This logic is flawed on so many levels. First and foremost, you should evaluate things as they relate to other things and circumstances, not on their own. So, unless you mean a particular asset, and assess the value of the dollar against it, all in all the dollar was not worth twice as much some 20 years ago. Okay, you are going to say that it was 50 years ago

And then, that's where you make the same mistake as all other people coming up with this reasoning. They don't account for how much wages rose during exactly that time. If they rose faster, then the dollar inflation in this frame of reference (the only one making sense as far as real increase in wealth is concerned) may turn out negative, i.e. effectively deflation

And while we are at it, Bitcoin was worth 2 times more some 3 years ago

I even created a topic around this idea in the past

But now you go beyond what was stated in the OP as you seem to agree that it is Bitcoin sellers who are betting against it, while buyers betting in favor of it. Regardless, the problem is that with more accumulation Bitcoin becomes less useful. Seriously, of what use will it be if all coins are in the hands of a single individual? But this is what follows as you implicitly assume more coins get stashed away at the end of the day (otherwise there is no push for next rise in price)

Indeed, it is an extreme case but it still clearly demonstrates that holders are shooting themselves in the foot as it more and more becomes a game of musical chairs with fewer and fewer chairs at each iteration (price rise). If holders don't sell (in terms of coins stashed) what is left to buy there (in terms of liquidity)? And now this is the case for the subject matter of this highly disconcerting thread (read, we will get stopped halfway as in more like already)

Ultimately, it is up to you


Failures pave the road to success, right?

However, if something is not your cup of tea, why waste time and effort when you can drink champagne instead? So the real question we should ask ourselves in such a situation is not how hard it is and what to do with it (it is actually secondary) but whether what we are doing is our thing in the first place. If we can honestly answer this question in the affirmative, all other things can be overcome in due course, and then we can genuinely say that failures pave the road to success indeed. Otherwise, you will get nothing out of the setbacks other than frustration and anger

I'm not sure if the matter in question has anything to do with that

As I got it, you are trying to somehow justify the rich and wealthy who got there by simple holding. But this is not what the topic is dedicated to. For starters, it is definitely not about how fair or unfair the world is, Bitcoin or otherwise, so I'm not going deeper into your post. If anything, it is oriented more toward exploring the mechanism with which people get rich by holding Bitcoin, its inner workings and particular details, as well as processes involved, without making any moral judgment about any of these

It might be true among the young generation mostly

As the majority of adults have already been exposed to gambling at some stage in their lives, and if they didn't turn into addicts before, it is unlikely they are going to become such now, even if their friend or friends are going to try to reintroduce them to this activity. They may play for fun but then quickly lose interest and switch to something else. Unlike the coronavirus, gambling addiction is not that contagious

I for one like Roman numerals

But how could it be any different?

When you are forced to stay at home for weeks on quarantine, with essentially nothing to do, it is no surprise that many people has taken to online gambling as their pastime. And from there it won't take long for some of them to turn into full-blown gambling addicts. As an aside, we should also expect the birth rates to soar by the end of the year (sad irony, this is going to make up for the loss of lives)

That's how things stand with respect to purely speculative assets

If you buy an asset with the sole intention of selling it later at a higher price (the process quite adequately characterized by calling it speculation), you get richer when the price goes up. But how can it go up? Right, when other people buy after you. And if they are like you (read, profiteers and speculators), it is very well along the lines "he has to do it at the expense of someone else" ("throw that person down" is your invention, so I leave it out)


If he intends on selling this artifact at a higher price later, but the price goes down for whatever reason, he will lose money

Could you prove the authenticity of your claims?

I mean if you would come up with authentic screenshots that you actually had three referrals who wagered over 1M dollars each, it would give much more weight to your words. Then we would ask wolf.bet to confirm (it kinda makes sense). You know extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that. Otherwise you risk being taken as a windbag. Just saying how it feels, nothing personal

Все бы так и печатали, ага


И где в этом законе про просто так взять и напечатать еще немного акций? И почему для этого тогда вообще нужен какой-то закон? Такая мысль в голову не приходила, не?


Я понимаю, что это нормально. Только акционерному обществу от этого в целом ни холодно ни жарко (в финансовом смысле, разумеется)

Well, we are not talking about purchasing power itself

Rather, we are discussing changes in it, and these are different things (e.g. a function and its derivative are typically, nay, typically different functions). Moreover, we are talking about the sources of this change. If you visit a poorer country, you may feel wealthy indeed but your wealth didn't increase at the expense of the poor population (though they may still suffer from your relentless expenditures). However, you make it look like people in the "against" group who got there solely by virtue of losing their purchasing power are the source and cause of this increase for some (i.e. holders) in the first place. They are not even if they get affected (become poorer) as a side effect of such an increase

I don't instabuy into this line of reasoning

I agree that it often makes perfect sense in real life circumstances, like having more purchasing power leading to grocery prices rising and thus effectively putting those seemingly uninvolved into the "against" group, as far as the effects are concerned. However, this doesn't mean that the disadvantaged group is the source (cause) of the holders' wealth and the increase in their purchasing power. They can be victims (I agree with this), but they are not the source of their victimhood in the sense it is not through them that the growth in the purchasing power of holders becomes possible. In other words, your "inversion" doesn't work here in the way as it follows from that Reddit post. The same with frugal miners

And what are we to make of this?

The question raised in the OP goes well beyond simple math. In fact, the so-called simple math can be quite confusing, misleading, and distracting. Ultimately, it is whether the long term growth (as this is what holders are hoping for, and can derive or obtain their profits from) comes from the people investing their money in Bitcoin (that should count as betting in its favor) or the people investing their shekels in something else instead (that should count as betting against Bitcoin)

I don't think we can say so

Even in the sense you mean it. No-coiners are not losing their purchasing power because there's none unless and until you liquidate your stash. Okay, you bought your bitcoins cheap and sold them dear, so your purchasing power did in fact rise. However, it rose thanks to someone buying from you and not because of someone who doesn't or didn't have any coins, to begin with. Similarly, you can't say that no-coiners are betting against Bitcoin for the simple reason they are not betting at all, either in favor or against it


It is more complicated than that

For example, miners are not buying any bitcoins but they are still selling them. I see you are going to claim that they effectively buy bitcoins by paying for their mining rigs, rent, electricity, whatever, but that would be a faulty logic anyway, even if we accepted this assumption. How come? Because their "purchases" don't contribute to the price growth as they don't "buy" these bitcoins in the open market. Then, you could just assume that by selling their rewards they are in fact betting against Bitcoin, which is the case in real life as their sells do indeed move the price down. It is hard to get around this

Все было хорошо

Но только до этого момента. За исключением случая первичного размещения акций, когда деньги действительно идут в капитал предприятия, торговля этими акциями ничего ему не дает в финансовом смысле, поскольку на изменении цены зарабатывают исключительно инвесторы и спекулянты. В отличие от государства, бизнес не может просто так взять и напечатать еще немного акций (если рассматривать деньги как своего рода акции)

And even in this case it remains a misconception or fallacy

If you literally bet against Bitcoin, there necessarily should be the other party which holds their end of the bet, wagering in favor of Bitcoin. In this way, it is "a zero-sum game" in terms of how it affects the price as all gains are balanced out by losses in the same currency (dollars, bitcoins, etc). Put differently, such bets can't change the price because the wagered amounts are equal and offsetting each other (in a real trading environment it is not so), so the market impact is nonexistent. No amount of such betting can change that, much less enrich holders

But maybe, that was the plan right at the outset, nay, outbreak

Ironically, when it actually comes to that, the US will be in a better shape overall than the rest of the pack. If people acquire a lasting immunity after they recover (which seems to be the case), the pain America now endures may turn out a blessing in disguise if it ever comes to this dreaded second wave. Yeah, I know it smells like a primitive Darwinism to most of you (I can definitely relate), but isn't it the proverbial American way of life? To quote myself, unemployment benefits, social welfare and healthcare are for pussies and Europeans, dying destitute under the bridge (probably from corona) is the American way!



We love you, Murrica!

Then they are no longer betting against Bitcoin

There is only one way holders can become richer in case of a purely speculative asset (just in case, I don't necessarily refer to Bitcoin here), and this is when someone buys it. When someone sells the asset, this adds to the sell pressure, which ultimately forces the prices down. So, holders cannot become richer because of someone betting against the hoarded asset


Every bull run ends with a bull trap

Here I want to discuss a rather popular misconception that many still seem to have as revealed in this Reddit thread where I stumbled upon this post:


The point is, those who actively bet against Bitcoin cannot pay for people getting rich by holding because they are actually dragging the price down. Betting against Bitcoin assumes selling it, probably on margin (i.e. without first buying the cryptocurrency). Conversely, it is those buying bitcoins who drive the price up, and through this making holders richer. It is an interesting case because a plausible and convincing explanation is in fact absolutely wrong, and as such could lead to ruinous decisions if taken into consideration without much thought

The dollar became the world currency thanks to the economic muscle of the States

And it was a long process that had started off in the second half of the 19th century and took over 100 years, with the two world wars in between, from which Uncle Sam profited handsomely in every way imaginable. What it means is that a new competitor to the dollar cannot appear out of nowhere. With that said, though, we shouldn't completely rule out an alternative scenario either, which is about America losing its grip on the world on its own. But it's probably as unlikely, and will take decades to develop and unfold anyway (it took a few centuries for the Roman Empire to collapse)