Look what the bitcoin opponents wrote...Sun Tzu: "know thine enemy":
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4985877....we analyse in this paper the impact of a Bitcoin-positive scenario in which its price continues to rise in the foreseeable future. What sounds intuitively promising or at least not harmful is problematic: Since Bitcoin does not increase the productive potential of the economy, the consequences of the assumed continued increase in value are essentially redistributive, i.e. the wealth effects on consumption of early Bitcoin holders can only come at the expense of consumption of the rest of society. If the price of Bitcoin rises for good, the existence of Bitcoin impoverishes both non-holders and latecomers. While previous discussions on the redistributive effects of Bitcoin assumed that badly timed trading was a necessary condition for losses, this paper shows that neither poor timing of trades nor holding Bitcoin at all are necessary for impoverishment under a Bitcoin-positive scenario.
^^^ sounds completely ludicrous as the same could be said about buying Coca-Cola company 100 years ago or NVDA/AAPL lately.
I feel really impoverished because I sold my AAPL in 2000 and someone who bought it from me 'dares' to consume more now using those shares. /s
TL;DR They claim that "This redistribution of wealth and purchasing power is unlikely to occur without detrimental consequences for society. Even if the Latecomers cannot attribute their loss of purchasing power, they will feel a malaise and frustration, that will contribute further to an ever more split society." I cannot disagree more.
Just from that portion, any of us who have familiarized ourselves with bitcoin can recognize and appreciate that bitcoin's paradigm-shifting nature likely brings a lot more efficiencies into our various monetary incentive systems and likely eliminates and/or lessens the influences of a lot of third-party intermediary rent seekers who are also likely leaches on the current system and even facilitate various kinds of non-productive and even destructive kinds of behaviors in the name of profits or generating phoney income in the system and even producing low quality products based on low quality ingredients and/or low quality processes.
We might not know for sure, yet I get the sense that more honest money and value systems would likely increase the amount of value that comes available in the whole system. yet sure we still have to see how a lot of this plays out, including finding out if wars might be created in order try to limit bitcoin's adoption or to divert normies away from adopting bitcoin as the best of monies currently available.
[edited out]
Let's have a survey.
Who wrote that paper? Cross your answer.
[ ] A coiner
[ X ] A nocoiner
Of course, a no coiner who sound both bitter and ignorant about bitcoin in regards to failing/refusing to recognize/appreciate an ability for the pie to grow with bitcoin in contrast with this zero-sum game hypothesis and presumptions.
[edited out]
Instead of
easy i'd use
convenient. The more unconvenient way, but only in short term, is to just tell them friendly and straightforward. In the long run, getting out of interactions that are fruitless and kept up mainly for good manners, even current and regular ones, is freeing time and energy to engange in more fruitful interactions with other people. It's normal to let relationships just fade out, sometimes even end them abruptly (ghosting as an extreme example), but i switched to just "thank you... i can't... because..." and go on. Before that i was used to (try to) keep up relationships for good manners, but that wasn't either honest nor "free" at all.
Sure with strangers and even casual relations, we might be able to gracefully exit, yet there are some relationships we are not able to play in that direction, perhaps with relatives, work colleagues and/or other similar kinds of relationships.
That describes most of what i tried to say before in a more straightforward way, thanks. My explanations were based on concepts of how we feel when interacting. The two examples you were showing, the after 5-year vs. 20-year interactions are set apart by feeling slightly uncomfortable, vs. feeling comfortable in interacting, and i advocated for letting these feelings decide to truly keep up or end these interactions, even if we'd fear disadvantages (at first glance) to do so - sometimes. You know, like being (seemingly) friendly to the boss at work, while constantly having a sense of feeling awkward because you don't really like his personality or motives. In this case it might be hard to just stop interacting with him, but if you choose to keep acting, you're a slave to him anyway, no?
Yes. Fair enough example.. a boss with whom we may well need to continue to have relations, and even in a peer to peer relationship at work, we also might have to find some kind of a socially acceptable kind of balance rather than just acting/behaving as if we were to live in a vacuum.
On the other hand, sometimes we might behave arrogant to people that don't really deserve it (nocoiners?), but to be honest: who really does?
You seem to be generalizing without knowing the circumstances. Yes there could be reasons to "be arrogant."
This is just feeding our Ego.
Perhaps, yet I am not going to presume the interaction to be ego-driven without knowing more facts.
It's sufficient to just stay passive, in a more understanding way, without having to "i told you so", because if they are honest to themselves, they already well know that you told them so. Just like one would deal with a crying child that got hurt after he was warned about the possibility of injury. "I told you so" just gets the child embarassed and maybe mad at you, because it well knows you did. But then, they need your loving consolation.
Surely, since these are discretionary matters, there are likely a variety of ways to deal with the same situation, and sure I am not very inclined to either do the "I told you so" or the laughing in their faces approach, yet there still could be times in which either "I told you so" or laughing in their faces might be a sufficiently adequate and/or appropriate response. I am not going to blanketedly agree that always employing lovey dovey is better than a twist of arrogance from time to time, even though I tend to not be much of a fan of "I told you so" and/or laughing i the face of another person, so it would likely be a kind of a response that I would sparingly reserve for exception al kinds of circumstances.
It's like swearing all the time, and if every other word out of my mouth is fuck, it becomes way less affective as compared with the guy who might end up ONLY using that word on relatively rare occasions and so the emphasis would be more noticed when the rarely-used guy ends up using such f-emphasis.
One thing about laughing at nocoiners: Believe it or not, i am the type of guy that never laughs at someone, ever. My kids always wondered how i was able to watch those "don't try to laugh" clips with them without showing a reaction, with the exception of "ouch, that must have hurt, big time!".
Maybe you should go to the doctor to get an exam and make sure that you are not a bot?
TL;DR They claim that "This redistribution of wealth and purchasing power is unlikely to occur without detrimental consequences for society. Even if the Latecomers cannot attribute their loss of purchasing power, they will feel a malaise and frustration, that will contribute further to an ever more split society." I cannot disagree more.
#metoo
The true reasons of splitting society are much more complex, while the assumption that money can buy happiness is quite the root mistake of this particular plot. I won't go into more detail here, because i'd lose myself in many words, possibly without really being successful in getting to the point.
It seems to me that too much attempts to direct redistribution contributes towards misaligning incentives and rewarding behavior that does not necessarily deserve to be rewarded.
I guess can’t get enough of that Donald Trump.
Oh well.
Vance to take over in under two years.
Should be interesting.
Well at
least it's going to be in the favour of Bitcoin so I have no complaints
I just want to see the long awaited bull run already
Trump launched his own coin so I am thinking he will attack other coins to help his coin.
Yeah.. what a retard.
Almost anything goes with that guy, which seems kind of nuts that such a nutjob is even able to get on the ballot, stay on the ballot and also have decently good chances of receiving votes from a lot of frustrated folks who seem to consider him to be the cure to their ails.
What a world?
What a world?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ0xbGKkWoA
Poll
