Yes Bitcoin is a stock. It is also a commodity. It's also asset. It's also currency. It's also an investment. It's also a protocol. It's also a public ledger. It's also anti-establishment. It's also a solution to a problem. It's also open source. It's also anonymity. It's also freedom. As long as you didn't say Bitcoin is just a stock, you're absolutely right  yes threads like this focus too much on labels, and ignore its utility. bitcoin is stock-like, but it's not a stock. it's also currency-like, but it's not a currency. it's currently in a league of its own, and there is no direct comparison.. that's hwy it's so revolutionary. The purpose of my post is to help figure out how to value and predict the future of Bitcoin. It is actually the misunderstanding of labels that create a problem for deciding what Bitcoin is. If you contemplate what a stock actually is today, and I mean most stocks that the average person owns, then you realize that those stocks are digital assets that have value only because of consensus. What is the difference between Bitcoin and a share of lets say BIDU on NASDAQ? Over the years we have collectively agreed that BIDU value should be correlated to some composite of revenue, profit, and potential. It is collective fantasy that we value BIDU in any way at all, but as a group we all somehow agree that BIDU is tied to these "fundamentals" so we all can sleep at night or some pathetic reason. Huh? Look up the definition of "stock" |
|
|
|
Hyperbitcoinization - the idea that the end game is not the flattening out like the top of an S, but rather a final explotion that finishes off all fiat at once, due to a speculative attack on the part of investors. http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/speculative-attack/Nice writing. Good site. They mischaracterized Thier's Law. And Greshams Law is the generally accept principle "bad money drives out good". There are exceptions however in extreme cases Gresham's law sees to situations where bad money "must" be accepted, not in voluntary situations. Otherwise, the recipient would just refuse bad money. Bad money drives out bad means people hoard good money and spend bad money Now I am confused. Haha. Sorry I didnt check before posting. Greshams Law "bad money drives out good money" For example if an economy using gold was introduced to fiat. People would hoard the gold and spend the fiat. If economy is using mostly cash suddenly flooded w credit, people would hoard the cash and spend the credit |
|
|
|
Hyperbitcoinization - the idea that the end game is not the flattening out like the top of an S, but rather a final explotion that finishes off all fiat at once, due to a speculative attack on the part of investors. http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/speculative-attack/Nice writing. Good site. They mischaracterized Thier's Law. And Greshams Law is the generally accept principle "bad money drives out good". There are exceptions however in extreme cases Gresham's law sees to situations where bad money "must" be accepted, not in voluntary situations. Otherwise, the recipient would just refuse bad money. Bad money drives out bad means people hoard good money and spend bad money |
|
|
|
Hyperbitcoinization - the idea that the end game is not the flattening out like the top of an S, but rather a final explotion that finishes off all fiat at once, due to a speculative attack on the part of investors. http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/speculative-attack/Nice writing. Good site. They mischaracterized Thier's Law. And Greshams Law is the generally accept principle "bad money drives out good". There are exceptions however in extreme cases |
|
|
|
Notable quotes from Keen: Banks, private debt, asset markets and money played essential roles in Minsky’s vision of capitalism, but they were completely ignored in mainstream economic models before the crisis. This is where Abbott was and is wrong: just because left-wing economists are ideological, it doesn’t follow that mainstream economics was logical. Crucially, its illogical decision to model capitalism as if banks, private debt and money didn’t exist led it massively astray when it came to perceive grave risks to the real economy. Yeah exactly. So why you keep thinking Central Banks and fractional reserve create money? Central Banks create base money but half the money exists in shadow banking. This is all uncharted territory and where the post-Keynesians & MMT'rs put their focus. The issue is how to regulate shadow banking. We already know how to deal w commercial banks it is important to understand that any major changes to the regulation of shadow banking can cause huge effects as the shadow banking system is highly leveraged Your right about leveraging causing fragility but by definition shadow banking is unregulated banking. We can regulate CDSs for example but the banks will just invent new financial intruments. |
|
|
|
In the twenty first century socialism vs capitalism is a false dichotomy - they are both flawed.
The solution is prosumerism - consumers taking control of the means of production and participating in the process of production via various processes and channels, including revenue sharing, crypto-equities (coins as shares etc), collaborative open source development, 3D printing and other home manufacturing, decentralization in general and ultimately the creation of customer owned DACs.
You are describing a business structure called a co-op. Its not an economic ideology like Communism or Capitalism No, what I am describing may include co-ops, but 3D printing is not a co-op, open source development does not necessarily take place within a co-op, etc. These things already exist. Co-ops, 3D printers, open source software, etc.. Theyre not an economic philosophy and poverty continues to exist. You think drop shipping a bunch of 3D printers to Bangladesh is gonna solve their poverty? Lol. |
|
|
|
over all there will be more hoarders of bitcoin than spenders so relax about the daily movements of bitcoin price. over the long term the price will rise. just at a more stable rate..
So you are making the same bear paradox argument. BTCs get hoarded, this hinders it from being useful medium of exchange. |
|
|
|
In the twenty first century socialism vs capitalism is a false dichotomy - they are both flawed.
The solution is prosumerism - consumers taking control of the means of production and participating in the process of production via various processes and channels, including revenue sharing, crypto-equities (coins as shares etc), collaborative open source development, 3D printing and other home manufacturing, decentralization in general and ultimately the creation of customer owned DACs.
You are describing a business structure called a co-op. Its not an economic ideology like Communism or Capitalism |
|
|
|
do you think we`ll see something again like 2008? Its been 6 years already ever since that moment.
The 2008 collapse was something that generally happens less then once per lifetime. I've witnessed 3 crashes in my lifetime |
|
|
|
|
Ask chartbuddy in the spectaculation forum how he gets his data
|
|
|
|
I've also always liked thinking of Bitcoin more as a stock. Albeit a stock with virtually limitless possibilities unlike evil fiat-based stocks!
Riiight. So bitcoin isn't traded in evil fiat prices.  |
|
|
|
|
The neoclassical/ mainstream view is that money is exogenous. i.e money supply is led by reserves. This could have been gold at one point but later fiat.
The heterodox/ MMT/ post Keynesian view is that money is endogenous . i.e. money created ex-nihilo as credit and reserves are met after. Credit as money!
Monetarists like Friedman believes The Central Bank can deal w the economy thru an exogenous money view. Bernanke increase money supply so that banks increase lending and so on. However, we see no evidence of this
|
|
|
|
The year is 2015. The month is August. Only but a mere 5 months ago, the world witnessed one of the greatest transfers of wealth the world has ever seen. The bitcoin price skyrocketed from 1k to over 100k per bitcoin over the course of 2 weeks. Many pot smoking hippies casually buying weed off the internet were made millionaires overnight. The Winklevoss ETF, as well as sudden bitcoin acceptance announced by large companies such as Amazon, Ebay, Walmart, Exxon-Mobile, BP, Walgreens, Best Buy, and many other companies has been seen as the primary cause of this price rise. Also, Russia has announced that they are making Bitcoin their official reserve currency, and all Russian rubles can be redeemed for bitcoins. The price has settled at around 250k per bitcoin, but rumors that Saudi Arabia is going to drop the dollar and do all oil trading in Bitcoins is threatening to cause even further price increases.
Thousands of people have been able to exit the corporate rat race thanks to their newfound wealth. Bitcoin based businesses are popping up everywhere and stocks of Western Union, Paypal, and Moneygram have dropped in price considerably. It currently costs a thousand dollars to buy a 20TH miner - enough to mine about .0001 bitcoin per day.
It is a glorious time to be a wealthy bitcoiner, but the looming threat of regulations by the USA government to what it sees as a threat to the US Dollar presents an uncertain future.
I cant tell if this is serious or satire.  Its like the kind of reddit/ buttcoin posts that intends to make fun of bitcoiners |
|
|
|
|
Just a small correction. A company doesn't have to be public to issue stock
But yeah bitcoin is not a stock by any stretch
|
|
|
|
What if someone (governments together with banks) would decide to shut down the Internet?
The governments would not survive. The whole globalized society would not survive. It would implode and disappear within days and weeks. All nuclear plants would spread its nuclear inventory into the atmosphere as soon as the power grids collapse. Do you even know how nuclear reactors work? They have back-up generators, which keep them going for a few days to prevent an accident, and they can be dis-armed/rendered harmless within a day at most. The power grids would collapse, that's a given. But there is nothing to say nuclear plants will just explode once it goes down. Things like that don't explode for the sake of exploding. They have massive safety measures in place to help stop meltdowns. What about Fukushima? That wasn't from a power grid failure. If you even watched the news, let alone research it, you'd know it was because salt water had crossed over the barriers made to protect the station, and began to cause havoc inside. Stuff got flooded, generators weren't activated (Since they had died) to keep emergency procedures going on, and people didn't do what they were supposed to. The generators got flooded out while they tried to turn off the cores, which in turn caused a total loss of power (No outside grid, no generators, no cores) and it prevented most of the machines from running, extracting the uranium rods, and tucking them away. Instead, the cooling system was flooded out, rods were left running, and it overheated. It was the Tsunami, not the grid that caused it to die. The point is even safety measures fail. I believe they engineered a sea wall in case of tsunami but they didn't build it high enougg They can fail, but they won't fail (Or at least, highly unlikely) that they'll fail if the grid goes down. That was the point of my discussion. They did have a sea wall, and I think it was something like 2 feet too low (Most likely more than that) and the water overflowed into the plant. So you did get that fact right  Erm, I don't why you being so cocky. But Fukushima did lose power to the emergency generator and the the backup batteries. So total loss of power can result in meltdown. |
|
|
|
This is not exactly what happens. Everything that a central bank does is done in the name of the stability of the economy it is supporting.
essentially that's not incorrect per se, that's why most of the central banking and financy ministry staff might do their work in good conscience. They try to regulate and balance the over-all money supply with their setting of the prime interest rates in the purported best interest for society following the ideas of Keynes (even he would turn in his grave though if he could see how they pervert, i.e. overdo his ideas). however, what OP criticizes is rather how it all started: monopolized fractional reserve banking, which has always been an opaque practice to put it diplomatically, if not an outright scam. it is what caused bank runs, and central banks were invented to fix this problem; central banking as an institution is therefore just another case of trying to fix symptoms rather than causes.Fractional reserve banking allows to create money "on the fly" as needed by the economy. If we removed FRB, then this would likely prevent bank-runs, but without it the economic growth would be hindered. Is there any other automatic means to provide the growing economy with the money it needs that would be as effective? Fractional reserve banking is what allows the economy to grow and what allows most people to borrow for things like houses and cars, and to borrow in times of financial emergencies. I wouldn't say it helps the economy to grow, although in a way it does. It allows for bigger and better numbers, but it also takes away from purchasing power. And it is sadly what people now have to use when it comes to borrowing those things, it would have been nice if there was a set amount, like what the gold standard had. They did fine before 1971. I don't see what would have changed. We could very well have a good society where we didn't have to have Fractional Reserve Lending or any of this, especially if it was a full-on libertarian or Peer-to-Peer system. Jack cuts down a log, sells it to Bill who runs a construction company, for $1. Bill uses the log, and generates $2 from his client. Now, if Jack was in trouble, he could chop down many logs, and earn $5. Bill would use these up eventually, as he would earn $10 in other services or goods from his clients. (Key thing is that when I show stuff in dollars, I mean in value, not necessarily actual money) Umm, err. There was fractional reserve when we had gold standard. Your understanding of economics is really naive w that log example |
|
|
|
What if someone (governments together with banks) would decide to shut down the Internet?
The governments would not survive. The whole globalized society would not survive. It would implode and disappear within days and weeks. All nuclear plants would spread its nuclear inventory into the atmosphere as soon as the power grids collapse. Do you even know how nuclear reactors work? They have back-up generators, which keep them going for a few days to prevent an accident, and they can be dis-armed/rendered harmless within a day at most. The power grids would collapse, that's a given. But there is nothing to say nuclear plants will just explode once it goes down. Things like that don't explode for the sake of exploding. They have massive safety measures in place to help stop meltdowns. What about Fukushima? That wasn't from a power grid failure. If you even watched the news, let alone research it, you'd know it was because salt water had crossed over the barriers made to protect the station, and began to cause havoc inside. Stuff got flooded, generators weren't activated (Since they had died) to keep emergency procedures going on, and people didn't do what they were supposed to. The generators got flooded out while they tried to turn off the cores, which in turn caused a total loss of power (No outside grid, no generators, no cores) and it prevented most of the machines from running, extracting the uranium rods, and tucking them away. Instead, the cooling system was flooded out, rods were left running, and it overheated. It was the Tsunami, not the grid that caused it to die. The point is even safety measures fail. I believe they engineered a sea wall in case of tsunami but they didn't build it high enougg |
|
|
|
|
They make LED lightbulbs if thats what you want
|
|
|
|
This is not exactly what happens. Everything that a central bank does is done in the name of the stability of the economy it is supporting.
essentially that's not incorrect per se, that's why most of the central banking and financy ministry staff might do their work in good conscience. They try to regulate and balance the over-all money supply with their setting of the prime interest rates in the purported best interest for society following the ideas of Keynes (even he would turn in his grave though if he could see how they pervert, i.e. overdo his ideas). however, what OP criticizes is rather how it all started: monopolized fractional reserve banking, which has always been an opaque practice to put it diplomatically, if not an outright scam. it is what caused bank runs, and central banks were invented to fix this problem; central banking as an institution is therefore just another case of trying to fix symptoms rather than causes.Fractional reserve banking allows to create money "on the fly" as needed by the economy. If we removed FRB, then this would likely prevent bank-runs, but without it the economic growth would be hindered. Is there any other automatic means to provide the growing economy with the money it needs that would be as effective? In recent times, a lot of money is created in the shadow bank industry. According to guys like Minsky its one of the reason why economy is so fragile. "Stability creates instability" |
|
|
|
The Fiscal Fizzle For much of the past five years readers of the political and economic news were left in little doubt that budget deficits and rising debt were the most important issue facing America. Serious people constantly issued dire warnings that the United States risked turning into another Greece any day now. President Obama appointed a special, bipartisan commission to propose solutions to the alleged fiscal crisis, and spent much of his first term trying to negotiate a Grand Bargain on the budget with Republicans.
That bargain never happened, because Republicans refused to consider any deal that raised taxes. Nonetheless, debt and deficits have faded from the news. And there’s a good reason for that disappearing act: The whole thing turns out to have been a false alarm. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/21/opinion/Paul-Krugman-An-Imaginary-Budget-and-Debt-Crisis.html?&_r=0This from Krugman? Lol. The same guy who thought the internet would have only as much impact as a fax machine and opines about bitcoin (and other things) without having even a teaspoon of knowledge. The lap dog of the authoritarians? I rarely resort to ad hominem, but I make an exception for Paul Krugman. He is worst kind of "intellectual." The only remarkable thing about him is how he paints his failures as successes and hoodwinks adoring, uncritical liberals with his columns. While I am not a fan of his articles, saying the only remarkable thing about him is his ability to hoodwink people rather ignores the actual contributions he has made to trade theory. Hate him if you'd like, but he has helped to advance our understanding of economic trade theory. Its easy for people to dog him because he's visible. Like when people say Tom Cruise can't act. His trade theory won a prize so thats a pretty remarkable achievement. I do disagree w his view of money as exogenous |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
