Great time to buy

[ThatDGuy]

Comment on the pets.com analogy instead of talking semantics.

I said "look identical", not identical, of course they can't be "exactly 100% identical" FFS.

Take a real honest moment there and read what you wrote. 

You said:

"look identical" != "identical"

Now ask yourself why I would try to struggle through deciphering more of your enigmatic self-made vocabulary in a whole other maybe-related post?

[1715209178]

1715209178

[ThatDGuy]

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.

There we go, good to see some acceptance of your earlier flawed argument.

Now, then - what else makes BTC similar to Tulips?

[NotHatinJustTrollin]

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?

[ThatDGuy]

English is not my firs language, so problems you have with the words I'm using may be because of that? Who cares?

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.

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 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.

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?

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.

I'm simply tearing the weak argument that Tulips = BTC apart, and not having to work very hard to do it.

In all seriousness, trolls were comparing Tulips and BTC back in early 2013, and midway a bit, and could almost get away with it.  It just doesn't work anymore.

[NotHatinJustTrollin]

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.

[NotHatinJustTrollin]

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.

[ssmc2]

^ 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. 

[NotHatinJustTrollin]

^ 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"?  

[jaredboice]

^ 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. 

I know if I thought that low about something, I would spend all my time in a forum dedicated to it as well 

[knight22]

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?

[NotHatinJustTrollin]

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.

[knight22]

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.

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.

[NotHatinJustTrollin]

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"?  

[knight22]

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 developers 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.

[NotHatinJustTrollin]

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"  

[NotHatinJustTrollin]

^I suggest you read this enlightening paper:

http://www.oecd.org/daf/fin/financial-markets/The-Bitcoin-Question-2014.pdf



"THE BITCOIN QUESTION:
CURRENCY VERSUS TRUST-LESS TRANSFER
TECHNOLOGY"




Separating the useful (distributed ledger) from the useless (a cryptocurrency).

 

[knight22]

^I suggest you read this enlightening paper:

http://www.oecd.org/daf/fin/financial-markets/The-Bitcoin-Question-2014.pdf



"THE BITCOIN QUESTION:
CURRENCY VERSUS TRUST-LESS TRANSFER
TECHNOLOGY"




Separating the useful (distributed ledger) from the useless (a cryptocurrency).

 

Oh financial institutions that dislike a currency they don't control. How surprising! So enlightening!

Now let see how many developers will develop with no incentives 

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

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.

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.

Obvious Ripple shill is obvious.

[NotHatinJustTrollin]

^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"?  

[NotHatinJustTrollin]

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?