... bitcoin supply and demand in pictographs, here's an idea I've been playing with, anybody who's done basic economics are familiar with the supply and demand curve
https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newSTR_69.htm ... sooo, estimating a long-term price trend for bitcoin would seem to require knowing first supply and demand curves ... bitcoin money supply is essentially fixed by the mining algorithm  ... however bitcoin demand is a much trickier beast but there a several factors/trends that we should expect to establish themselves as the bitcoin network grows, Metcalfe's law for value of networks  ... the specific demand curve for Veblen goods (includes monetary goods) that is unlike regular goods where demand reduces with increasing price  ... and finally the S-curve (logistics curve) for diffusion rate of innovation associated with adoption of new technologies  ... as seen  ... now if someone were to put those curves into a supply vs demand vs price vs time equation (and adjust the price basis for fiat inflation) I'd be interested to know what that looks like, especially when fitted with known price history to the present day ... my hunch is the dominant trend thus far in bitcoin pricing has been the fixed reduction in supply while demand has been relatively flat (early-adoption phase only), interrupted by temporary spikes due to mini adoption waves 2011,2013,2017, 2021 instigated by the supply shocks due to halvings ... my thesis is that the technology adoption and S-curve demand trends have yet to establish themselves and will be continuous over many years, unlike the 4-year cycles seen previously TL;DR the super cycle of adoption demand is very much still ahead of us |
|
|
|
... you know I'd be much happier if Musk just fucked off and left bitcoin alone totally, in fact I'd love it if he flounced out in the usual sociopathic rage-quit ... last thing bitcoin needs is a Chinese Commie toadie interjecting himself into conversations with Western gubmint around bitcoin |
|
|
|
... these vaccines are not going to be the silver bullet they have been sold to the public as, the best we can hope for is that they don't make things worse in the long run at this stage ... but hey, Big Pharma has had a fucking royaling field day, bend over taxpayers and take it from the corps ... it's all been documented long before in the patent application record, they're in this thing balls deep https://odysee.com/@Corona-Ausschuss:3/Sitzung-60-Die-Zeit-ist-kein-flacher-Kreis-5-Martin:f... and certain "captured" public health agencies have wished for a hyped/scared enough public to accept annual vaccination for as long too |
|
|
|
... of course it is, the fourth yearly July Fibonacci window, who doesn't know that?? |
|
|
|
I assume this is fake as far as "proof of destruction" goes, but you never really know with China.  Looks photoshopped to me but we need some expert's opinion... xhomer?  ... it's real. Some gang in Malayasia was stealing electricity to mine bitcoins (~$2million) so the local police chief decided to set an example by steam-rolling the bitcoin mining equipment. ... kind of an idiot considering he could have sold them to recover losses for the electricity company or even used them to mine some of the money back edit: fillipone beat me to it .. |
|
|
|
... 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
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: It is not because something is being expressed in a unit, that that unit needs to expand to whatever is being measured. For example, let's say I measure the length of my furniture by comparing to the length of my thumb. Why would there then need to be as many of my thumbs as there is furniture in the world? If that sounds strange or weird, that is because it is weird and nonsensical.
Money is just an asset class on its own, which takes up a certain portion of total wealth in the world.
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. ... 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 |
|
|
|
... you've pulled the piece of Hal's comment out of context. The full comment was about the asymmetric upside bet. To estimate the asymmetry he needed a ballpark figure for an upside value of btc, at the time it was worthless, so to get an order of magnitude estimate Hal used total global wealth which for a ballpark order of magnitude estimate is fine. ... then he compared the upside value potential of bitcoin with the odds of bitcoin achieving monetary dominance, which he then estimated only needed to be less than 100 million to 1 for to make sense to acquire/hodl some bitcoin, which at the time were worthless remember. He was resoundingly right and the statement still stands, the asymmetric bet was worth it. Edit; relevant portion of Hal's comment One immediate problem with any new currency is how to value it. Even
ignoring the practical problem that virtually no one will accept it
at first, there is still a difficulty in coming up with a reasonable
argument in favor of a particular non-zero value for the coins.
As an amusing thought experiment, imagine that Bitcoin is successful and
becomes the dominant payment system in use throughout the world. Then the
total value of the currency should be equal to the total value of all
the wealth in the world. Current estimates of total worldwide household
wealth that I have found range from $100 trillion to $300 trillion. With
20 million coins, that gives each coin a value of about $10 million.
So the possibility of generating coins today with a few cents of compute
time may be quite a good bet, with a payoff of something like 100 million
to 1! Even if the odds of Bitcoin succeeding to this degree are slim,
are they really 100 million to one against? Something to think about...
Hal 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. ... 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? |
|
|
|
Just don't forget these words by Hal and you all will be good.
"With 20 million coins, that gives each coin a value of about $10 million."
Hal was a smart guy, but he arrived at that number through faulty economic reasoning. Well no economics was involved.. he just did the math and it's correct. He literally said he thought the total value of the currency should be equal to the total value of all the wealth in the world. Which is nonsense. It is not because something is being expressed in a unit, that that unit needs to expand to whatever is being measured. For example, let's say I measure the length of my furniture by comparing to the length of my thumb. Why would there then need to be as many of my thumbs as there is furniture in the world? If that sounds strange or weird, that is because it is weird and nonsensical. Money is just an asset class on its own, which takes up a certain portion of total wealth in the world. sauce : https://twitter.com/DrBitcoinMD?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1165004233663496197%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cryptopolitan.com%2Fhal-finney-bitcoin-price-prediction-10-m%2FI like bullish BTC price predictions as much as the next guy, but if we just switch off our critical thinking whenever somebody says something nice about bitcoin, we are more of a religion or cult than anything else. Which is not needed imo, as the realistic scenario for bitcoin holds plenty of upside and promise. Well he didn’t say it will happen but he stated it as “an amusing thought experiment”. On other hand if that happens and Bitcoin becomes the standard global currency in the world then measuring bitcoin against dollar will be as useless as it’s today… 1 BTC = 1 BTC Anyway yes it might be insane but not when you take it as an amusing thought experiment. As an amusing thought experiment, imagine that Bitcoin is successful and becomes the dominant payment system in use throughout the world. Then the total value of the currency should be equal to the total value of all the wealth in the world. Current estimates of total worldwide household wealth that I have found range from $100 trillion to $300 trillion. With 20 million coins, that gives each coin a value of about $10 million.
... you've pulled the piece of Hal's comment out of context. The full comment was about the asymmetric upside bet. To estimate the asymmetry he needed a ballpark figure for an upside value of btc, at the time it was worthless, so to get an order of magnitude estimate Hal used total global wealth which for a ballpark order of magnitude estimate is fine. ... then he compared the upside value potential of bitcoin with the odds of bitcoin achieving monetary dominance, which he then estimated only needed to be less than 100 million to 1 for to make sense to acquire/hodl some bitcoin, which at the time were worthless remember. He was resoundingly right and the statement still stands, the asymmetric bet was worth it. Edit; relevant portion of Hal's comment One immediate problem with any new currency is how to value it. Even
ignoring the practical problem that virtually no one will accept it
at first, there is still a difficulty in coming up with a reasonable
argument in favor of a particular non-zero value for the coins.
As an amusing thought experiment, imagine that Bitcoin is successful and
becomes the dominant payment system in use throughout the world. Then the
total value of the currency should be equal to the total value of all
the wealth in the world. Current estimates of total worldwide household
wealth that I have found range from $100 trillion to $300 trillion. With
20 million coins, that gives each coin a value of about $10 million.
So the possibility of generating coins today with a few cents of compute
time may be quite a good bet, with a payoff of something like 100 million
to 1! Even if the odds of Bitcoin succeeding to this degree are slim,
are they really 100 million to one against? Something to think about...
Hal |
|
|
|
https://apnews.com/article/virgin-galactic-launch-richard-branson-37fd721264b1421f8a1223ee5e5626e3excerpt: TRUTH OR CONSEQUENCES, N.M. (AP) — Swashbuckling billionaire Richard Branson hurtled into space aboard his own winged rocket ship Sunday, bringing astro-tourism a step closer to reality and beating out his exceedingly richer rival Jeff Bezos.
The nearly 71-year-old Branson and five crewmates from his Virgin Galactic space-tourism company reached an altitude of 53.5 miles (86 kilometers) over the New Mexico desert — enough to experience three to four minutes of weightlessness and witness the curvature of the Earth — and then glided back home to a runway landing.
“The whole thing, it was just magical,” a jubilant Branson said on his return aboard the gleaming white space plane, named Unity... Not to nitpick. But the Karman Line, the line that conventionally limits the space, is at 100 km. So, this is bullshit marketing. Close, but no cigar! ... this is actually worse than nitpicky because it's borderline ignorant. The atmosphere thins in a logarithmically decaying manner dependent on height so there is no 'line' where the atmosphere ends and space begins. von Karman suggested a "boundary" at around 84 kilometres where aerodynamic flight can be calculated as ceasing to be possible to demarcate "space". The US authorities FAA, NASA, USAF etc recognise 50 miles (80 kilometres), the europeans use something totally different (when don't they?) but happens to be at exactly 100 kilometres, see what they did there? A standards pissing contest between government agencies over where space 'begins' is like that US law defining the value of pi from the 1800s ... idiots arguing over nonsense that none of them understand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n_line... but I agree Branson is full of marketing BS, I think you probably have to do a full orbit of the planet to claim to have "been into space" |
|
|
|
|
... nothing surprises me about the characters that show up in bitcoin, perform bizzare antics (and some leave spectacularly too), it's an endless stream of ass-clownery you wouldn't get if you paid for it at the circus
.. Like CSW and Musk joining forces to produce the One-True coin wouldn't surprise me at this stage, it would totally fit the bitcoin history of crazies, interlopers that the 2 biggest charlatans got together, ass-hat and ass-clown double act
|
|
|
|
..... I had a reply typed up but what's the point, I'm not going to (and not trying to) change anyone's mind here and it's decidedly off topic.
Let's get back to bitching about China and Elon whatshisname.
Off topic in the Wob?? I didn't think that was possible. As long as you are not a cryptonian alt, I think you're good. Mind you, mentioning the word "c****o" might irritate jay, causing him to spout lots of wordenings... Gosh... I didn't even get triggered, or did I? Speaking of the BTC price: As I type we seem to be dippenning and pushing upon low $32ks.... perhaps? Perhaps? What to do peeps? Cry? Or something else? 32K is Adam's number so it is appropriate we should form a solid base here ... he's probably the one doing all the dumping now his target is met |
|
|
|
....
... ponder this, ....
Ok, I just pondered that bro. Honestly, I don't think I'll lose any sleep over it.... ....Oh that reminds me!...gotta go work on the new mix down of an old band recording titled "Paranoid Delusions"...... ... seriously I wouldn't bother if I was you, your music and song-writing sucks, but if it makes you happy, I'm not your master ... or maybe make one "Propaganda for the People"? give you a warm-fuzzy feeling inside knowing you got the gubmints back? |
|
|
|
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/mechanicville-plant-mining-bitcoin... cool story, steampunk era hydropower station being used to mine bitcoin ... think of bitcoin mining like a portable electricity buyer in the market that can buy at source .... currently paying ~ 9cents per kWh ... and similar for stranded gas energy sources ... bitcoin mining will fundamentally change the energy and electricity developments, in the same way it has incentivised chip developments .... not to mention by directly tying monetary pricing as a social good into energy pricing as a social good
|
|
|
|
But let me ask if I did misunderstand that you compared not getting vaccinated with not washing your hands after you poop and therefor implying it's question of intelligence or evolutionary retardedness to vaccinate or not?
Not sure why your first thought is "intelligence", but the point here is hygiene and more specifically - spread of certain infections. If one doesn't particularly care about that then washing hands is kinda pointless. "Naturalist" antivaxers reliant on their own immunity should probably lick their hands to build up said immunity. I hope this explains the hand-washing jab (pun intended). As to all the other stuff that you made up (e.g. partying like it's 2019), it sounds like your own issue as it has nothing to do with what I said. I had a reply typed up but what's the point, I'm not going to (and not trying to) change anyone's mind here and it's decidedly off topic. Let's get back to bitching about China and Elon whatshisname. ... here's your guy getting your wishes fulfilled https://twitter.com/conspiracycen/status/1412497791650308102?s=12 |
|
|
|
... see above, the vaccines are non-sterilising so the virus is still replicating, and mutating, among the vaccinated so your logic is based on a fallacy
This was known about the covid vaccine from the very beginning. It still doesn't render it ineffective against controlling spread of the virus. If it did, why are cases falling in places with substantial rates of vaccination?  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vaccines-need-not-completely-stop-covid-transmission-to-curb-the-pandemic1/#In a paper in the October 2020 issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, researchers modeled what a COVID-19 vaccine with varying types of protection could mean. They found that if a vaccine protects 80 percent of those immunized and 75 percent of the population is vaccinated, it could largely end an epidemic without other measures such as social distancing...
...if the vaccine only prevents disease or reduces viral shedding rather than eliminating it, additional public health measures may still be necessary. Even so, Lee stressed that a widespread nonsterilizing vaccine could still reduce burden on the health care system and save lives.
This was written all the way back in January, and guess what? It did save lives. ... thanks for backing up my point, the vaccines were never primarily about preventing the spread of the virus since it is already endemic and the vaccines are in the most part non-sterilising ... the vaccines were primarily about preventing overwhelming hospitalisations, which they have now done aided no doubt by natural immunity, your move public health gurus .... i.e. preventing overwhelming hospitalisations does not require population-wide vaccination and virus eradication, that would be an expansion of the vaccination mandate ... shifting the goalposts comes easily though for those drunk on pandemic-induced fear and powers grabbed |
|
|
|
Personally, I don't support mandatory vaccinations, but having a relatively large pool of unvaccinated people increases the "field" for the virus to propagate in and, therefore, produce new variants that could potentially break through to both vaccinated and unvaccinated. Non-replicating virus cannot mutate.
... see above, the vaccines are non-sterilising so the virus is still replicating, and mutating, among the vaccinated so your logic is based on a fallacy .... it maybe advantageous in these circumstances to maintain a pool of unvaccinated in case a mutant that proves to be extraordinarily deadly arises in the vaccinated population that is less deadly for the naturally immune, as an insurance policy for humanity |
|
|
|
İf I dont want to take that vaccine then I dont want it. İt should be my choice.
Except for the part where you infect others. ... the current vaccines are non-sterilising, especially mRNA vacc., this means you will still spread the virus and 'infect others' if you are vaccinated or not ... so you can park that particularly odious moral superiority guilt-trip attempt |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
