Re: Bitcoin, crypto currencies, block chain

[Guest]

Bitcoin Has Zero Intrinsic Value. Some People Are OK With That

But not Willem Buiter, former chief economist of Citigroup, who likens it to Schrodinger’s cat.


Critics of Bitcoin say it has no intrinsic value, but defenders … well, actually ... a lot of its defenders agree. Which might make you nervous if you’re sitting on a big investment in Bitcoin or considering wading in for the first time.

Johns Hopkins University economist Steven Hanke tweeted Feb. 20, “Just remember—Bitcoin is no more than a highly speculative asset with a fundamental value of ZERO!” This is a common criticism. On March 8, American Enterprise Institute visiting fellow Jim Harper responded to Hanke with a blog post that essentially said, yeah, that’s true, but no other asset has any fundamental value, either.

“There is no fundamental or inherent value to anything,” Harper wrote. “People decide for themselves what they value based on their own situations and plans. In the aggregate, they decide what is valuable across society.”

Harper is basing his Bitcoin defense on the “subjective theory of value,” which has mostly pushed aside explanations of value based on how much labor (or sometimes capital) was used to create something. The subjective theory of value, writes Harper, “is an insight of tremendous importance not just to economics, but to freedom, progress, and humanity in general. That is because it takes individuals’ aggregate decisions about what to buy and sell as the primary source of information about what should be bought and sold.”

Harper is partly right. To some degree the beauty of anything is in the eye of the beholder—or behodler, in Bitcoin’s case. But unlike Bitcoin, some things are inherently useful—a bridge, an acre of soybeans, a sturdy pair of shoes. The range of values that different people will put on tangible, productive objects is much narrower than the nearly infinite range of values that people will put on Bitcoin. Subjectivity becomes important precisely when no other valuation metrics apply.

Which brings us to Willem Buiter, the former chief economist of Citigroup Inc., who wrote a Feb. 12 column for Project Syndicate called “Schrodinger’s Bitcoin,” alluding to the quantum theory thought experiment by Erwin Schrodinger in which a cat inside a box can be considered simultaneously alive and dead until the box is opened and an observer looks inside. That’s the ultimate in subjectivity.

Like Hanke, Buiter writes, “Notwithstanding the recent spectacular surge in its price, Bitcoin will remain an asset without intrinsic value whose market value can be anything or nothing.” Unlike Harper, he’s not OK with that. Buiter, a visiting professor of international and public affairs at Columbia University, writes that Bitcoin, like the dollar or the euro, is a fiat currency, not backed by gold or any other hard asset. The difference is that the dollar and the euro have central banks attempting to stabilize their value. Bitcoin doesn’t.

At the moment, Buiter writes, Bitcoin is exhibiting “a variant of a non-fundamental explosive price equilibrium.” He says it could transition from this into the opposite, which is “the not-so-nice zero-price scenario.” Or with luck it could transition into a stable middle ground, like a normal currency. “The real world is of course not constrained by the range of possible equilibria supported by the mainstream economic theory outlined here,” he writes. “But that makes Bitcoin even riskier as an investment.”

Soybeans and sturdy shoes are looking better and better by comparison.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -with-that

[Guest]

I bet Michael Saylor is worrying. Uhhh, no. Buying more. Like me.

Saylor in an interview 2 weeks ago. He looks beyond worried. He looks homeless.

LOL, Saylor thought he was going to be a bitcoinsmith. Well, he probably thinks he still can be.

If Saylor believes what he preaches, it's hard to understand why he issued convertible bonds to buy Bitcoin. If the price of Bitcoin continues to decline, it's hard to understand why the company won't go bankrupt. Maybe I'm missing something.

[Guest]

The network effect might be more credible if bitcoin were actually used as a currency, but it's mostly speculators buying and selling to each other, so it doesn't matter nearly as much. Unlike a Facebook, people don't need their network to participate - since it's mostly about speculation, people want the token whose value they expect to increase most, regardless of whether their friends use it or not, so it doesn't have to be Bitcoin.

[Cool Breeze]

What do NS and CO stand for regarding the personality traits?

Again, make a handle.

[Cool Breeze]

If Saylor believes what he preaches, it's hard to understand why he issued convertible bonds to buy Bitcoin. If the price of Bitcoin continues to decline, it's hard to understand why the company won't go bankrupt. Maybe I'm missing something.

How couldn't you miss something; you don't understand anything on this topic.

I have a novel suggestion - listen to his interviews. He explains what is happening to the USD and why he would leverage it (useless fiat) to get something that actually has value (and is deflationary, among other things).

Use your brain. I won't waste time explaining this any more. If you bring someone up, at least know what they are doing. Why bother posting if you just say you don't understand anything or anyone else? As if you are smarter than Saylor, or me. You can't even listen to an argument, let alone understand it. That makes all of your posts worthless, over and over.

[Guest]

Nobody needs to listen to Saylor to know: You don't borrow to go to the casino.

This is the kind of crap people do when they forget God and moral principles.

[Guest]

OK, so tell me all about Saylor's convertible bonds and why Microvision won't go bankrupt if BTC trades below $28,000. Show your calculations and then I'll correct the errors in them. Dig into the reports Microvision sent to the SEC to do your work, not his stupid televangelist interviews where he sounds like his balls are caught in a vise.

[Guest]

The hedge funds will start following this thread and use you as a contrary indicator to make their next billions.

Yes, I am developing the Cool Breeze Scream Indicator (CBSI). It will work about like this:

Strong Sell - Frantically screaming about Bitcoin and calling people names (retard is his favorite with full retard a close second). Posting multiple times per day.
Sell - Screaming about Bitcoin. Posting a few times per week.
Neutral - All is quiet.
Buy - Bitcoin is never a buy.

Based on the CBSI, bitcoin rates as a sell currently.

You think you can pick tops and bottoms?

You are dumber than anyone possibly could imagine. You should never give your advice to anyone, as you're a total moron.

I'm holding long term, what don't you understand about that?

My CBSI has moved to strong sell. Indicator is still in pilot testing phase - let's see how it works out.

How couldn't you miss something; you don't understand anything on this topic.

I have a novel suggestion - listen to his interviews. He explains what is happening to the USD and why he would leverage it (useless fiat) to get something that actually has value (and is deflationary, among other things).

Use your brain. I won't waste time explaining this any more. If you bring someone up, at least know what they are doing. Why bother posting if you just say you don't understand anything or anyone else? As if you are smarter than Saylor, or me. You can't even listen to an argument, let alone understand it. That makes all of your posts worthless, over and over.

CBSI remains on strong sell.

[Guest]

The problem with looking at Saylor's reports to the SEC is knowing whether what is in them is accurate. As stated earlier in this thread, the SEC has, as of last month, objected to Microstrategy's accounting adjustment for their Bitcoin holdings. So, you can do the calculations based on those reports but whether that reflects the true condition of the company is questionable.

[Guest]

As if you are smarter than Saylor, or me.

Saylor



“I’ve seen more people fail because of liquor and leverage – leverage being borrowed money. You really don’t need leverage in this world much. If you’re smart, you’re going to make a lot of money without borrowing.”

— Warren Buffett


"Smart men go broke three ways - liquor, ladies and leverage."

— Charlie Munger