Another reason bitcoin will succeed: US to target Putin's $40 billion stash

[jonald_fyookball]

the greed of the community will force it to maintain it's investment vehicle status.

Care to explain this argument?

The only difference I see between 'investment vehicle' and 'store of value' is volatility.

Edit: and longevity.  But I don't think that is in question.

[1715076144]

1715076144

[1715076144]

1715076144

[AnonyMint]

This is another reason I think bitcoin will succeed.  Zerohedge claims the US may go after Putin's $40 billion dollars in financial assets stored in Switzerland:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-20/means-war-us-target-putins-personal-40-billion-stash

Whether you agree or disagree that Putin's fortune is "fair" and whether you agree or disagree that it is right for the US to take his wealth, I believe that if you were in Vladimir Putin's position you'd feel more comfortable with a cool billion (2.5% of his financial wealth) sitting in a secure brain wallet, and perhaps another billion or so in carefully planned m-of-n wallets.

I wonder if Vladimir understands bitcoin.  

Problem is Bitcoin isn't anonymous and the mining is 51% controlled by two pools and few major holders of ASICs.

[dead_bit]

the greed of the community will force it to maintain it's investment vehicle status.

Care to explain this argument?

The only difference I see between 'investment vehicle' and 'store of value' is volatility.

Edit: and longevity.  But I don't think that is in question.

It's volatility keeps it from being a store of value, keeping it unpredictable. I guess the term "community" is a bit much. The greed of the few is what keeps BTC in this long term status. Most have no interest in making BTC into a store of value, because a store of value isn't susceptible to such short term fluctuations in value. This is primarily because those few are only interested in continuing the profits. As long as profits are the end result, BTC is no different than most of the multinational corporations that people on this forum deride. Look at the never ending parade of ideas to "increase the value of Bitcoin". This illustrates my point. The idea is not to stabilize Bitcoin it is to increase it's value.

[twiifm]

OK I just read that zero hedge article.  Theres no way to know whether or not Putin has $40B in a Swiss Bank account.  I couldn't find any articles that theorized how he would have amassed this fortune.  I'm curious to know if anyone have any links.  The only source I found is attributed an interview where some guy claims Putin "controlled" 37% of the oil company Surgutneftegaz and 4.5% of natural gas monopoly Gazprom.  The $40B is the price of the stake -- NOT cash.  Putin brushed this off as rumors when asked about it.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-09-17/vladimir-putin-the-richest-man-on-earth

But regarding rich people parking their money in BTC.  How did they become a billionaire in the first place?  Maybe they founded a company and hold stock, or maybe they are some type of dealer.  The point being, these people wouldn't view money as simply cash.  Makes no sense for them to hold cash beyond the amount they need for operational expense.

If we assume that these rich people view money as investments.  What motive would they have for holding large amounts of cash?  They could diversify their portfolio in stocks, bonds, commodities, real estate & cash.   The only reason for holding cash is for liquidity.  BTC has little liquidity so it's not a good substitute for cash.

Also, the main incentive for using Swiss Banks is because Swiss Banking laws allow for secrecy.  Can the US govt freeze Swiss Bank accounts?  I don't know their banking laws enough to say. 

Can any govt freeze your BTC account?  If they can't then you have a legitimate case for using BTC to hide money from govts.  That means Karpelles can steal your BTCs and runaway to non-extradition countries

If Putin does indeed have a Swiss Bank account of $40B, and he's worried about the US .gov freezing it.  I don't see why buying BTCs solve his problem.  Wouldn't he buy gold and hide it in a vault in Siberia?

[jonald_fyookball]

the greed of the community will force it to maintain it's investment vehicle status.

Care to explain this argument?

The only difference I see between 'investment vehicle' and 'store of value' is volatility.

Edit: and longevity.  But I don't think that is in question.

It's volatility keeps it from being a store of value, keeping it unpredictable. I guess the term "community" is a bit much. The greed of the few is what keeps BTC in this long term status. Most have no interest in making BTC into a store of value, because a store of value isn't susceptible to such short term fluctuations in value. This is primarily because those few are only interested in continuing the profits. As long as profits are the end result, BTC is no different than most of the multinational corporations that people on this forum deride. Look at the never ending parade of ideas to "increase the value of Bitcoin". This illustrates my point. The idea is not to stabilize Bitcoin it is to increase it's value.

I don't think there's anything to worry about.  Volatility will continue to decrease as adoption widens.  Volatility is actually caused by TOO FEW
big speculators being allowed to push the price around wildly.  More traders means higher liquidity and lower volaility.

btw, look the anonytroll is back, and he's up to 4000 anti-bitcoin posts. nice.

[smooth]

If Putin does indeed have a Swiss Bank account of $40B, and he's worried about the US .gov freezing it.  I don't see why buying BTCs solve his problem.  Wouldn't he buy gold and hide it in a vault in Siberia?

Gold is not safe. The smart money is being very careful about whether gold may be vulnerable to severe disruption of 90% of its value.

Bitcoin will eventually replace gold as a globally recognized “store of value”. Gold prices will go down 90-95% to the levels supported by the use in production as “reservation demand” for gold would essentially disappear. http://blog.oleganza.com/post/67872772342/bitcoin-and-gold

Also, leaders often want their money outside their own country (or at least portable) in case they decide to relocate. Bitcoin provides extreme portability, especially if you want to move it on short notice. Gold does not. A billion dollars in gold is weighs roughly a ton.

[Peter R]

So you're basically agreeing with me, BTC would not be a good idea because it is not a store of wealth. The situation you're speaking of is a fantasy right now. Could the future hold that very situation, well of course it could...

The only point we appear to be in agreement on is that no one can predict the future with certainty.  But I think you do believe you can predict the future, otherwise you would also agree that bitcoin is useful as a store of value.  

Consider Billionaire Bob.  For simplicity sake, Bob has exactly $1 billion in US treasury bills and no other assets.  He is vocal in his support for small governments, is concerned about US unfunded entitlements and its effect on the dollar's reserve status, and was recently an innocent victim of a politically-targeted IRS probe.  He knows skeletons can be found in any closet.

Bob wants to maintain his wealth 10 years into the future.  He analyzes the situation and concludes the following probabilities:

P(lose all money) = 5%
P(not lose all money) = 95%

To simplify the math, assume the treasuries pay zero interest and inflation is zero (unless the dollar-collapse event occurs).  10 years out, Bob's wealth has expectation value and standard deviation:

<net worth> = 0.05 x (0) + 0.95 x (1000) = $950 million
stdev = sqrt(0.05 x (0 - 950)^2 + 0.95 x (1000 - 950)^2) = $218 million

Now Bob discovers bitcoin.  He sees that bicoin's success is more likely if either of his two fears come true (the USD collapses or confiscations of private wealth increase in frequency).  He calculates that if the event he fears happens, that bitcoin is likely to be 20X as valuable.  If the event doesn't happen then he doesn't care about the price of bitcoin as he was just using it for a hedge anyways.  

He moves 5% of his wealth into bitcoin.  10 years out, Bob's wealth has expectation value and standard deviation:

<net worth> = 0.05 x (20 x 50) x + 0.95 x (950) = $953 million
stdev = sqrt(0.05 x (20 x 50 - 953)^2 + 0.95 x (950 - 953)^2) = $11 million

In other words, Bob can decrease the variance of his wealth 10 years out with little change to its expectation value by employing bitcoin as a store of value.  

You can repeat similar analyses using all sorts of probabilities and assumptions and add all sorts of complexities, but I have never found a rational case where it is not wise to store at least a small portion of your wealth in bitcoin.  If you can think of one and mathematically argue your case, please let me know.  

I believe this simple analysis illustrates my point.  Bitcoin is useful as a store of value.  

[dead_bit]

So you're basically agreeing with me, BTC would not be a good idea because it is not a store of wealth. The situation you're speaking of is a fantasy right now. Could the future hold that very situation, well of course it could...

The only point we appear to be in agreement on is that no one can predict the future with certainty.  But I think you do believe you can predict the future, otherwise you would also agree that bitcoin is useful as a store of value.  

Consider Billionaire Bob.  For simplicity sake, Bob has exactly $1 billion in US treasury bills and no other assets.  He is vocal in his support for small governments, is concerned about US unfunded entitlements and its effect on the dollar's reserve status, and was recently an innocent victim of a politically-targeted IRS probe.  He knows skeletons can be found in any closet.

Bob wants to maintain his wealth 10 years into the future.  He analyzes the situation and concludes the following probabilities:

P(lose all money) = 5%
P(not lose all money) = 95%

To simplify the math, assume the treasuries pay zero interest and inflation is zero (unless the dollar-collapse event occurs).  10 years out, Bob's wealth has expectation value and standard deviation:

<net worth> = 0.05 x (0) + 0.95 x (1000) = $950 million
stdev = sqrt(0.05 x (0 - 950)^2 + 0.95 x (1000 - 950)^2) = $218 million

Now Bob discovers bitcoin.  He sees that bicoin's success is more likely if either of his two fears come true (the USD collapses or confiscations of private wealth increase in frequency).  He calculates that if the event he fears happens, that bitcoin is likely to be 20X as valuable.  If the event doesn't happen then he doesn't care about the price of bitcoin as he was just using it for a hedge anyways.  

He moves 5% of his wealth into bitcoin.  10 years out, Bob's wealth has expectation value and standard deviation:

<net worth> = 0.05 x (20 x 50) x + 0.95 x (950) = $953 million
stdev = sqrt(0.05 x (20 x 50 - 953)^2 + 0.95 x (950 - 953)^2) = $11 million

In other words, Bob can decrease the variance of his wealth 10 years out with little change to its expectation value by employing bitcoin as a store of value.  

You can repeat similar analyses using all sorts of probabilities and assumptions and add all sorts of complexities, but I have never found a rational case where it is not wise to store at least a small portion of your wealth in bitcoin.  If you can think of one and mathematically argue your case, please let me know.  

I believe this simple analysis illustrates my point.  Bitcoin is useful as a store of value.  

You're math is pointless because it is based on assumptions. I suppose in the end it simply comes to the risk that one is willing to stomach. Watching an asset lose 50% of it's value in one month multiple times in a two year period would bury that asset in any real world market.

Do I think that bitcoin is worthless, no not at all. I think quite the opposite. But it is not a store of value because there is no track record to prove your assumptions on. The volatility gives it some amazing short term potential though, which is why Bitcoin has become what it is.

[Peter R]

You're math is pointless because it is based on assumptions.

And this shows you never even took the time to read my post.  I said the results appear to hold for all sets of rational assumptions I've come up with to date.  In the example above, Bob implicitly assumed that the chances that bitcoin goes to zero was 95%.  Even with these conservative assumptions, bitcoin was still a useful store-of-value tool for Bob that helped him to reduce risk. 

Please, find a set of reasonable assumptions where it wouldn't be wise for Bob to move at least a small portion of his wealth into bitcoin.  Argue your case mathematically.  

[jonald_fyookball]

Deadbit, what do you mean by "short term" in this context?  I want to be clear what you mean exactly. What time frame are you referring to?

[dead_bit]

You're math is pointless because it is based on assumptions.

And this shows you never even took the time to read my post.  I said the results appear to hold for all sets of rational assumptions I've come up with to date.  Bitcoin is a store-of-value tool that can reduce risk.  

Please, find a set of reasonable assumptions where it wouldn't be wise for Bob to move at least a small portion of his wealth into bitcoin.  Argue your case mathematically.  

Ok if I bought in a few months ago at 800 - 900 USD I would now be at a 50% loss. Is that a store of value? No, it's not. So if Putin had invested his 40 million, or whatever number because it really doesn't matter, he would have lost half his personal assets. This is not the first time it has happened. If you look at historical data, if you came in when BTC was the most popular you're getting destroyed. Now if you were in from the beginning, like the gold owners back in the 90s, then yes you're up.

The only winners right now are the original players. They have a store of value, the rest of us have a volatile investment tool.

Now I guess we could take all that and fudge it and say "If you look at BTC since it's inception" then yes, BTC is the smart choice. I will admit that I'm going off of early Decemberish time frame when I feel that BTC was truly beginning to become popular.

Deadbit, what do you mean by "short term" in this context?  I want to be clear what you mean exactly. What time frame are you referring to?

Days? Maybe a few weeks at most. Short term is a bad word for what I'm trying to explain. I apologize.

[Peter R]

What I've noticed through my work, and more so now through bitcoin, is that a subset of the population has trouble thinking in terms of probabilities.  These people want to classify everything in boxes: "yes it will work," and "no it won't work."  But thinking in terms of probabilities is powerful.  For example, I showed above how Bob could still use bitcoin as a store of value even if he assigns a 95% chance to it that its value goes to zero.  

I've had customers ask me "Peter, is this gonna work?" To which when I was younger I would reply with my honest assessment of the probabilities: "I give it a 70% chance."  But what I noticed is when that 70% bet fails, I would often hear back "Peter, you said it would work."  

So now, when someone asks me the chance of success, I say "oh about 30%."  And if they ask me the chance of failure, I say "oh about 30%"  If the customer sees the problem, then I tell him what I really think.  Otherwise it is better for both of us if he thinks that P + !P < 1.  

[Peter R]

Ok if I bought in a few months ago at 800 - 900 USD I would now be at a 50% loss. Is that a store of value? No, it's not.

This is the sunk-cost fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs

Billionaire Bob moved a portion of his wealth into bitcoin as a hedge to reduce the variance of his wealth moving forward in time.  He could have had his assets siezed and the dollar-collapse event could have happened.  The fact that it didn't doesn't mean that the hedge was unwise.  In fact, if he reanalyses the situation from today moving forward, he may conclude that he should actually now move more wealth into bitcoin.  

If you buy fire insurance on your house and it never burns down did you waste your money?

[Littleshop]

Putin is probably a bad example.  Putin has no problems with corrupt governments seizing private wealth ...

Are you referring to the Cyprus hair-cut? He tried his best to help Cyprus. Russia was ready to give loans to Cyprus. But the EU officials bullied the Cypriot officials to not to accept them.

That is so not true.  Russia would not have ever bailed out for more than
what was already done.  Russia is known for writing off uncollectable debt but not for actual giving out billions to overseas private banks.  

[smooth]

Ok if I bought in a few months ago at 800 - 900 USD I would now be at a 50% loss. Is that a store of value? No, it's not.

Incorrect. Other recognized stores of value are real estate, stocks, and gold. Those have all suffered 50% draw downs at times.

The definition of store of value you are using is not the generally accepted one. If you pick your own definitions you can support almost any argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Store_of_value

[jonald_fyookball]

You're math is pointless because it is based on assumptions.

And this shows you never even took the time to read my post.  I said the results appear to hold for all sets of rational assumptions I've come up with to date.  Bitcoin is a store-of-value tool that can reduce risk.  

Please, find a set of reasonable assumptions where it wouldn't be wise for Bob to move at least a small portion of his wealth into bitcoin.  Argue your case mathematically.  

Ok if I bought in a few months ago at 800 - 900 USD I would now be at a 50% loss. Is that a store of value? No, it's not. So if Putin had invested his 40 million, or whatever number because it really doesn't matter, he would have lost half his personal assets. This is not the first time it has happened. If you look at historical data, if you came in when BTC was the most popular you're getting destroyed. Now if you were in from the beginning, like the gold owners back in the 90s, then yes you're up.

The only winners right now are the original players. They have a store of value, the rest of us have a volatile investment tool.

Now I guess we could take all that and fudge it and say "If you look at BTC since it's inception" then yes, BTC is the smart choice. I will admit that I'm going off of early Decemberish time frame when I feel that BTC was truly beginning to become popular.

Deadbit, what do you mean by "short term" in this context?  I want to be clear what you mean exactly. What time frame are you referring to?

Days? Maybe a few weeks at most. Short term is a bad word for what I'm trying to explain. I apologize.

The US dollar lost 40% of its value too against the Euro from 2002 to 2005...and 50% by 2008.  Gold fluctuates wildly too over the years.  

Yes bitcoin fluctuates more cause it is younger with smaller market.   That doesn't necessarily mean there's a problem.

[dead_bit]

Ok if I bought in a few months ago at 800 - 900 USD I would now be at a 50% loss. Is that a store of value? No, it's not.

Incorrect. Other recognized stores of value are real estate, stocks, and gold. Those have all suffered 50% draw downs at times.

The definition of store of value you are using is not the generally accepted one. If you pick your own definitions you can support almost any argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Store_of_value

I concede and I see your point. I'll file what I've learned away for the next time.

[jonald_fyookball]

there is still PLENTY of time to be a bitcoin winner.  The price can increase many multiples from where it is now.

[Lauda]

Ok if I bought in a few months ago at 800 - 900 USD I would now be at a 50% loss. Is that a store of value? No, it's not.

This is the sunk-cost fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs

Billionaire Bob moved a portion of his wealth into bitcoin as a hedge to reduce the variance of his wealth moving forward in time.  He could have had his assets siezed and the dollar-collapse event could have happened.  The fact that it didn't doesn't mean that the hedge was unwise.  In fact, if he reanalyses the situation from today moving forward, he may conclude that he should actually now move more wealth into bitcoin.  

If you buy fire insurance on your house and it never burns down did you waste your money?

Nice argument sir. You're correct.

If you invested a lot in gold before the price collapsed, is that a store of value?
Stop looking at bitcoin the wrong way, this can happen with just about anything.

[twiifm]

@ Peter R

That analysis has so many flaws

(1) You assume that Bob has only 2 choices (BTC yes or no) when he could diversify his portfolio in many asset classes

(2) Standard deviation is determined by using historical data not random numbers projected into the future

(3) Probability isn't randomly calculated like that.  5% lose all money vs 95% not lose all money?  Say what?  

(4) I think someone else defined "store of value" = low volatility.   I'm not sure how you are defining "store of value".  Sounds like you are saying BTC is a store of value because it could go to x20 or not.  This sounds like a "speculative" bet not a "store of value" bet.  You are speculating that demise of USD will drive up BTC price.  

(5) Buying BTC is not a hedge against USD.  That's not how hedges work.  A hedge is when you take trade AND you also take the opposite of that trade to mitigate your risk.  The easiest way to hedge is using options.  But there is no options market on BTC so the point is moot

"but I have never found a rational case where it is not wise to store at least a small portion of your wealth in bit coin"  

How about in the case the price crashes and you lose your money?  If you have the assumption BTC will forever go up in price then by all means invest.  But don't claim that the price can't crash or even go to zero.