A Short Youtube Documentary that Reveals the Fate of Bitcoin Holders

[Chuckee]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgDsyj5eLmo

"Bankrupt By Beanies"

Like the gentleman in the video, you all thought you found a sure thing. And now you watch as the value goes lower, lower, and even lower. Eventually, when there's no hope of recouping your losses for the foreseeable future, you'll tell yourselves that... "Maybe someday bitcoin will become popular again!" just like his wife in this video.

Lesson number one in investing: if you've found something that seems too good to be true, it is. Somebody made money on bitcoin, but it's at your expense. Those people found out about bitcoin very early and marketed by telling you that it would change the world, and all you needed to do was buy, hold, and sell no matter what.

In 10 more years, maybe there will be a documentary about some of the people here. At least the guy in this video still has all his stuffed animals to show for his financial failures.

[KLD]

Really painful to watch for the second time... 

[NamelessOne]

Chuckee - Registered August 16, 2014, 06:56:52 PM

Its amazing watching the same shit play out every freaking year on this forum. I've seen the same posts by the latest noob troll over and over and over.

[JimboToronto]

Chuckee - Registered August 16, 2014, 06:56:52 PM

Its amazing watching the same shit play out every freaking year on this forum. I've seen the same posts by the latest noob troll over and over and over.

Hilarious isn't it?

[knight22]

It's not going to happen to you if you don't invest more than you can afford to lose. That's all.

[HELP.org]

he should have diversified
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgRds44m1kI

[r0ach]

So basically:

Bitcoin = Beanie Babies

Dogecoin = Digital gold

[mmortal03]

Beanie Babies and PEZ aren't anything like the technology behind Bitcoin. Not to say that Bitcoin can't fail, but it won't fail because of any similarity to some collectible toy.

[cbeast]

Nah, Bitcoin is more like Scotch or fine wine. Let it age and grow in value and flavor.

[exocytosis]

Chuckee - Registered August 16, 2014, 06:56:52 PM

Its amazing watching the same shit play out every freaking year on this forum. I've seen the same posts by the latest noob troll over and over and over.

Ad hominem attacks just show us you don't have any arguments.

[oda.krell]

Chuckee - Registered August 16, 2014, 06:56:52 PM

Its amazing watching the same shit play out every freaking year on this forum. I've seen the same posts by the latest noob troll over and over and over.

Ad hominem attacks just show us you don't have any arguments.

The argument here isn't an ad hominem. The argument, if you want a catchy name, is perhaps best called 'extrapolation from pattern'.

Which you can reasonably find questionable still (after all, the 'bubble, crash, next bubble' pattern has only been on for ~3 years - which depending on your perspective is either an eternity or nothing), but at least give the NamelessOne credit as to what his argument actually is based on.

[meanig]

Chuckee - Registered August 16, 2014, 06:56:52 PM

Its amazing watching the same shit play out every freaking year on this forum. I've seen the same posts by the latest noob troll over and over and over.

Ad hominem attacks just show us you don't have any arguments.

The OP didn't have any arguments either.

Also if bitcoins are beanie babies what should we call deposits in Cypriot banks?

[spiderbrain]

Wow, this guy really nailed the beanie babies bitcoin connection
http://quantiger.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/the-future-of-bitcoin-my-predictions/

in 2012 I hope he's rich.

Yes, bitcoin's value is partly speculative, but comparing a stuffed toy to the first peer to peer open source money/banking system? That's hysterical. Also, you address your post to everyone saying someone else made money on bitcoin, but it wasn't you. Posting that on bitcointalk is pretty odd, considering most of the people who have made money on bitcoin hang out here.

[Wandererfromthenorth]

The important thing to keep in mind is: If you followed rule number 1 in investing/trading ("never invest more than you are afford to lose") you'll be fine no matter what happens.

Yes, bitcoin's value is partly speculative, but comparing a stuffed toy to the first peer to peer open source money/banking system? That's hysterical.

Agreed.

The article is hilarious shit eheh.

[spiderbrain]

That was a really cool youtube video though, thanks!

[mmortal03]

Chuckee - Registered August 16, 2014, 06:56:52 PM

Its amazing watching the same shit play out every freaking year on this forum. I've seen the same posts by the latest noob troll over and over and over.

Ad hominem attacks just show us you don't have any arguments.

The argument here isn't an ad hominem. The argument, if you want a catchy name, is perhaps best called 'extrapolation from pattern'.

Could be a false equivalence, as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

[oda.krell]

Chuckee - Registered August 16, 2014, 06:56:52 PM

Its amazing watching the same shit play out every freaking year on this forum. I've seen the same posts by the latest noob troll over and over and over.

Ad hominem attacks just show us you don't have any arguments.

The argument here isn't an ad hominem. The argument, if you want a catchy name, is perhaps best called 'extrapolation from pattern'.

Could be a false equivalence, as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

The problem with the fallacy classification is that it is circular to a degree, or perhaps more accurately: they only describe the structure of an argument, but doesn't answer conclusively if, in the given context, the argument is valid or not. People however tend to use the term fallacy to mean "your argument is wrong".

"Ad hominem" is a good example: depending on the circumstances, an ad hominem can be evidence that an argument is not valid ("We should lower taxes because of X". "No we shouldn't, you cheated on your wife!"), or it can be a reasonable objection given the right context ("We should forbid gay marriage. Only the marriage between man and woman is free of sin." "Oh really. So how come you cheated on your wife?")

[mmortal03]

Chuckee - Registered August 16, 2014, 06:56:52 PM

Its amazing watching the same shit play out every freaking year on this forum. I've seen the same posts by the latest noob troll over and over and over.

Ad hominem attacks just show us you don't have any arguments.

The argument here isn't an ad hominem. The argument, if you want a catchy name, is perhaps best called 'extrapolation from pattern'.

Could be a false equivalence, as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

The problem with the fallacy classification is that it is circular to a degree, or perhaps more accurately: they only describe the structure of an argument, but doesn't answer conclusively if, in the given context, the argument is valid or not. People however tend to use the term fallacy to mean "your argument is wrong".

"Ad hominem" is a good example: depending on the circumstances, an ad hominem can be evidence that an argument is not valid ("We should lower taxes because of X". "No we shouldn't, you cheated on your wife!"), or it can be a reasonable objection given the right context ("We should forbid gay marriage. Only the marriage between man and woman is free of sin." "Oh really. So how come you cheated on your wife?")

I get your point, but, actually, even that example's retort is a fallacy, because the person arguing for marriage between a man and a woman is arguing that only the act itself of getting married in a different context involves sin, not that a separate sin can't be committed while a man and woman are married. In other words, that retort is no different than "Oh, really. So how come you murdered someone while you were married to your wife?")

[grappa_barricata]

How can you compare the usefulness of 'Beanies' with that of bitcoin? Insanity.

[oda.krell]

I get your point, but, actually, even that example's retort is a fallacy, because the person arguing for marriage between a man and a woman is arguing that only the act itself of getting married in a different context involves sin, not that a separate sin can't be committed while a man and woman are married. In other words, that retort is no different than "Oh, really. So how come you murdered someone while you were married to your wife?")

Sidenote: this is heavily offtopic of course. But since OP opened a rather worthless thread, I don't feel bad for hijacking it


I get your point as well, however:

What you describe would be true in a sort of platonic realm of arguments, where each proponent of a position would be completely unrelated on a personal level from the position he or she presents. Let's say, how a mathematician would present a proof. He could be wrong, he could be right, but there is only the validity of the argument itself, and it has no relation to the individual presenting it other than that the person presenting the proof contains the brain that computed the proof (or made an error doing so).

I believe that, even in principle, that's not how non-mathematical arguments work. There is no "platonic ideal" of, say, the right amount of taxation. Or whether it is morally wrong or right to marry man and woman only, or man, man goat.

So my claim is: even when we can make some references to more abstract, possibly objective points in an (moral) argument, we will also inevitably invoke some personal aspects. Like "personal integrity", or "consistency of principles of ones own life".

And it is at this point, if there is a clear contradiction between one of the claims of the argument (say: "marriage is holy") and the personal example of the proponent of the argument (say: he cheats on his wife) that an ad hominem is a valid counter - not because it goes against any principle that the proponent of the argument mentions, but because the proponent inevitable has to rely on personal aspects to further his argument (in the case of moral/aesthetical/maybe also economical arguments).

Does that make any sense?