Let's talk about Cryptocurrencies

[topfiverecords]

Ok, I’m convinced. As soon as I unload these beanie babies, pogs and tulips I’m going to put it all in BTC again. Sounds like we can expect it at $4.6 million USD within a year and a half as a safe bet.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Ok, I’m convinced. As soon as I unload these beanie babies, pogs and tulips I’m going to put it all in BTC again. Sounds like we can expect it at $4.6 million USD within a year and a half as a safe bet.

https://parade.com/1172319/stephanie...beanie-babies/

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

OK, so Dino7c isn't as fantastic as he thinks he is, given he didn't sell before the last crash, and thinks this is somehow the same as real estate, which is an actual tangible thing.

It's gonna keep gong up because it's gonna keep going up! is a solid strategy. Good luck with that one. Maybe you can buddy up with some BBY and GME "investors".

It's fine if you want to actually discuss these these things, and what their value and use is, but you don't, you just pop in whenever the value takes off. So, has BTC added any functionality, or improved it's transaction rate, or become useful in any way other than ETF's maybe being another way to gamble?

You keep saying this, possibly to cope

I popped in BEFORE the value took off to tell you all it would take off

you mocked

so you are god damn right I am gonna pop back in and let you know

its hilarious to see you "$3000 peak bitcoin" posters back with your usual nonsense

I'm not sure how people double and triple down and pat each other on the back when they have been so wrong again and again

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Ok, I’m convinced. As soon as I unload these beanie babies, pogs and tulips I’m going to put it all in BTC again. Sounds like we can expect it at $4.6 million USD within a year and a half as a safe bet.

what a stupid post
to still say this crap after years of being wrong is really something (not to mention there are Beanie Babies worth over 100k)

BTC will hit an all time high in 2024


Avatar bet? too rich for your blood probably

Fuzz? Avatar bet?

All time in in this calendar year

back peddle in 3, 2, 1........

honestly you two just come across as jealous...I didn't even start "bragging" until you clowns showed up to mock me for making tons of money and giving my advice on here.

And who has lost money on Bitcoin? people who bought at the peak and sold? That certainly wasn't on my advice. Anyone holding hasn't lost a cent, all time highs incoming...by May at the latest

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

And I'm not trying to dunk on anyone, just pointing out reality. Did lots of people make money speculating on BTC? You betcha. Did a lot of people lose money? You betcha. That's how it works.

Same is true of the stock market as well, real estate, etc.

I totally get what you are saying with the value of BTC, but if you are really concerned about the speculation, pump & dump style behaviour that is totally going on (see yesterday), then the goal should be for the government to properly regulate the market.

Which for whatever reason they are slow to do even though tons of companies both public / private hold BTC already.

[Fuzz]

The difference is that the stock market for the most part is backed by tangible assets, for which people are betting on the profitability, or future profitability of the company. That is, that they have the ability to generate income. Real estate is the bet on the value of a tangible asset to increase.

Bitcoin is a bet that someone else will pay you more for it later, but it's not really based on anything but scarcity. Which is to say you are betting almost entirely on human behavior, not on the underlying asset and its value. And it's fine if people want to do that, but you, know, recognize that is what it is. If it was more than that, we'd see effective use cases for now, for which we've been told existed a decade ago, and yet...

I also don't think all digital currencies are bad, or destined to go the way of Bitcoin. But Bitcoin's limiting factors make it baffling as to how it can do what people say is the source of it's future value. It just doesn't make sense, other than it is the first, and most well known. So...it's basically won the popularity contest.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

https://parade.com/1172319/stephanie...beanie-babies/

Wow, a few rare of something may be worth something if another person wants to bet on the fact that it's rare being worth something more after a passage of time.

That's not that relevant.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Wow, a few rare of something may be worth something if another person wants to bet on the fact that it's rare being worth something more after a passage of time.

That's not that relevant.

You brought them up; they're definitely not relevant.
Poor example for your ranting though; whatever your ranting was even about.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Azure

Same is true of the stock market as well, real estate, etc.

I totally get what you are saying with the value of BTC, but if you are really concerned about the speculation, pump & dump style behaviour that is totally going on (see yesterday), then the goal should be for the government to properly regulate the market.

Which for whatever reason they are slow to do even though tons of companies both public / private hold BTC already.

BTC itself doesn't really need regulation, aside from the electricity usage and subsequent environmental factors. What needs regulation is the actors around cryptocurrency.

"My BTC" "held" in a cold wallet doesn't need government interference. As soon as I want to move it, through some channel or exchange to convert it to fiat, I would certainly want regulation around that.

Registered BTC investments, while a stupid thing to put money into, should be regulated to at least ward off a fraction of fraud.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

You brought them up; they're definitely not relevant.
Poor example for your ranting though; whatever your ranting was even about.

It was humour, obviously. Perfect example. Millions of people put a ton of money into them, and now 99.9999999% of them aren't worth dust, because there's nothing about them that provides any actual value unless they're 00.00000000001% rare.

They only were tradeable, while they were tradeable. Someone was willing to buy from someone who held. Until it eventually spiraled itself out.

If you think that's a rant, then you're a dino.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

BTC itself doesn't really need regulation, aside from the electricity usage and subsequent environmental factors. What needs regulation is the actors around cryptocurrency.

"My BTC" "held" in a cold wallet doesn't need government interference. As soon as I want to move it, through some channel or exchange to convert it to fiat, I would certainly want regulation around that.

Registered BTC investments, while a stupid thing to put money into, should be regulated to at least ward off a fraction of fraud.

True.

But as it turns out what we really need regulated is the SEC not using two-factor authentication on their Twitter account leading to a false tweet being posted about ETFs being approved, resulting in a $1b price move for BTC before it went back down again.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The difference is that the stock market for the most part is backed by tangible assets, for which people are betting on the profitability, or future profitability of the company. That is, that they have the ability to generate income. Real estate is the bet on the value of a tangible asset to increase.

Bitcoin is a bet that someone else will pay you more for it later, but it's not really based on anything but scarcity. Which is to say you are betting almost entirely on human behavior, not on the underlying asset and its value. And it's fine if people want to do that, but you, know, recognize that is what it is. If it was more than that, we'd see effective use cases for now, for which we've been told existed a decade ago, and yet...

I also don't think all digital currencies are bad, or destined to go the way of Bitcoin. But Bitcoin's limiting factors make it baffling as to how it can do what people say is the source of it's future value. It just doesn't make sense, other than it is the first, and most well known. So...it's basically won the popularity contest.

I think we all agree that Bitcoin is pretty terrible for day-to-day transactions. It’s too slow and uses up too much energy. There are probably many other cryptos that are better suited for business and transactions.

And I think we can also agree that Bitcoin has no intrinsic value. But many things we trust have no intrinsic value…such as the cash in our wallets, or numbers on our bank statement… they only have value because we collectively agree they have value. Those agreements are backed by a massive entity, which make them all relatively safe…but in the end, it all comes down to some sort of collective trust.

So for sure, Bitcoin is terrible for day-to-day transactions, and its value is not intrinsic. But I wouldn’t be so hasty to discount the “store of value” angle…because I do think there is a real need for one in the digital world. If Bitcoin can ever become the defacto digital “store of value” for a large enough collective, I don’t think it needs to have any other practical use. Being “digital gold” would in itself would quite worthy to many people and corporations, especially in many countries where it’s a daily battle with the degrading purchasing power of their fiat currency.

If you think about it, gold doesn’t have a particularly huge practical or industrial use either, (that’s more of a silver thing) and is mostly just used for jewelry and as a store of value. Like Bitcoin, it is also pretty bad for day-to-day transactions (imagine everyone having to walk around with a scale and purity tester) or across distances. So gold’s primary purpose is as a store of value, and I think that’s what a lot of people are hoping for with Bitcoin. Personally, I like having something backed by a physical entity, but there’s been a whole generation of people growing up in the digital world, so I’m not surprised they want their “gold” to be digital too.

To achieve that type of status, the best thing that could happen to Bitcoin is for it to become stable and predicable. No wild swings… just a boring and relatively steady trend upward, that perhaps loosely tracks inflation or something. The more boring an predictable it can get, the better. Having said that, if it ever does reach that status…it will have quite a fight on its hands with Governments and Central Banks. Countries use their currencies as economic tools (some may say weapons), and I doubt that they want to give up that type of control. Hence their desire for CBDCs of course.

[Fuzz]

Wouldn't the issue be, if it did get boring and have a stable predictable increase in value, that it would then become generally desirable? Then it would no longer be a slow steady rise. So it would be self defeating, I would think. Maybe not.


While gold is generally used as a store of value, it is also desirable as jewelry(see India) and useful in industrial manufacturing. I'm not sure what percent of existing gold is used for those vs a store of value, but at least it has some uses.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Wouldn't the issue be, if it did get boring and have a stable predictable increase in value, that it would then become generally desirable? Then it would no longer be a slow steady rise. So it would be self defeating, I would think. Maybe not.

I assume it wouldn't grow in a straight line. It would be more akin to something like a utility stock or gold or a market index ...things that go up and down at any point in time, but generally move up in value over time or at least match inflation. But there are bubbles in every sectors...if things get ahead of themselves or become "obvious", they tend to eventually correct.

I'm not saying that's what Bitcoin will become (I'm no economist or crypto bro), but I do think it has potential. Chances are the more people and investments funds get on board, the less volatile it will be.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

While gold is generally used as a store of value, it is also desirable as jewelry(see India) and useful in industrial manufacturing. I'm not sure what percent of existing gold is used for those vs a store of value, but at least it has some uses.

This looks to be a breakdown of what we use gold for:


Its use as an industrial metal is pretty small. For the rest, half of it seems to be for jewelry and trinkets, and half seems to be used as a store of value in bullion and coins...and I have a feeling the latter is the more important half. Gold jewelry has always been popular (we humans like shiny things) but I think a lot of that desire is because of the value-holding property. In the west, we tend to see gold jewelry as mostly vanity objects or a way to flaunt wealth, but in many other parts of the world people buy gold jewelry because they trust it more than their currencies or financial institutions. I don't think gold would be $2000 USD an ounce, if it was just a jewelry metal.

Whether Bitcoin can become the digital equivalent gold, who knows. I have my doubts too. Although funnily enough, the one thing it has going for it even over gold, is that it is finite. There's plenty of gold in the ground, it just comes down to the economics of mining for more.

[topfiverecords]

Would Bitcoin or another crypto other than stablecoins shifting towards a store of value be a chicken and egg situation, or a self stabilizing effect?

Its volatility range needs to tighten drastically for it to be considered in the same way gold bullion is as a safe long term storage value. Last price sets the value though for crypto, whereas gold price is set by the IBA based on a variety of sophisticated factors. I don’t think something with a price that changes based on instant market movement is where one wants to put significant amounts of money with expectation of conservative price movements over a wider timescale. They want history of stability. Bitcoin can’t give history of stability until it’s dead or on long term life support.

There’s already stablecoins pegged to fiat, not without their own range of issues and negative risk factors, but a gold equivalent crypto currency pegged to the price of physical gold could be interesting if executed and backed correctly. Who gets to create this though, sounds problematic.

It’s estimated there is currently 2.5 billion ounces of gold bullion worldwide, estimated to be worth 5 trillion USD. Bitcoin’s market cap is currently just shy of one trillion. I think bitcoin’s market cap is too high for it to operate as a storage value even when disregarding the pricing issue. That’s too big of a mountain of speculator money seeking profits to move over to a stability side. While holders add stability against value decreases, majority have take profit targets converging with their living timeline. They’ve got eyes for gold jewelry, gold filled electronics, and travel in gold filled aeronautical equipment to pay for.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

BTC itself doesn't really need regulation, aside from the electricity usage and subsequent environmental factors. What needs regulation is the actors around cryptocurrency.

"My BTC" "held" in a cold wallet doesn't need government interference. As soon as I want to move it, through some channel or exchange to convert it to fiat, I would certainly want regulation around that.

Registered BTC investments, while a stupid thing to put money into, should be regulated to at least ward off a fraction of fraud.

haha this guy

about that avatar bet?

I say BTC all time high in 2024

you are such an expert it should be an easy win no?

ETF will increase demand, halving with reduce supply

It's as simple as that

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I assume it wouldn't grow in a straight line. It would be more akin to something like a utility stock or gold or a market index ...things that go up and down at any point in time, but generally move up in value over time or at least match inflation. But there are bubbles in every sectors...if things get ahead of themselves or become "obvious", they tend to eventually correct.

I'm not saying that's what Bitcoin will become (I'm no economist or crypto bro), but I do think it has potential. Chances are the more people and investments funds get on board, the less volatile it will be.




This looks to be a breakdown of what we use gold for:


Its use as an industrial metal is pretty small. For the rest, half of it seems to be for jewelry and trinkets, and half seems to be used as a store of value in bullion and coins...and I have a feeling the latter is the more important half. Gold jewelry has always been popular (we humans like shiny things) but I think a lot of that desire is because of the value-holding property. In the west, we tend to see gold jewelry as mostly vanity objects or a way to flaunt wealth, but in many other parts of the world people buy gold jewelry because they trust it more than their currencies or financial institutions. I don't think gold would be $2000 USD an ounce, if it was just a jewelry metal.

Whether Bitcoin can become the digital equivalent gold, who knows. I have my doubts too. Although funnily enough, the one thing it has going for it even over gold, is that it is finite. There's plenty of gold in the ground, it just comes down to the economics of mining for more.

I think the finite nature of bitcoin actually works against it.

If it becomes a store of value that people flee to during money printing and harming various governments ability to enact monetary policy the government will step in and regulate. Golds price increase drives an increase in production of gold both in new mines over years or increased production at existing mines.

Bitcoin currently does this with difficulty until it mints its last coin. At that point in time I think there is an unknown risk of what will happen but I don’t think it will be positive.

The bitcoin hodl play exemplifies the problem as having a deflationary currency is really bad for the economy. Ie wait to buy and things get cheaper.

I don’t have a full coherent thought here yet and mostly musing but I do think the success of bitcoin and the last minted coin will facilitate the end of bitcoin or the regulation of bitcoin enough to destroy it.

[afc wimbledon]

The irony of bitcoin is for it to have utility as a medium of exchange it has to lose all value as an investment, the two functions are mutually defeating.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think the finite nature of bitcoin actually works against it.

If it becomes a store of value that people flee to during money printing and harming various governments ability to enact monetary policy the government will step in and regulate. Golds price increase drives an increase in production of gold both in new mines over years or increased production at existing mines.

Bitcoin currently does this with difficulty until it mints its last coin. At that point in time I think there is an unknown risk of what will happen but I don’t think it will be positive.

The bitcoin hodl play exemplifies the problem as having a deflationary currency is really bad for the economy. Ie wait to buy and things get cheaper.

I don’t have a full coherent thought here yet and mostly musing but I do think the success of bitcoin and the last minted coin will facilitate the end of bitcoin or the regulation of bitcoin enough to destroy it.

the other huge advantage gold and diamonds have is you can literally hide it in a hole in the ground or within your body, you need no access to technology to use it, in unstable countries this is why having some gold is coveted, it's utility for bribes when you have to get out of a country in a hurry is its real use

[topfiverecords]

BTC down $6750CAD today.