Lol, I know you doubt it, that's why you're objectively wrong. Go back and read the thread, it's all there in black and white. I made a post based on something in the OP. Someone responded to me, and I responded to them. Then you responded to me asking me why I had my head in the sand. You butted into a response that had nothing to do with you to attack my opinion and then wondered why I took issue with you after that. It's not open to your interpretation you absolute unit.


Again, nope, not what happened. I didn't address you until you addressed me. I didn't come in here talking to you at all. And I didn't take issue with your (still dumb) claim until you brought it up in response to my response to someone else's post after you already attacked me.  Go look for yourself ffs.  I 'm getting tired of correcting you on your confusions.

You can't even get simple facts right. That's why I'm no longer even bothering with your opinions.

Gold rings can be quite cheap price-wise. Just because it's gold, doesn't mean it has to be exorbitant. Even if you wanted to "splurge" for the purpose of getting married, I think most people would find that sacrificing some personal expenses for the purpose of making a symbolic gesture to your significant other as a worthy one.

Their lack of commitment to hold indefinitely is definitely worth nothing. Michael Saylor is all over pumping bitcoin now that his company owns so much of it, but he comes off as a total shill in light of how he pumps it endlessly on twitter but his statement that they'll dump the bitcoin if the bet goes south on them. If it was any crypto other than bitcoin, his name would be synonymous with all the other shills. But because it bitcoin, people are treating him like a hero around here. I'm not one to be fooled by that.

I don't view people trying to get rich through buying bitcoin any differently than people trying to get rich from winning the lottery. The lambo dreams and mooning thing is a meme but not exactly realistic. The time of making life-changing money is passed. But people are still chasing it the same way people chase winning the lottery.

No they're not, they're hack partisans who vote red until they're dead. Trying to paint it as conscientious voters who are responding to health care costs is a laughable distortion of both the issue of healthcare and the reality of what Trump supporters vote on. And Trump hasn't done jack for the country. He started a trade war that has destroyed small farmers, then pushed bailouts that went largely to massive farming corporations. Everything Trump has done has been designed to loot the treasury for his own gain or fat cat cronies. And just because you can't think of anything Biden has done doesn't mean "nobody" can. You sound like a typical Trump booster, so you'd deny reality anyway.

Generally, it's only the very rich who would buy extra property they're not regularly using. There are plenty of people who own additional property other than their primary residence as an investment. In that way, the property produces income for the extra expenses associated with owning the property and owning it doesn't cost money.

It's true that gold and bitcoin are unlikely to be affecting each other's prices, but they are correlated in that there is a decent amount of people using bitcoin as a hedge against inflation, as gold is traditionally used. In that sense, you can expect larger macro trends in the economy that affect the price of gold to impact bitcoin in the same way (to a limited extent).

There are disparities between the CPI and prices people are actually paying for things they are buying regularly, so the real inflation rate is higher than the inflation rate reported by the CPI. Gas is component of CPI and the price is down, so it offsets some of the inflation experienced by consumers. Miles driven is way down so gas isn't as important anymore as an inflation indicator. Just one small way it's hard to measure the actual inflation rate being experienced in this economy.

There are more and more bridges between the traditional investing world and the crypto world. There are all kinds of companies that offer services to institutional investors, which is fairly new. However, I don't know why investors would want to pay the fees associated with something like a Grayscale (to name one) which are exorbitant compared to buying crypto yourself.

I think it's absolutely correct to view social security as a tax. Logistically, the money you're taxed isn't put into an account for you to withdraw later when you retire. It's paid out to current retirees in the present. In the future when you retire, your payments will come from younger workers who are paying the social security tax.

Yes, it's not a complicated concept. Cryptocurrency is an unproductive asset. You can own it and it doesn't produce income. It doesn't produce jobs. Do you actually not understand this? Any "crypto jobs" that exist were created by people, not the currency. Again, a hammer doesn't create jobs. People create jobs for which you have to use a hammer to complete the job, but that's not the hammer creating the job. Same concept with crypto.

And no, the whole financial system is not moving to the blockchain technology. A tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of 1 percent of the financial system utilizes blockchain, and that's your definition of the "whole financial system?"

Volatility of price is one thing for crypto, but even if it there was no volatility, crypto does not create an income stream itself. Just like owning gold doesn't produce income, owning crypto doesn't produce income. It's an unproductive asset. The only potential return it represents is capital appreciation. There is no cash flow associated with owning it.

Most the population most certainly does not have immunity first of all. No country even has a majority infected to be said to mostly have immunity. The number infected still represents a very small minority of any geographic population. On top of this, there is no consensus that those who have been infected are immune to reinfection. And on top of that, the virus is known to be rapidly evolving as it moves through the population, so even if you are immune to one strain, you could be infected by another.

Well in this case, the recession is artificially imposed in that the government is the one that shut things down in an attempt to control the spread of the virus. It may have happened without government intervention as the virus spread and people began to fear contracting it and therefore voluntarily curtail economic activity, but I doubt it would have been as severe as mandated shutdowns. Because it's artificially imposed, there's hope for a faster recovery than if it was an organic recession.

I think you're overstating how much can be done with automation. We're not anywhere near being able to produce everything we currently need automatically without human involvement. You're also completely ignoring the fact that the rich who own the means of production would absolutely not relinquish control over what they own. When automation is employed to save on costs, those profits pool to the billionaire class and their wealth is where their political power comes from. 0% chance they give that up.

Damn mate, I don't have the energy to go point by point with you when so much is not deserving of a response or little substance was added. I'm just going to ignore the inconsistencies and give some blanket responses to some of your more salient points that are worth responding to.

My whole entry into this discussion was stating I wouldn't be interested in any company that took this large of a stake in a volatile asset and tried to tell me it was less risky than cash. That's where I came in, that's been my point this whole time. Having this opinion is not incongruent with owning bitcoin, which I do.

I got into bitcoin around the end of 2013, around the time it was garnering major attention for the first time for breaking $1000.  Continued to buy for the next 2 years as the price bounced all round the $200 to $600 range. Like I said previously, I'm interested in it and I have enough exposure to care what the price is. But just because I own it doesn't mean I'm one of these lambo dreams to the moon types of people. I work in the investment industry. I recognize what bitcoin is and what it isn't and where it sits on the risk scale compared to other types of assets.  So I came in with the opinion that I didn't like all the risk by MicroStrategy and wouldn't invest in them, and your response to me was to ask me why I had my head in the sand, and that's where everything went from there.

And for the record, because this one is really rankling me, there is never a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty for failing to invest in an asset that has nothing to do with the underlying business of the company. People can and will sue for anything, but you will never, never have a judgment against a company for not investing in bitcoin. There is no cause of action there. It is not possible to place an affirmative duty on someone to do something that is not part of their mandate.

They were able to buy the substantial amount of bitcoin in a relatively short amount of time without sending the price through the roof.  This should give us an indication that the market is large and liquid enough to absorb that kind of order without significant price movement.  If it's true on the buy side, it's not unreasonable to think it would be relatively the same on the sell side.

Money itself is a medium for exchange of value and has some other technical requirements for something to qualify as "money." For me, Bitcoin fails the stability requirement of money since it is so volatile, and so for me, bitcoin (and all crypto) constitutes a terrible form of money since the value is so unstable. As an asset, though, it fits all the criteria necessary to be considered so.

There was a website that used to do this type of betting that I liked years ago.  I can't remember what it was called, but that's how I learned how it works. It used to do everything on chain though, as opposed to the offchain betting that occurs on this site (which is an improvement in my opinion as long as you can trust the operator). The onchain stuff was back in the days when transaction fees were dust, and the dust represented fractions of a penny so it was no big deal to have the on chain transactions, and it also served as a transparency check on the operator.

It's not smoke and mirrors and it has nothing to do with debt. India and Brazil both have a good chance to pass the US in number of cases. India due to population density presenting a giant risk to the country and the total population gives a lot more potential infections, and Brazil because they have an idiotic leader who downplays the virus and is more content to ignore it than try to prevent the spread of it (shares this in common with the US, but more at risk I would say due to economic and structural weaknesses in the government compared to the US).