments, a decreasing path.

Lol!. Skyrocketting?

It is quite an exaggeration to say that. The thing about the USD is that it is getting strong relative to other currencies, but Bitcoin is not like oil, which you have to buy in dollars, you can buy it with many different currencies. It has nothing to do with it.

What I do agree on is the 2 or 3 years but because of the next halving, not because of anything to do with the strength of the dollar.

And everything indicates that it will continue to fall, if the ECB does nothing, which it looks like it will not do, at least until after the summer. In reality, the ECB is breaking its core mandate to control inflation, but it is at a crossroads because with the current monetary policy it does not control inflation, but directly encourages it. However, acting to stop it could end in an economic disaster that would start with the countries of southern Europe, so it is in a catch-22 situation.

And yet the price keeps dropping?

I don't know if you have read what I posted before.

News from April 4, when the price was around $42k:

Bitcoin Continues To Flow Out Of Exchanges.

This one from January 28:

Bitcoin Worth $670M Leaves Centralized Exchanges After Hawkish Fed Comments.

I don't doubt that this is the case, what I doubt is that it is a bullish indicator, which is what the news sells us when they say that Bitcoins are leaving the exchanges.

Nice but there is a special thread dedicated to this kind of self-praising posts:

Announce your rank up, merit or any achievements that makes you feel great!

You are free to keep this one if you want but I think it is better to have all posts of this style concentrated in the linked thread.