A chart says more than thousand words:
Imagine instead of being a troll-bear you bought bitcoins in 2011 when you joined this site. If you read his posts from back then you'll se that he actually did. But whatever. "I made money with a large scale pump&dump, therefore any argument from you to discredit it comes from the fact that you missed the train".
I know it's inconceivable for you that one might just prefer to be objective rather than to shill for personal profit, but yeah. |
|
|
|
Now let see how many developers will develop with no incentives  What incentives are you talking about? I already said that the "bitcoin incentive to secure the network" is only in proof-of-work systems like the bitcoin blockchain. What incentives? Are you saying that an app developer only has an incentive to build applications on top of these technologies if he buys a coin and the coin appreciates in price? What are you saying? |
|
|
|
^Are you guys brainless zombies or something? I just told you that the world might need distributed ledger technologies but not cryptocurrencies (and not distributed ledgers that NEED an overpriced high marketcap cryptocurrency like bitcoin in the bitcoin blockchain to secure the network), basically saying that cryptoCURRENCIES themselves don't have a future and you call me a "shitcoin pumper"?  |
|
|
|
The world doesn't need a cryptocurrency, it might need distributed ledgers technologies, but a distributed ledger technology that makes sense doesn't necessarily need a cryptocurrency in order to work like in the bitcoin the currency-blockchain system.
You could use distributed ledger technologies in order to send fiat currencies internationally for almost zero fees (like the ripple network is trying to do, again, not ripple the coin, and again, ripple is just an example, hyperledger and others are trying to do similar things), use it for applications such as smart contracts and others. Basically for all the reasons you are saying bitcoin is great, bitcoin THE CURRENCY IS not only unnecessary, but it creates more problems than it tries to solve, such as irreversibility (0 consumer protection, a chimera any currency should avoid like the plague), slow transactions, higher fees in the future, volatility, scalability, and countless others. And overall, fiat currencies work just fine, a new volatile irreversible currency is not what is useful or needed.
That why I am using the "cryptocurrencies = pets.com" analogy and that's why I am taking tulips only for the chart comparison as an example of a bubble that bursted even tho the two don't share much fundamentals wise.
You do understand that the currency is the incentive for people to update and maintain that distributed ledger right? Only in a system that uses proof-of-work (or a joke like proof-of-stake) like the bitcoin blockchain but a distributed ledger technology that makes sense doesn't necessarily need a cryptocurrency in order to work like in the bitcoin the currency-blockchain system.
The ripple consensus protocol for example doesn't need a high marketcap token as an incentive to secure the network. Hyperledger and others are doing the same thing. Others will follow. Ha I see. You are a shitcoin pumper. Thing is, they all have a coins, they are all pointless and that's why nobody is developing on top of these. I just told you that the world might need distributed ledger technologies but not cryptocurrencies (and not distributed ledgers that NEED an overpriced high marketcap cryptocurrency like bitcoin in the bitcoin blockchain), basically saying that cryptoCURRENCIES themselves don't have a future and you call me a "shitcoin pumper"? I don't know in what world you are living but the world is already moving toward cryptoCURRENCIES because they provide the incentives for developer to develop on top of them. A distributed ledger with no coins is a distributed ledger with no incentives that no one will care. Good luck with that. Nobody will care about a distributed ledger where you can move any fiat currency or any asset and where you can build applications, smart contracts etc? More like "nobody will care about cryptocurrencies themselves if you can move fiat currencies and any other asset using distributed ledger technology" |
|
|
|
The world doesn't need a cryptocurrency, it might need distributed ledgers technologies, but a distributed ledger technology that makes sense doesn't necessarily need a cryptocurrency in order to work like in the bitcoin the currency-blockchain system.
You could use distributed ledger technologies in order to send fiat currencies internationally for almost zero fees (like the ripple network is trying to do, again, not ripple the coin, and again, ripple is just an example, hyperledger and others are trying to do similar things), use it for applications such as smart contracts and others. Basically for all the reasons you are saying bitcoin is great, bitcoin THE CURRENCY IS not only unnecessary, but it creates more problems than it tries to solve, such as irreversibility (0 consumer protection, a chimera any currency should avoid like the plague), slow transactions, higher fees in the future, volatility, scalability, and countless others. And overall, fiat currencies work just fine, a new volatile irreversible currency is not what is useful or needed.
That why I am using the "cryptocurrencies = pets.com" analogy and that's why I am taking tulips only for the chart comparison as an example of a bubble that bursted even tho the two don't share much fundamentals wise.
You do understand that the currency is the incentive for people to update and maintain that distributed ledger right? Only in a system that uses proof-of-work (or a joke like proof-of-stake) like the bitcoin blockchain but a distributed ledger technology that makes sense doesn't necessarily need a cryptocurrency in order to work like in the bitcoin the currency-blockchain system.
The ripple consensus protocol for example doesn't need a high marketcap token as an incentive to secure the network. Hyperledger and others are doing the same thing. Others will follow. Ha I see. You are a shitcoin pumper. Thing is, they all have a coins, they are all pointless and that's why nobody is developing on top of these. I just told you that the world might need distributed ledger technologies but not cryptocurrencies (and not distributed ledgers that NEED an overpriced high marketcap cryptocurrency like bitcoin in the bitcoin blockchain to secure the network), basically saying that cryptoCURRENCIES themselves don't have a future and you call me a "shitcoin pumper"? |
|
|
|
The world doesn't need a cryptocurrency, it might need distributed ledgers technologies, but a distributed ledger technology that makes sense doesn't necessarily need a cryptocurrency in order to work like in the bitcoin the currency-blockchain system.
You could use distributed ledger technologies in order to send fiat currencies internationally for almost zero fees (like the ripple network is trying to do, again, not ripple the coin, and again, ripple is just an example, hyperledger and others are trying to do similar things), use it for applications such as smart contracts and others. Basically for all the reasons you are saying bitcoin is great, bitcoin THE CURRENCY IS not only unnecessary, but it creates more problems than it tries to solve, such as irreversibility (0 consumer protection, a chimera any currency should avoid like the plague), slow transactions, higher fees in the future, volatility, scalability, and countless others. And overall, fiat currencies work just fine, a new volatile irreversible currency is not what is useful or needed.
That why I am using the "cryptocurrencies = pets.com" analogy and that's why I am taking tulips only for the chart comparison as an example of a bubble that bursted even tho the two don't share much fundamentals wise.
You do understand that the currency is the incentive for people to update and maintain that distributed ledger right? Only in a system that uses proof-of-work (or a joke like proo-of-stake) like the bitcoin blockchain but a distributed ledger technology that makes sense doesn't necessarily need a cryptocurrency in order to work like in the bitcoin the currency-blockchain system.
The ripple consensus protocol for example doesn't need a high marketcap token as an incentive to secure the network. Hyperledger and others are doing the same thing. Others will follow. |
|
|
|
^ For someone that doesn't believe in the need for cryptocurrencies you sure do spend a HELL of a lot of time on a forum dedicated to them. What should the reason(s) be then? The classic "he spreads FUD cuz he wants to buy cheap coins"?  |
|
|
|
|
The world doesn't need a cryptocurrency, it might need distributed ledgers technologies, but a distributed ledger technology that makes sense doesn't necessarily need a cryptocurrency in order to work like in the bitcoin the currency-blockchain system.
You could use distributed ledger technologies in order to send fiat currencies internationally for almost zero fees (like the ripple network is trying to do, again, not ripple the coin, and again, ripple is just an example, hyperledger and others are trying to do similar things), use it for applications such as smart contracts and others. Basically for all the reasons you are saying bitcoin is great, bitcoin THE CURRENCY IS not only unnecessary, but it creates more problems than it tries to solve, such as irreversibility (0 consumer protection, a chimera any payment system should avoid like the plague), slow transactions, higher fees in the future, volatility, scalability, and countless others. And overall, fiat currencies work just fine, a new volatile irreversible currency is not what is useful or needed.
That why I am using the "cryptocurrencies = pets.com" analogy and that's why I am taking tulips only for the chart comparison as an example of a bubble that bursted even tho the two don't share much fundamentals wise.
|
|
|
|
I agree that they show a lot of similarity, up until the last portion - again where Tulips drop completely and BTC hasn't dropped anywhere near close to the same point. In fact, BTC has now been hovering just around where the previous ATH was. The Tulips' chart didn't do anything remotely close to that.
The chart you posted is just on a different time scale. There is all the time in the world for the BTC price to "drop completely" (as you say, but again, tulips never went to 0 so they didn't actually "drop completely") like tulips did   [/img  Again, I honestly don't wish to go off on a tangent in this discussion about fundamentals and trying to correlate BTC -> Pets.com now. I don't blame you for trying to shift the discussion away.
Lol. "go off a tangent?" My point is that bitcoin is a bubble, the pets.com analogy is arguably even more relevant to the point than the tulip chart comparison. I take it as, "I don't know how to answer that and I don't want to go in depth" I'm sorry that English isn't your first language. Considering that we're conversing via an English forum, it's important that we're all working with the same ground rules, or else there's no point in attempting honest communication.
Claiming that "tulips going from their ATH -> zero in half a year" is exactly the same as "BTC going from it's ATH -> 1/6th of the ATH in a year" is inherently false. Chalking it up to semantics is a bad look.
If you're going to try and base an argument off of a false premise, you also have to accept that some people will choose to ignore you after that - because it ends up becoming a waste of time.
Ok, I take it you are gonna continue nitpick about semantics for the rest of the discussion. |
|
|
|
English is not my first language, so problems you have with the words I'm using may be because of that? Who cares? The two charts show a "High degree of similarity". That is what I meant and it's just obvious they can't be 100% the same. I hope everybody else can see you are just nitpicking about semantics, but whatever Still no mention of anything regarding the pets.com analogy I posted, that works better if we are talking fundamentals. Y u no talk bout that? |
|
|
|
|
Comment on the pets.com analogy instead of talking semantics.
|
|
|
|
Exactly my point  They still have a price that is not zero, of course Are you sure you're trying to make this point now? It would significantly detract from your prior, still-flawed argument. Tulips look to be about $3.50 on that site, in today's dollars, whereas at the peak of tulipmania when an average tulip bulb was running $64,000. http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/12/when-certain-tulips-cost-more-than-a-house/So you're trying to say that BTC going from $1200 -> $244 = tulips going $64,000 -> $3.50? Math can be hard sometimes, but come on. Again, of course they are not 100% identical and they won't unfold in EXACTLY the same manner. What the hell? Jesus. Fucking. Christ. Also, there is all the time in the world for bitcoin to go way lower than what it is now, don't be so impatient. |
|
|
|
@ThatDGuy: Jesus Christ dude, are we talking semantics now? I said "look identical", not identical, of course they can't be "exactly 100% identical" FFS. What I meant is that the charts show a bubble that doesn't retrace completely (the first tulip bubble I circled) that continues to pump fairly quickly in another one that then eventually retraces completely to reach very low prices, given enough time. Two bubbles relatively close in time, as the initial charts I posted shows. Simple. As. That. Yes, in 2011 BTC was easily "pumpable", a lot of penny stocks easily pump to $1B-$10B marketcap, so anything that has a marketcap A LOT smaller than that can be easily pumped. There are countless famous examples of penny stocks pump&dumps. It was easily pumpable especially compared to the current marketcap ($2-$3 B). If you can't understand the difference between pumping bitcoin at $2 to reach a high of $32 and beyond and pumping it at $250 to reach a high of $1200 and beyond I don't know what to say to you.
No offense, but nothing you've written here gives me any confidence of your ability to construct a well-thought-out argument supporting a theory. If you want to start talking about fundamentals somewhere else, you're more than welcome. Your original point was that BTC's recent bubbles and tulips' bubbles were exactly/identically the same (therefore, they are comparable?) but that is false. The fundamental differences between tulips and BTC are so wildly different that bringing them up here in anything other than a cursory mention would just further derail the discussion. I can absolutely see why you would want to derail it now given that your initial premise was inherently flawed.
Whatever, my point is that scarcity doesn't matter. Such similarities/differences between the two items/assets are just details. And yes I took the occasion to talk about the so called "scarcity argument" and to say that it is a non-argument for bitcoin. So? Why don't you comment on the pets.com analogy I mentioned instead of talking about details such as scarcity of tulips and bitcoins? PS: can't you understand that the tulip chart I posted is highly simplified and that it probably never went to zero in the first place? |
|
|
|
Exactly my point They still have a price that is not zero, of course |
|
|
|
What is your point? I know of no other crypto that has the infastructure that btc has?
Who is talking about infrastructure? I am saying the world doesn't need cryptocurrencies, not that a shitcoin is gonna replace BTC lol My point is you are obviously either all pissey because you lost the 10 dollars to your name trying to be a trader or you are a paid shill making $1 a day posting.
When people here says something you don't like you start to insult them with empty personal attacks. Classic. If you were trying to warn people, you would take your efforts to the shitcoins.
I don't give a fuck about no shitcoin son, never did. |
|
|
|
There are numerous shitcoins that are 0.
So? A lot of them that are equally worthless are not at 0. That is enough to prove my point. |
|
|
|
Now, the author was correct in saying BTC was in a bubble at that time. Plenty of people were saying it and were right. He then went on to incorrectly make the assumption that because BTC was in a bubble that it would behave identically to something else in history that also went through a bubble... despite the two assets/items in question having nothing else in common. At one point in their history, tulips did have scarcity in common with BTC - again, given that we're discussing ridiculously different assets, their scarcity was not limited by their design. Supply of tulips started to catch up. The supply of BTC is fixed.
Oh, I see what you are trying to say: "tulips were just useless flowers, bitcoin is a revolutionary technology". The tulip comparison works well because the charts look identical and it works to prove a point using their respective charts. But sure, fundamentals wise is not quite the same. I agree. Regarding fundamentals, another better analogy I like to bring up is pets.com (or any other domain that went into a bubble like World.com) during the dotcom bubble. With the idea that: distributed ledger technologies -> the internet cryptocurrencies -> pets.com You can read all about it in my post here (the second part of the post, mostly) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=931714.msg10236780#msg10236780Oh, and scarcity, the thing you bitcoiners always like to talk about. bitcoin's scarcity is 100% artificial. It the world doesn't need cryptocurrencies (or at least it doesn't need them for use cases that justify a high price/marketcap), it doesn't need them, whether they are scarce or not. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
