Do you think Buffett was right?

[Kipsy89]

We should definitely listen to critical voices. But not critical voices from the completely ignorant, no matter who they are.

Even if bitcoin ends up failing, it wouldn't make buffet correct.

I'm not even a fiat hater, and I think that his implication that fiat has some sort of intrinsic value is a joke.

Yeah, actually all the anti-gummint and full-blown-liberals put me off a lot. I think Bitcoin has a terrific function as a nation-independent store of value, gives you control over your own assets and can be transferred internationally within seconds.

[1715124247]

1715124247

[uki]

We should definitely listen to critical voices. But not critical voices from the completely ignorant, no matter who they are.

Even if bitcoin ends up failing, it wouldn't make buffet correct.

I'm not even a fiat hater, and I think that his implication that fiat has some sort of intrinsic value is a joke.

He is not a complete ignorant, as most of the stock market (and Bitcoin?) investors. He has proven track of records and that makes him a guy who's opinion matters. In contrast to many, here in this forum as well, who consider themselves wise enough, but yet must wait to earn their pennies in trading. Very important issue Buffet is pointing out, and I believe many here would agree on that: one thing is to have brilliant idea, the other is to make the market to buy it. And Bitcoin has to yet prove to have the answer for the latter.

[futureofbitcoin]

Buffett is good at what he does, but his track record doesn't mean anything for things he doesn't know. For example, I wouldn't count on him giving good advice on how to play go (an ancient chinese board game). He obviously doesn't understand tech, or doesn't care to understand tech, making his opinions on this matter about as authoritative as your average Joe.

Even if bitcoin fails, his reasons are simply not correct. A lot of people don't understand this concept. You can have the wrong reasons but accidentally hit the right answer. It doesn't make you right, though.

So yes, bitcoin still has a lot of obstacles to overcome. But we should listen to people who actually did their research and critical thinking, rather than famous people.

[uki]

Buffett is good at what he does, but his track record doesn't mean anything for things he doesn't know. For example, I wouldn't count on him giving good advice on how to play go (an ancient chinese board game). He obviously doesn't understand tech, or doesn't care to understand tech, making his opinions on this matter about as authoritative as your average Joe.

Even if bitcoin fails, his reasons are simply not correct. A lot of people don't understand this concept. You can have the wrong reasons but accidentally hit the right answer. It doesn't make you right, though.

So yes, bitcoin still has a lot of obstacles to overcome. But we should listen to people who actually did their research and critical thinking, rather than famous people.

Well, in all honesty, he is giving advice on what he knows best - how to recognize market opportunity and make money out of it. That is where most of us who understand tech (or are tech-enthusiasts) may fail and that is where he made his money. His comment that he currently does not see Bitcoin as worth investing may mean two things: he is still taking the position and wants the entry price to be as low as possible (version for Bitcoin-enthusiasts), or he probably really does not see that currently Bitcoin is in the shape of making much impact - risk-reward ratio is not appealing to him (version for non-enthusiasts).

[thejaytiesto]

Buffett is good at what he does, but his track record doesn't mean anything for things he doesn't know. For example, I wouldn't count on him giving good advice on how to play go (an ancient chinese board game). He obviously doesn't understand tech, or doesn't care to understand tech, making his opinions on this matter about as authoritative as your average Joe.

Even if bitcoin fails, his reasons are simply not correct. A lot of people don't understand this concept. You can have the wrong reasons but accidentally hit the right answer. It doesn't make you right, though.

So yes, bitcoin still has a lot of obstacles to overcome. But we should listen to people who actually did their research and critical thinking, rather than famous people.

Buffet is too old to get his head around Bitcoin and why it matters, im pretty sure he didn't even got the importance of the internet back then, he can't see the analogy with Bitcoin being the TCP/IP of money, too computer illiterate to do so.

[lucasjkr]

Buffett is good at what he does, but his track record doesn't mean anything for things he doesn't know. For example, I wouldn't count on him giving good advice on how to play go (an ancient chinese board game). He obviously doesn't understand tech, or doesn't care to understand tech, making his opinions on this matter about as authoritative as your average Joe.

Even if bitcoin fails, his reasons are simply not correct. A lot of people don't understand this concept. You can have the wrong reasons but accidentally hit the right answer. It doesn't make you right, though.

So yes, bitcoin still has a lot of obstacles to overcome. But we should listen to people who actually did their research and critical thinking, rather than famous people.

Bitcoin is based on tech, yes, but that's the minor part of the story. You don't need to understand merkle roots and such to understand Bitcoins use and potential, just as you don't need to understand C, Java or Cobol, or have an knowledge about TCP/IP in order to understand banks and banking; Bitcoin is no different; it's a technology, for certain, but it's use and application are certainly understandable to a layperson who wants to devote more than a couple of minutes to the task;

It's easy to say that Buffett's old and he just doesn't get it, but he's one of the sharpest investment minds out there, understands banking and finance better than anyone here, and unlike the vast majority of people here, who can easily get trapped in the self-reinforcing echo chamber that is here, telling us that the sky is the limit, individual bitcoins could bet worth millions one day, etc... He's a disinterested outside observer, who can offer the most unbiased analysis out there... I'd find much more value in Buffetts words, for instance, than the Winklevoss twins. True, he doesn't spout the party line, but just because you don't like his opinion, that doesn't make it any less valid.

Sure, Buffetts famous. But his fame is solely the result of his success at doing research, thinking critically, and most importantly, investing against the tide.

I'm certain that had Buffett said the exact same thing that he said, except ended it with "Bitcoin's a great idea, and I'm buying some personally", there would be no attacks no the guy, no one saying he didn't do his research, no one saying he's out of touch, or doesn't like tech. But because his opinion differs than what we want to hear around here, its open season.

[lucasjkr]

Well, in all honesty, he is giving advice on what he knows best - how to recognize market opportunity and make money out of it. That is where most of us who understand tech (or are tech-enthusiasts) may fail and that is where he made his money. His comment that he currently does not see Bitcoin as worth investing may mean two things: he is still taking the position and wants the entry price to be as low as possible (version for Bitcoin-enthusiasts), or he probably really does not see that currently Bitcoin is in the shape of making much impact - risk-reward ratio is not appealing to him (version for non-enthusiasts).

I don't read his quote as him saying that it won't have much impact, only that he views it as a tool to use to transmit value, not the value itself.  Bitcoin could become the norm person-to-person international transfers, that doesn't mean that it will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars, it just needs to be valuable enough to accommodate the total amount of funds in transfer at any given time. Assume in a few years that there are 15 million coins to be circulated (assuming some are untouchable, due to simply being lost, or due to die hard "hodlers" refusing to part with them, potentially, say they're valued at $200 each, that's a system that can have $3 billion in transit at any given time... That's HUGE. But that also represents a decline in value from where its at now...

I'd speculate that it's memories the brief moment that it hit $1,000, along with the echo chamber in here that feeds peoples greed that levels such as $1,000, $5,000 or even $10,000 per BTC are "reasonable" future valuations for it....

Don't get me wrong, I think that Bitcoin here for the longhaul, but I don't think its tearing down the system, causing fiat currencies to collapse, or that its appropriate the fill the void should any of those currencies collapse. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have a future... Could be as a low cost means to transferring value, or as the a borderless technology of the internet...  But non of those require it to be worth any more than it is today...

[chesthing]

Buffett is good at what he does, but his track record doesn't mean anything for things he doesn't know. For example, I wouldn't count on him giving good advice on how to play go (an ancient chinese board game). He obviously doesn't understand tech, or doesn't care to understand tech, making his opinions on this matter about as authoritative as your average Joe.

Even if bitcoin fails, his reasons are simply not correct. A lot of people don't understand this concept. You can have the wrong reasons but accidentally hit the right answer. It doesn't make you right, though.

So yes, bitcoin still has a lot of obstacles to overcome. But we should listen to people who actually did their research and critical thinking, rather than famous people.

"Buffet is good at what he does"
Don't you think that's just a tiny bit of an understatement?

[futureofbitcoin]

Buffett is good at what he does, but his track record doesn't mean anything for things he doesn't know. For example, I wouldn't count on him giving good advice on how to play go (an ancient chinese board game). He obviously doesn't understand tech, or doesn't care to understand tech, making his opinions on this matter about as authoritative as your average Joe.

Even if bitcoin fails, his reasons are simply not correct. A lot of people don't understand this concept. You can have the wrong reasons but accidentally hit the right answer. It doesn't make you right, though.

So yes, bitcoin still has a lot of obstacles to overcome. But we should listen to people who actually did their research and critical thinking, rather than famous people.

Bitcoin is based on tech, yes, but that's the minor part of the story. You don't need to understand merkle roots and such to understand Bitcoins use and potential, just as you don't need to understand C, Java or Cobol, or have an knowledge about TCP/IP in order to understand banks and banking; Bitcoin is no different; it's a technology, for certain, but it's use and application are certainly understandable to a layperson who wants to devote more than a couple of minutes to the task;

It's easy to say that Buffett's old and he just doesn't get it, but he's one of the sharpest investment minds out there, understands banking and finance better than anyone here, and unlike the vast majority of people here, who can easily get trapped in the self-reinforcing echo chamber that is here, telling us that the sky is the limit, individual bitcoins could bet worth millions one day, etc... He's a disinterested outside observer, who can offer the most unbiased analysis out there... I'd find much more value in Buffetts words, for instance, than the Winklevoss twins. True, he doesn't spout the party line, but just because you don't like his opinion, that doesn't make it any less valid.

Sure, Buffetts famous. But his fame is solely the result of his success at doing research, thinking critically, and most importantly, investing against the tide.

I'm certain that had Buffett said the exact same thing that he said, except ended it with "Bitcoin's a great idea, and I'm buying some personally", there would be no attacks no the guy, no one saying he didn't do his research, no one saying he's out of touch, or doesn't like tech. But because his opinion differs than what we want to hear around here, its open season.

Why don't you read some of my other posts before forming uninformed assumptions about my opinions and motivations? Sure, I'm bullish on bitcoin's technology, but I've even mentioned myself that I am not a government-fiat hater, I don't blindly believe that bitcoin is the solution to everything. Not going to repeat what I said before, just read some of my posts https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=990936.msg10779939#msg10779939 and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=987258.0

As smart as Buffett is, he just can't learn everything there is about the world to take advantage of every single opportunity. It's just not possible. As such, there will be many opportunities he will miss. There were probably many great investments around the world that he never even heard about. The world is simply such a big place.

If buffett really sat down to learn, understand and think about all the possibilities, limitations and obstacles of bitcoin, I'm sure he'll be much better at it than I am. But what does he gain by doing that? Buffett, being an investor and owning an insurance company, he values his time. He even counts down the number of days he expects he has left in the world, and think about how to optimally use that time. So why, why would he waste time on bitcoin? There are any number of other profitable ventures waiting for him, things that he already understands, things that are virtually risk free for him. Why would he waste time reading and learning about something that, to a person who doesn't understand it, seems absolutely ridiculous? I mean when you first heard about bitcoin, did you think "wow, this is amazing" or did you think "WTF, people spend money on some fake money? What idiots"?

You see, I registered last month. But I first heard about bitcoin in 2011-2012, a bit after that first spike to $30, whenever that was. But I just dismissed it as silliness for the benefit of drug dealing criminals. I'm sure that's the first reaction for most people. There's really no reason for Buffett to look deeper into this.

but it's use and application are certainly understandable to a layperson who wants to devote more than a couple of minutes to the task;

I completely disagree. I'd like to think I'm pretty smart. At the very least, I'm not that stupid. It took me a lot more than a couple of minutes to understand. Heck, it took me months, and I still can't say I fully understand bitcoin, and I'm not even talking about the technical aspects of it.

I think one of the greatest barriers for bitcoin is that it's very difficult to understand. I like to bring up my go example again, just because I see so many similarities between go and bitcoin. Everyone who plays go goes on and on about how "elegant and simple" the rules are. But quite honestly, the rules cannot be more confusing to a beginner. You won't even know when the game ends/ended or who won for the first few times you play, without someone telling you.

[uki]

Buffett is a relic. Times change and people should follow. I bet he has no idea how Bitcoin really works and probably never really used it. People like him resent technology, think they are too old to learn or simply ignore it by saying "I lived 60 years without this, why would I need it now?".

I repeat, it is not about him understanding in every single detail how Bitcoin works. He probably doesn't care at all about it. It is about seeing an opportunity to make money on that, be it trading cotton, gold or Bitcoins. Mareket mechanisms and laws are similar for each, and that is when you can count on his experience. That is where his point matters and he made valid point in my opinion. Bitcoin has the potential to become mean of payment in the future (as are checks now, for example), if many ifs are fulfilled, but this fact alone does not guarantee the big return on your investment.

[uki]

Well, in all honesty, he is giving advice on what he knows best - how to recognize market opportunity and make money out of it. That is where most of us who understand tech (or are tech-enthusiasts) may fail and that is where he made his money. His comment that he currently does not see Bitcoin as worth investing may mean two things: he is still taking the position and wants the entry price to be as low as possible (version for Bitcoin-enthusiasts), or he probably really does not see that currently Bitcoin is in the shape of making much impact - risk-reward ratio is not appealing to him (version for non-enthusiasts).

I don't read his quote as him saying that it won't have much impact, only that he views it as a tool to use to transmit value, not the value itself.  Bitcoin could become the norm person-to-person international transfers, that doesn't mean that it will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars, it just needs to be valuable enough to accommodate the total amount of funds in transfer at any given time. Assume in a few years that there are 15 million coins to be circulated (assuming some are untouchable, due to simply being lost, or due to die hard "hodlers" refusing to part with them, potentially, say they're valued at $200 each, that's a system that can have $3 billion in transit at any given time... That's HUGE. But that also represents a decline in value from where its at now...

I'd speculate that it's memories the brief moment that it hit $1,000, along with the echo chamber in here that feeds peoples greed that levels such as $1,000, $5,000 or even $10,000 per BTC are "reasonable" future valuations for it....

Don't get me wrong, I think that Bitcoin here for the longhaul, but I don't think its tearing down the system, causing fiat currencies to collapse, or that its appropriate the fill the void should any of those currencies collapse. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have a future... Could be as a low cost means to transferring value, or as the a borderless technology of the internet...  But non of those require it to be worth any more than it is today...

agree, on most of your points. But, there is also one but. Take the current value of M0 in USD only. according to this source: http://de.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m0, it is 3 840 341 Million USD. Today.
Now compare that to the current Bitcoin market cap. it is, according to this source: http://coinmarketcap.com/, 3 583 Million USD. Meaning 1000 times less.
So comparison to checks, may be considered a very good one here. A small fraction of M0, just fine.
Now, how realistic is the assumption that Bitcoin can increase its market 10, 100, 1000 times from here?

[okthen]

Buffett is a relic. Times change and people should follow. I bet he has no idea how Bitcoin really works and probably never really used it. People like him resent technology, think they are too old to learn or simply ignore it by saying "I lived 60 years without this, why would I need it now?".

I repeat, it is not about him understanding in every single detail how Bitcoin works. He probably doesn't care at all about it. It is about seeing an opportunity to make money on that, be it trading cotton, gold or Bitcoins. Mareket mechanisms and laws are similar for each, and that is when you can count on his experience. That is where his point matters and he made valid point in my opinion. Bitcoin has the potential to become mean of payment in the future (as are checks now, for example), if many ifs are fulfilled, but this fact alone does not guarantee the big return on your investment.

I disagree with the similarity of market mechanisms. Bitcoin keeps surprising everyone, even just looking at the numbers. It is very hard to be able to sense if something will truly take off if you can't even imagine 1% of the possibilities. I can't, and I'm much younger than Buffet.     

[smith coins]

is impossible to get a grasp as to why it is rising or dropping on any given day. All you can do is buy some with money that you can afford to lose

[onewiseguy]

"It's a method of transmitting money. It's a very effective way of transmitting money and you can do it anonymously and all that. A check is a way of transmitting money, too. Are checks worth a whole lot of money just because they can transmit money? Are money orders? You can transmit money by money orders. People do it. I hope bitcoin becomes a better way of doing it, but you can replicate it a bunch of different ways and it will be. The idea that it has some huge intrinsic value is just a joke in my view."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101494937

So what is GOLD?

[lucasjkr]

"It's a method of transmitting money. It's a very effective way of transmitting money and you can do it anonymously and all that. A check is a way of transmitting money, too. Are checks worth a whole lot of money just because they can transmit money? Are money orders? You can transmit money by money orders. People do it. I hope bitcoin becomes a better way of doing it, but you can replicate it a bunch of different ways and it will be. The idea that it has some huge intrinsic value is just a joke in my view."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101494937

So what is GOLD?

He's not a fan of gold either.

[onewiseguy]

"It's a method of transmitting money. It's a very effective way of transmitting money and you can do it anonymously and all that. A check is a way of transmitting money, too. Are checks worth a whole lot of money just because they can transmit money? Are money orders? You can transmit money by money orders. People do it. I hope bitcoin becomes a better way of doing it, but you can replicate it a bunch of different ways and it will be. The idea that it has some huge intrinsic value is just a joke in my view."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101494937

So what is GOLD?

He's not a fan of gold either.

well than he is a complete lucky rich moron. 

what does he have trust in?

[Erdogan]

"It's a method of transmitting money. It's a very effective way of transmitting money and you can do it anonymously and all that. A check is a way of transmitting money, too. Are checks worth a whole lot of money just because they can transmit money? Are money orders? You can transmit money by money orders. People do it. I hope bitcoin becomes a better way of doing it, but you can replicate it a bunch of different ways and it will be. The idea that it has some huge intrinsic value is just a joke in my view."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101494937

So what is GOLD?

He's not a fan of gold either.

well than he is a complete lucky rich moron. 

what does he have trust in?

Government.

[Cefalu]

from tfa, Buffet stated:
---------------------------

 .....I hope bitcoin becomes a better way of doing it, but you can replicate it a bunch of different ways and it will be.

---------------------------
 
He just seems unaware to me, simply compares it to money orders.
Someone pops up and asks him about bitcoin, he's spent a little time looking at it,
he states his opinion.

Like Paul Krugman did re: comparing the impact of the internet on business being equiv
 to that of the fax machine.

And like these people who figure "..well, it just runs on computers... our <large org/gov> has computers, we'll just
duplicate what bitcoin does, but we'll own and control it and do it better and keep it to ourselves."

They all appear to be unversed in bitcoin, and bitcoin takes some study.

Buffet mentions just one of Bitcoin's abilities, but the genius of it lies
in the nature of the network, coupled with incentives and bound by
the blockchain and the idea of HAVING, aka money. Which aligns
it w/ human nature.

Even if the EU+US+China+Russia+Africa -or- ALLBANKERS&Lawyers_ON_THE_PLANET
decided to build out a network to unify commerce, intellectual property, insurance pools,
micropayments, voting reform etc-
could they succeed in surpassing what is happening?
NO, THEY CANNOT
Bitcoin appeals to so many aspects of humanity it amazes me repeatedly,
there is something for anyone and so much more to come.
People reading this forum are tuned in to bitcoin but arrive for a lot of different reasons.
 
Copper has had value for millenia. What might DaVinci/BFranklin/AdamSmith/a_copper_Baron have said
re: some new-fangled situation where copper is spun into threads and then electrically shielded from its neighbors?
None would have said:  "...clearly, there will be ethernet, and it will destroy/recreate newspaper publishing"

So, unless he really decides to investigate, Mr. Buffet simply doesn't yet realize what the protocol is.
Which is ok, and can be said of any of us.
"Since he's so successful, and bitcoin is some sort of money thing, let's see if he thinks its bullshit!"
 
But, as a cog, few seek my opinion on anything

[onewiseguy]

"It's a method of transmitting money. It's a very effective way of transmitting money and you can do it anonymously and all that. A check is a way of transmitting money, too. Are checks worth a whole lot of money just because they can transmit money? Are money orders? You can transmit money by money orders. People do it. I hope bitcoin becomes a better way of doing it, but you can replicate it a bunch of different ways and it will be. The idea that it has some huge intrinsic value is just a joke in my view."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101494937

So what is GOLD?

He's not a fan of gold either.

well than he is a complete lucky rich moron. 

what does he have trust in?

Government.

'


Damn well being one of the richest dudes out there, I am pretty sure he helps fund the government.

well what I can tell bitcoin and checks.moneygram ect are of no where the same, type of instrument.  The way bitcoin is at the moment its looked as an investment,currency, leverage.

checks and any other type of money service is not looked as the same.

so maybe he knows something we dont.

[inca]

I read somewhere recently that 40% of berkshire hathaway is shares in wall street banks and legacy financial firms. His opinion is not objective.