Are we excited yet?

[Lord_Bogdanoff]

Lets resume from the other thread shall we?

BTC at 43.4k currently, there is reason for optimism into the rest of 2021

[Memento Mori]

The writing is on the wall. Central Banks are designing and will launch digital currencies. Once that happens, other crypto will be regulated more and more if not outright banned. Another big scandal will ease the way to doing this, Binance and tether looks primed to provide just this.

Of course, the whole thing may inflate more and more before the end so there is still money to be made, as there is with any speculative bubble. The "hold forever" folk are on the road to doom imo.

[Thargor]

Can't believe ETH is back here already, I'd say 10k is on the table in the next 12 months.

[PogMoThoin]

BTC so strong atm, could be on for a nice run to 200k sometime next year

[Memento Mori]

BTC so strong atm, could be on for a nice run to 200k sometime next year

Do you have anything to base this on besides wishful thinking?

[PogMoThoin]

Do you have anything to base this on besides wishful thinking?

Does anyone, it's not financial advise, it's my prediction!

[Gonzovision]

Do you have anything to base this on besides wishful thinking?

I've been following Plan Bs S2F/S2FxA model for the last 18 months or so. It's been fairly accurate in overall sense over the last few halving's. There was a bit of worry last month that it would go over 1 standard deviation out, but the pull back has brought it closer in line again. It'll be interesting to see over the next 4 months to see the price vs model. S2F would be around 100k and xA would be in the region of $288k.

Obviously the caveat is that all models are right until they're not.

Interesting looking at the price of gold over the last few days, pretty major drop. Essentially not even keeping up with inflation at the moment.
I guess one reason to be bullish on short term price action is the amount of ETF applications there have been recently. I think the flood gates open once the first gets approved.

Looking at the funds that are purchasing ETfs with miners also, the big boys definitely want, and are getting involved.

Bitcoin won't be banned, the time for that has long since passed. The money behind the crypto lobby groups now is huge. Like it or not it's here to stay. There are many battles to be fought, but I know which side I'd rather be on at the moment.

[Memento Mori]

I've been following Plan Bs S2F/S2FxA model for the last 18 months or so. It's been fairly accurate in overall sense over the last few halving's. There was a bit of worry last month that it would go over 1 standard deviation out, but the pull back has brought it closer in line again. It'll be interesting to see over the next 4 months to see the price vs model. S2F would be around 100k and xA would be in the region of $288k.

Obviously the caveat is that all models are right until they're not.

Interesting looking at the price of gold over the last few days, pretty major drop. Essentially not even keeping up with inflation at the moment.
I guess one reason to be bullish on short term price action is the amount of ETF applications there have been recently. I think the flood gates open once the first gets approved.

Looking at the funds that are purchasing ETfs with miners also, the big boys definitely want, and are getting involved.

Bitcoin won't be banned, the time for that has long since passed. The money behind the crypto lobby groups now is huge. Like it or not it's here to stay. There are many battles to be fought, but I know which side I'd rather be on at the moment.

It may not be banned, but it will get regulated to hell. Models can say whatever you want them to, but they do not address the fundamental issue, which is whether Bitcoin has any actual value, or unique use that gives it value. On balance it does not, not least because any claims or arguments in its favour are ones which are very vulnerable. Crypto bull run has largely been backed up by tether, something for which alarm bells are loudly ringing about. The money or influence behind Crypto is not huge, certainly not compared to the resources of those it is posed against. This is especially the case when much of this "value" is down to a speculative bubble.

I think anyone who is solely invested in Bitcoin is on course for an (eventual) hiding. I think people will be safer and better served over the long term with a well-diversified portfolio of assets and equities (quality companies with a reasonable valuation). Stick a small % in BTC for a gamble if you want, and trim it if it rises.

[Gonzovision]

Quality companies with a reasonable valuation is pretty hard to quantify in the last few years. Everything is vastly overpriced. But what can ye do? As long as they keep printing, large proportions are going into the equities driving everything up.

The problem with valuation is what are you basing the valuation off? Is it the $, which has lost 10-30% of its value over the last few years. I wouldn't be surprised if most stocks weren't giving any sort of return if you factor in the real inflation cost.

I think the main issue with the CBDC is that there is no limit to how much they can mint, same as with fiat at the moment. I do see in the near term that there will be a form of UBI payed to everyone, in some sort of digital currency to try keep up with inflation. You can see it in the States already.

[Memento Mori]

Quality companies with a reasonable valuation is pretty hard to quantify in the last few years. Everything is vastly overpriced. But what can ye do? As long as they keep printing, large proportions are going into the equities driving everything up.

Not everything is. There are still companies out there with reasonable valuations, particularly in the UK and Japan. I'm not talking about Tesla. Royal Mail for example was/is a textbook value play that has performed very well.

The problem with valuation is what are you basing the valuation off? Is it the $, which has lost 10-30% of its value over the last few years. I wouldn't be surprised if most stocks weren't giving any sort of return if you factor in the real inflation cost.

The fundamental basis of the valuation of an equity is that most companies (at least the ones I am talking about)actually do something which creates value. This means that the company is worth something and can generate more of it, whatever the medium of exchange is, be it Bitcoin or the Pound.
Bitcoin does not create any value at all. Its tech is not unique, nor is it the "best" or most evolved version of that type of tech.

I think the main issue with the CBDC is that there is no limit to how much they can mint, same as with fiat at the moment. I do see in the near term that there will be a form of UBI payed to everyone, in some sort of digital currency to try keep up with inflation. You can see it in the States already.

Let's take it that they do go ahead and do that (although I am unconvinced). Bitcoin evangelists basically say that Bitcoin undermines that and is "protection". If it gets into a position where it can effectively block and undermine the actions of sovereign governments and central banks to the extent that inflation and fiscal policy cannot be controlled etc, why would Bitcoin not be banned or regulated to return control to democratic institutions? Especially when Bitcoin is an ESG nightmare, utilised by all sorts of criminals?

Central Banks and governments will take the "good" of Bitcoin and incorporate it into their own digital currencies. Then Bitcoin will be killed, and proper order too, otherwise power will be entirely removed from democratic institutions into either the hands of whales, or if somehow Bitcoin ends up evenly distributed so no one or handful of actors can manipulate it, to a mindless anarchy which could destroy economies.

[Gonzovision]

Not everything is. There are still companies out there with reasonable valuations, particularly in the UK and Japan. I'm not talking about Tesla. Royal Mail for example was/is a textbook value play that has performed very well.

I'll just take your first point as I have to run bit will follow-up later - it's genuinely good to have a discussion and get both sides.

Now this is at a quick glance, and it's not a company I have looked into, but Royal Mail, was valued (looking at RMG: 600p at an ath? correct me if I am wrong) back in 2014, and is currently at 493p. That's over the span of 7 years where the cost hasn't even recovered. That's 7 years at a loss and not counting the price of inflation over that time. That's not exactly a win in my eyes. Now of course there has been buying opportunities over the last few years, and it may yet turn out ok.

But if one had purchased BTC on the same date in 2014, it was around $800 - it's now around $45k. Even if you weren't intent on holding, having any stock over that period is a huge loss against BTC.

[Memento Mori]

I'll just take your first point as I have to run bit will follow-up later - it's genuinely good to have a discussion and get both sides.

Now this is at a quick glance, and it's not a company I have looked into, but Royal Mail, was valued (looking at RMG: 600p at an ath? correct me if I am wrong) back in 2014, and is currently at 493p. That's over the span of 7 years where the cost hasn't even recovered. That's 7 years at a loss and not counting the price of inflation over that time. That's not exactly a win in my eyes. Now of course there has been buying opportunities over the last few years, and it may yet turn out ok.

But if one had purchased BTC on the same date in 2014, it was around $800 - it's now around $45k. Even if you weren't intent on holding, having any stock over that period is a huge loss against BTC.

Individual equities are never "always a buy" that you should hold forever. There was a clear dislocation in the valuation whereby Royal Mail's European package delivery company was probably worth Royal Mail's entire market cap (most of it anyway) by itself. This was the time to invest, as for the price you got the bulk of the UK operations "for free". When investing then you had an extremely strong argument to say that the price would go up, and you could make money. You had clear evidence, and a clear reason for your expectation, namely the market would figure out that Royal Mail was incorrectly valued. You also had a solid basis for believing that your investment would not implode resulting in significant losses. This was not based on potential future growth (which, incidentally, looks decent for them) but based on the value of that day. A clear instance of "buying a pound for 50 pence". If you bought Royal Mail in 2019 before Covid and sold two years later today, you would be up about 130%. If you bought during the Covid crash, you would be pushing 300%. My point here is that "value" can still be found in the market, although it is harder to find.

You have compared it to Bitcoin. Yes, Bitcoin has done better, but carries way more risk! You are not comparing like for like. If I bet it all on a winning horse I would also have done better than investing in equities.

I asked earlier what the basis was for the thought that Bitcoin will continue to surge, and if it was something beyond wishful thinking. You can see with Royal Mail (I just picked it as an example) that there was a clear case for investing, measured risks, and realistic expectations based on solid evidence, with a good margin of safety. Bitcoin does not have this, and cannot, as it is totally unproductive and its value is not based on anything it does, rather it is entirely based on speculation. If Bitcoin had something unique and super features that no one else could ever use that would be an argument in its favour, but it does not. The speculative bubble may continue to inflate, or it may not. This makes it extremely risky, so I stand by my initial statement: I think anyone who is solely invested in Bitcoin is on course for an (eventual) hiding. I think people will be safer and better served over the long term with a well-diversified portfolio of assets and equities (quality companies with a reasonable valuation). Stick a small % in BTC for a gamble if you want, and trim it if it rises.

[Gonzovision]

I think we all can agree that its not in anyone's best interest to have an undiversified portfolio, be it bitcoin, equities or commodities. Even a basket of diversified equities is not truly diversified as we saw in March of 2020 where there were massive hits across the board. Bitcoin itself was not immune to this. What was different was the recovery. In essence it was a supply shock where any assets were liquidated to free up cash. The recovery of the bitcoin price is what sets it apart.

On the point of bitcoin having any value, here I think we have a difference of opinion. Bitcoin, due to its performance over it's admittedly short lifespan, has proven to be an effective store of value. Everyone who has bought Bitcoin from day 0 to around April this year is in profit of varying degrees. I imagine it wont be too long until the late comers are joining that group. It has outperformed every single asset that exists. Over 10 years BTC is up 469,482% vs Golds -3% against the USD. If Gold is a suitable store of value, how is BTC not? The only argument that stands any merit currently is the lifespan of Gold vs BTC, which is slowly becoming a non issue imo.

Now if we take it to the next use, as a currency, it's irrefutable that BTC is not a currency. El Salvador was the first, but it won't be the last. All we have to do is look at the trend of peer to peer BTC usage in underdeveloped or 3rd World countries. We can argue whether we agree on its a good currency or not, and that really still has to be decided, but as it stands it is legal tender. The 2nd layer of the bitcoin network has essentially nullified the argument that bitcoin does not scale. There is no other decentralized, open source network in the world that, that has interoperability with the current financial system which is actually not a proof of concept, but working on a large scale. Anyone in the world can now send any currency across the lightning network and store in btc or their local currency or USD, without paying network fees. Just look at what Strike is doing in developing countries.

The fundamental basis of the valuation of an equity is that most companies (at least the ones I am talking about)actually do something which creates value.

This brings me back to my point on what you are actually using to measure the value of the company. The USD or EUR are an ever moving yardstick. We don't have any definite figures on inflation as assets and items are added and removed from the CPI bucket at will. I think we can agree that agree that real inflation is nowhere near the 2-4% that we are told and is much closer to 12-15% a year. All you have to do is look at utility costs, food costs, some which is not straight forward inflation but shrinkflation. So the asset you purchase has to be measured with that taken into account. And we can't argue that btc has been the most performant asset over if it's lifespan. Every stock high/low risk that I have bought throughout the years has underperformed against bitcoin. And isn't that why we invest in the first place, to maximise the value of our cash/assets.

If Bitcoin had something unique and super features that no one else could ever use that would be an argument in its favour, but it does not

In terms of the tech itself, I believe you have overlooked network effect, or first order. This has given bitcoin a huge advantage over other Cryptos. It took a unique set of circumstances to create, which won't be replicated. Look at the crypto market currently, many have tried but personally I don't see them succeeding. The mathematical simplicity is what makes Bitcoin special, it's just maths, it cant be manipulated at the base level. When it comes down to improvements the base layer is so solid that improvements can be added. If you look at ETH now, it doesn't know what it is, PoW or Pos, not decentralized etc.

Especially when Bitcoin is an ESG nightmare, utilised by all sorts of criminals?

I don't think we need to compare fiat and BTC under this as it is very one sided.

As for ESG, it's all about control. Who gets to define ESG rules and guidelines? The incentives need to be financial and the innovation for cleaner tech will then follow. If you look at the majority of US/EU based miners now e.g ARB or other members of the miners council, the vast majority of energy is renewable or wasted energy. The banning of mining in China should put that point to rest for good.

You have compared it to Bitcoin. Yes, Bitcoin has done better, but carries way more risk! You are not comparing like for like. If I bet it all on a winning horse I would also have done better than investing in equities.

Agreed to a point, initially the risk factor of bitcoin was higher, but as time has passed adoption has grown, hash rate increased, the network has become more secure, that risk has certainly diminished. And different people have different risk tolerances, are at different stages of our investing lives. Look at what happened in 2008 to all our safe investments in pension funds that were all tied into a housing bubble. Even safe companies, who had no business having exposure got dragged in.
I would be of the opinion now that's it's more of a risk not to own bitcoin, whether as a hedge or as a growing asset.

I came to Bitcoin from the point of view that there was something broken with the current system. I was late to the game to discover it, but the more learning I do the more I'm convinced it will play a large part in our future.

We are heading towards a system of digital currency whether we like it or not. There will be CBDCs, many will say they can't live alongside BTC, but it'll be regulated as any other asset class.

[sequestrates]

Gonzovision has gone into great detail here which is a pity as most people won't read the post due to the length.

I'm someone who has been pretty much religious about value investing (Buy a dollar for 50 cents etc.), Buffett, Munger, Pabrai, Spier etc. When it comes to Bitcoin however... You have to own some. Even if its the % of your portfolio that you allocate to "risky business" - get some bitcoin in there.

Interesting that Royal Mail has been brought up here and suggested that it was somehow a low risk investment, I thought it looked great value in 2019 too, dividend was great, future growth prospects wrt parcels (despite serious competition), and I bought some shares. It was NOT clearly a slam dunk at the time, dodgy absentee CEO, huge union and pension issues, legacy issues wrt huge reorganization cost of a very old previously government run (Read inefficient and definitely NOT cost-effective) organization. Market "figured out" that it was undervalued? It was at that price because of the RISK involved.

Got interested in BItcoin after March 2020 - everything crashed... then went straight back up immediately.... in the middle of a pandemic... as if it has had zero economic impact.... uhhhh.... what is wrong here? Could it be that the denominator is the issue? Could the problem be that all of our valuation metrics are using the wrong unit of account? (Not a conclusion I came to myself - cribbed from Preston Pysh)

Bitcoin is at first glance not a value investing play. Still to a value investor there should be something very attractive about a finite number with a predictable supply level. Something that cannot be manipulated and is predictable, that you could use to make accurate valuations. At some point you have to revisit and think "Am I missing something here?"

I'm not going to go into the reasons that Bitcoin is succeeding (Gonzovision has already provided plenty of info for people to dig into)

OPINOIN: The biggest risk you can take is NOT to own ANY bitcoin. If you own none you are speculating that it is going to fail - fighting Metcalfes law - Good luck with that. Hope you keep digging.

[Memento Mori]

I think we all can agree that its not in anyone's best interest to have an undiversified portfolio, be it bitcoin, equities or commodities. Even a basket of diversified equities is not truly diversified as we saw in March of 2020 where there were massive hits across the board. Bitcoin itself was not immune to this. What was different was the recovery. In essence it was a supply shock where any assets were liquidated to free up cash. The recovery of the bitcoin price is what sets it apart.

On the point of bitcoin having any value, here I think we have a difference of opinion. Bitcoin, due to its performance over it's admittedly short lifespan, has proven to be an effective store of value. Everyone who has bought Bitcoin from day 0 to around April this year is in profit of varying degrees. I imagine it wont be too long until the late comers are joining that group. It has outperformed every single asset that exists. Over 10 years BTC is up 469,482% vs Golds -3% against the USD. If Gold is a suitable store of value, how is BTC not? The only argument that stands any merit currently is the lifespan of Gold vs BTC, which is slowly becoming a non issue imo.

How can you claim that it is a store of value when it cannot be relied upon to maintain at least some value in any scenario? It has no fundamental value.

I do not believe gold is a good store of value either, as it has not actually done what it is claimed it does, and kept its real value. It trades at a considerable premium (currently) to what it "should" were it an effective store of value.

Now if we take it to the next use, as a currency, it's irrefutable that BTC is not a currency. El Salvador was the first, but it won't be the last. All we have to do is look at the trend of peer to peer BTC usage in underdeveloped or 3rd World countries. We can argue whether we agree on its a good currency or not, and that really still has to be decided, but as it stands it is legal tender. The 2nd layer of the bitcoin network has essentially nullified the argument that bitcoin does not scale. There is no other decentralized, open source network in the world that, that has interoperability with the current financial system which is actually not a proof of concept, but working on a large scale. Anyone in the world can now send any currency across the lightning network and store in btc or their local currency or USD, without paying network fees. Just look at what Strike is doing in developing countries.

There is nothing to stop this ease of transfer from being replicated, or improved upon, by digital currency. None of this is an argument in favour of the idea that Bitcoin has any fundamental value. It is speculative. Tell me, why do you think the people who accept Bitcoin as payment do so with reference to "fiat" values, and almost always immediately convert it to "fiat" upon receipt?

This brings me back to my point on what you are actually using to measure the value of the company. The USD or EUR are an ever moving yardstick. We don't have any definite figures on inflation as assets and items are added and removed from the CPI bucket at will. I think we can agree that agree that real inflation is nowhere near the 2-4% that we are told and is much closer to 12-15% a year. All you have to do is look at utility costs, food costs, some which is not straight forward inflation but shrinkflation. So the asset you purchase has to be measured with that taken into account. And we can't argue that btc has been the most performant asset over if it's lifespan. Every stock high/low risk that I have bought throughout the years has underperformed against bitcoin. And isn't that why we invest in the first place, to maximise the value of our cash/assets.

Inflation has not been 15% a year for a very long time. You have missed the point which was that companies have value for a number of reasons, including the fact that they actually generate value. Even if everything were valued and measured in Bitcoin, successful companies would continue to generate value. This is why companies can be worth more than their book value. So when someone asks "why is Coca Cola worth anything?" there is a clear reason why, beyond the assets it controls.

Assets have underperformed, but that is zero reason to think that this will remain the case. You can't turn around after a horse race and say it was low risk to bet on a particular horse because it happened to win.

In terms of the tech itself, I believe you have overlooked network effect, or first order. This has given bitcoin a huge advantage over other Cryptos. It took a unique set of circumstances to create, which won't be replicated. Look at the crypto market currently, many have tried but personally I don't see them succeeding. The mathematical simplicity is what makes Bitcoin special, it's just maths, it cant be manipulated at the base level. When it comes down to improvements the base layer is so solid that improvements can be added. If you look at ETH now, it doesn't know what it is, PoW or Pos, not decentralized etc.

Bitcoin could be killed tomorrow if a small number of governments decided to. I don't believe any other speculative crypto will succeed either for the same reasons.

I don't think we need to compare fiat and BTC under this as it is very one sided.

As for ESG, it's all about control. Who gets to define ESG rules and guidelines? The incentives need to be financial and the innovation for cleaner tech will then follow. If you look at the majority of US/EU based miners now e.g ARB or other members of the miners council, the vast majority of energy is renewable or wasted energy. The banning of mining in China should put that point to rest for good.

Financial controls and power should remain under the control of democratic governments, and not unknown actors. The idea that people want a scenario where governments essentially have no control of their economies, with no economic levers available to them, is scary. But sure you would get rich in this dystopian universe so its grand? This is why it will never be allowed, rightly, to achieve such size and influence.

Agreed to a point, initially the risk factor of bitcoin was higher, but as time has passed adoption has grown, hash rate increased, the network has become more secure, that risk has certainly diminished. And different people have different risk tolerances, are at different stages of our investing lives. Look at what happened in 2008 to all our safe investments in pension funds that were all tied into a housing bubble. Even safe companies, who had no business having exposure got dragged in.

This makes no sense again, more people betting on a horse does not make it a less risky prospect. If it did, bubbles would never burst.

You have not outlined why you think Bitcoin has any fundamental value. There is no reason why Bitcoin could not totally crash. The fundamental risk for capital loss remains.

I would be of the opinion now that's it's more of a risk not to own bitcoin, whether as a hedge or as a growing asset.

If you want insurance against inflation that can be relied upon, look at Treasury inflation-protected securities to form part of your portfolio. If you want a speculative gamble (nothing wrong with that) buy a % or two of Bitcoin.

I came to Bitcoin from the point of view that there was something broken with the current system. I was late to the game to discover it, but the more learning I do the more I'm convinced it will play a large part in our future.

We are heading towards a system of digital currency whether we like it or not. There will be CBDCs, many will say they can't live alongside BTC, but it'll be regulated as any other asset class.

This is hopium, and is really the major problem people have. They buy into a "vision", or the sales pitch. Why do you think the libertarian vista that people claim Bitcoin will lead to will be an improvement on what we have already?

[Memento Mori]

Interesting that Royal Mail has been brought up here and suggested that it was somehow a low risk investment, I thought it looked great value in 2019 too, dividend was great, future growth prospects wrt parcels (despite serious competition), and I bought some shares. It was NOT clearly a slam dunk at the time, dodgy absentee CEO, huge union and pension issues, legacy issues wrt huge reorganization cost of a very old previously government run (Read inefficient and definitely NOT cost-effective) organization. Market "figured out" that it was undervalued? It was at that price because of the RISK involved.

The point I was making with a reference to Royal Mail was to refute the suggestion that everything is overpriced. It is not. The reasons you outline are what the market got caught up in, and they basically forgot about the value of GLS. No investment is "risk-free" but an investment in Royal Mail at the time, even based on the idea that everything would stay the same (i.e. no growth) had a reasonable prospect of a positive return, and more than a considerable margin of safety against capital loss. Coupled with the real possibility of growth (Covid was an unforeseen catalyst!) it very much seemed a good investment for a reasonable return over the mid term. The risk is always the total loss of your invested capital. Royal Mail was not a very risky investment. But this is beside the point. My point was is that with equities you can make a solid investment case for buying something at a certain price and have a solid reason to suppose it will grow, or will not decline beyond a certain level. You might be wrong, but it is not guesswork, because there is fundamental value there. Bitcoin does not have this. Any guess at "200k next year" is complete and total speculation. As is the price today, speculation that someone else will eventually pay more than you did for something that fundamentally has no value, and cannot generate value.

Got interested in BItcoin after March 2020 - everything crashed... then went straight back up immediately.... in the middle of a pandemic... as if it has had zero economic impact.... uhhhh.... what is wrong here? Could it be that the denominator is the issue? Could the problem be that all of our valuation metrics are using the wrong unit of account? (Not a conclusion I came to myself - cribbed from Preston Pysh)

? The massive government supports, the increased demand for tech, and the successful invention of the vaccine were the catalyst for the rise and recovery in prices. In Bitcoin land of the future there would have been no quantitative easing and the entire economy would plunge down the drain. We would be rightly screwed.

Bitcoin is at first glance not a value investing play. Still to a value investor there should be something very attractive about a finite number with a predictable supply level. Something that cannot be manipulated and is predictable, that you could use to make accurate valuations. At some point you have to revisit and think "Am I missing something here?"

My body will shed a finite amount of dead skin over my lifetime. While I am alive, the rate of shedding can be reliably predicted. It is uniquely identifiable to me, thanks to DNA. Once I am dead, no more of it will ever be produced! Would you care to buy some?

OPINOIN: The biggest risk you can take is NOT to own ANY bitcoin. If you own none you are speculating that it is going to fail - fighting Metcalfes law - Good luck with that. Hope you keep digging.

Tell me, what is the risk if I don't?

[Memento Mori]

I do actually own a small amount of crypto (no Bitcoin though) purely for the craic and a speculative gamble. I also bet on horses for the same reason.

[Gonzovision]

How can you claim that it is a store of value when it cannot be relied upon to maintain at least some value in any scenario?

Let's look at the figures. Over the the lifespan of BTC we are looking at 200% gain per annum. Explain how that is not storing value. Please point out an example where bitcoin has lost value on a year to year basis. If you had invested in BTC from any point since the genesis block to earlier this year, show me any asset that has performed better.

I do not believe gold is a good store of value either, as it has not actually done what it is claimed it does, and kept its real value

So from your take gold has no fundamental value either. A minute amount of industrial usage and jewelry aside, for the asset which is considered widely as one of the best, most stable stores of values traditionally.

There is nothing to stop this ease of transfer from being replicated, or improved upon, by digital currency. None of this is an argument in favour of the idea that Bitcoin has any fundamental value

Many parts of BTC can be replicated, but the network effect and unique circumstances, as discussed earlier can not. There's noting stopping me hosting Facebook on my own website, but that doesn't make it Facebook without the network effect, the millions of users, the interconnected nature of the network. And again have you missed the fact, that BTC is infact a legal tender in a country. They literally use it on a daily basis. That is akin to saying the yen has no fundamental value but overlooking the fact that it's legal tender. you can keep repeating that BTC has no fundamental value, but it doesn't make it fact. I have pointed out both use cases and backed up with figures and data.

Inflation has not been 15% a year for a very long time. You have missed the point which was that companies have value for a number of reasons, including the fact that they actually generate value

Official inflation figures for June in the US were 5.39%, much higher than the quoted 2-3% we heard for last few years. When you dig deeper and look at energy commodities for year end Jun 21 energy commodities are 44.5%, used vehicles were at 45.2%, two examples not included in the CPI figures, not even mentioning housing costs etc, but conveniently not in the CPI figures.

Lets step away from the US, What are current inflation figures in Lebanon, Turkey, Venezuela etc?

There was no point missed about companies generating value, what you seem to have missed is the value you are seeing is being measured by something which is a moving goalpost, we are in a situation right now where 1+1 does not = 2.

How can you trust a currency, talking USD and EUR here be used to value anything when 35% of all dollars in circulation have been printed in 10 months up to December 2020. Do you not see an issue here? You are looking at valuing companies with a measuring tape which has incorrect values.

Assets have underperformed, but that is zero reason to think that this will remain the case.

All we have is the data, and the data points to BTC outperforming every asset in its lifespan, there is nothing to point to this changing at any point in the future.

Bitcoin could be killed tomorrow if a small number of governments decided to. I don't believe any other speculative crypto will succeed either for the same reasons.

China, India, Nigeria have all banned Btc in the last few years and yet bitcoin keeps chugging away one block at a time. People said the network would have tremendous trouble after the China ban, 50% of the hash power went offline. Bitcoin continued mining blocks, difficulty adjusted. Programmed perfection. Imagine if we told Amazon or Google they had to migrate 50% of their infrastructure in a week.....So if you could please point to how a few governments banned it, it would be the death knell for btc.....for real this time....

Financial controls and power should remain under the control of democratic governments, and not unknown actors

You mean the ones that were at the head table in 2008 when a free market would have error corrected issues in the system, but instead they kept propping banks and investment funds up with public money and then once the shit finally hit the fan, again bailed out the bad actors. Yep because that has worked out real well for the vast majority of the global population.

You have not outlined why you think Bitcoin has any fundamental value. There is no reason why Bitcoin could not totally crash.

Again, I have pointed out both layer 1 and layer 2 use cases. We haven't even touched on layer 3, where privacy centered applications are developed. Look at Sphynx or many of the peer to peer applications, which are properly decentralized and censorship resistant. That may not mean a huge amount to you, but there's plenty of people that have no other way of communication without state interference. Anything could completely crash, look at the housing markets over the last few decades, cycle after cycle of boom and bust. Bitcoin has recovered and become stronger through every adversity it has had so far, and that's reflected in the price....Now if that isn't value in and of itself I don't know what it.

If you want insurance against inflation that can be relied upon, look at Treasury inflation-protected securities to form part of your portfolio. If you want a speculative gamble (nothing wrong with that) buy a % or two of Bitcoin.

I'll point you to Greg Foss in relation to TIPS, he's done a considerable amount of work in the area.
https://twitter.com/FossGregfoss

https://podbay.fm/p/we-study-billionair ... 1618369043

This is hopium, and is really the major problem people have. They buy into a "vision", or the sales pitch

Again I come back to the data - show me when Bitcoin has failed. It's not a sales pitch when the product is performing as expected.

And just on a previous point about criminality, I went and had a Google - Chain analysis who are used by law enforcement to track public blockchains has found across multiple years between 0.5% and 2% of Btc is used in criminality.

https://blog.chainalysis.com/reports/20 ... et-markets

Maybe you have some HSBC figures to quote......

[JONJO THE MISER]

Had cryto blades to buy on my list in may at around $2 now its nearly $80.
Invested in full send instead of it.

[sequestrates]

My body will shed a finite amount of dead skin over my lifetime. While I am alive, the rate of shedding can be reliably predicted. It is uniquely identifiable to me, thanks to DNA. Once I am dead, no more of it will ever be produced! Would you care to buy some?

Tell me, what is the risk if I don't?

Ugh please keep your own skin

Nothing I can say can convince you. If you have already done the research and are confident that it's not worth investing in then good for you. If Bitcoin goes in the "Too hard" pile then that could be sensible, nothing wrong with that,. It is the best performing asset in history so it's worth putting some time in to try to understand it. My conclusion was that Bitcoin could still fail as an investment (Though at this point very unlikely to go to zero in my lifetime) but that it was too risky not to put something into Bitcoin. What was the opportunity cost of not putting 1% of your portfolio into bitcoin in 2012. How about the opportunity cost in 2015? 2018? 2020?

Best of luck to you either way.

[sequestrates]

Also… is there anything to be said for another puff of that sweet, sweet hopium?

[Gonzovision]

Largest Defi hack to date.

[JONJO THE MISER]

Can they not catch the guys when they try to cash out from a exchange.

[Gonzovision]

Very much doubt it. If they are sophisticated enough to pull off the hack I'm sure breaking transactions down and obscuring addresses, wouldn't be an issue.

I've removed the rest of the post as it was inaccurate.

[Memento Mori]

Let's look at the figures. Over the the lifespan of BTC we are looking at 200% gain per annum. Explain how that is not storing value. Please point out an example where bitcoin has lost value on a year to year basis. If you had invested in BTC from any point since the genesis block to earlier this year, show me any asset that has performed better.

It cannot operate as a store of value because it has zero fundamental value in and of itself. Nor has it operated as a store of value. Just because something has inflated or appreciated at a fast rate, faster than inflation for example, for a period of time, it does not mean it is an adequate store of value. Furthermore, the very fact that it has inflated at such a high rate undermines its claim to operate as a store of value - you might say that Bitcoin will eventually hit a point where it will "become steady" but it has not. As such, any claim that it is a store of value is, at the very least, premature.

So from your take gold has no fundamental value either. A minute amount of industrial usage and jewelry aside, for the asset which is considered widely as one of the best, most stable stores of values traditionally.

Gold does have a fundamental value. I have already stated why I do not regard gold as an adequate store of value. An adequate store of value should trade at something approaching the same real price over time. Gold has not done so, it trades at a large premium. Given this, it is clear that to a large degree it is a speculative asset. Although it does have the advantage over Bitcoin that it does have some fundamental value.

Many parts of BTC can be replicated, but the network effect and unique circumstances, as discussed earlier can not. There's noting stopping me hosting Facebook on my own website, but that doesn't make it Facebook without the network effect, the millions of users, the interconnected nature of the network. And again have you missed the fact, that BTC is infact a legal tender in a country. They literally use it on a daily basis. That is akin to saying the yen has no fundamental value but overlooking the fact that it's legal tender. you can keep repeating that BTC has no fundamental value, but it doesn't make it fact. I have pointed out both use cases and backed up with figures and data.

I keep repeating it, because it is true and nothing you have said refutes it. You have not backed anything up, all you have done is basically said "yeah it was risky but loads of people use it now". "Lots of people use it" does not give something fundamental value. It being "legal tender" does not give it any fundamental value. Facebook as a company has value for a number of reasons, not least because it can (and does) generate value. This is a point I have already made. Bitcoin does not generate any value. (Incidentally, there is a lot stopping you from copying Facebook).

Official inflation figures for June in the US were 5.39%, much higher than the quoted 2-3% we heard for last few years. When you dig deeper and look at energy commodities for year end Jun 21 energy commodities are 44.5%, used vehicles were at 45.2%, two examples not included in the CPI figures, not even mentioning housing costs etc, but conveniently not in the CPI figures.

You are in delusional land if you seriously think inflation has been 15% or above over the past couple of decades. Hey, it might be in the future, it has been at stages, but it has not been in recent years. You originally raised inflation to support the idea "I wouldn't be surprised if most stocks weren't giving any sort of return if you factor in the real inflation cost." This is just not true, the market has beaten inflation consistently over the past couple of decades.

There was no point missed about companies generating value, what you seem to have missed is the value you are seeing is being measured by something which is a moving goalpost, we are in a situation right now where 1+1 does not = 2.

You don't understand the concept of value, that is clear. I am not talking about share prices appreciating, but that, by whatever yardstick you use, with successful companies if you put in x, you get x+y out, thus value has been generated. Bitcoin does not do this.

How can you trust a currency, talking USD and EUR here be used to value anything when 35% of all dollars in circulation have been printed in 10 months up to December 2020. Do you not see an issue here? You are looking at valuing companies with a measuring tape which has incorrect values.

Huh, everyone seems to be looking at bitcoin in terms of its Dollar value.

All we have is the data, and the data points to BTC outperforming every asset in its lifespan, there is nothing to point to this changing at any point in the future.

Ah, here you go again measuring the value of Bitcoin against "fiat". You say you can't use Euro or Dollar to value a company or its performance, but it is grand to do so with Bitcoin? You are using past performance here as evidence for future performance, this rarely ends well.

China, India, Nigeria have all banned Btc in the last few years and yet bitcoin keeps chugging away one block at a time. People said the network would have tremendous trouble after the China ban, 50% of the hash power went offline. Bitcoin continued mining blocks, difficulty adjusted. Programmed perfection. Imagine if we told Amazon or Google they had to migrate 50% of their infrastructure in a week.....So if you could please point to how a few governments banned it, it would be the death knell for btc.....for real this time....

All the state needs to do is tax it to hell. Personally, I am looking forward to the implosion and tears when Revenue start to look for all that CGT people should have paid.

You mean the ones that were at the head table in 2008 when a free market would have error corrected issues in the system, but instead they kept propping banks and investment funds up with public money and then once the shit finally hit the fan, again bailed out the bad actors. Yep because that has worked out real well for the vast majority of the global population.

Generals always fight their last battle. This is why we are seeing all the stimulus this time, because this is what they should have done in 2008, not austerity. A "free market" where no government or central bank has any financial levers or control is an appalling vista that would lead to much more death and suffering. Misuse of financial levers on occasion does not mean they should be ditched altogether, certainly not in favour of a system where the best-case scenario is anarchy, with a more likely scenario being a few big actors, with no democratic accountability, having control. This is why it won't happen. Bitcoin has a chance to be a nice little speculative asset, but if it ever became big enough to do what it is claimed that it will, it will, and should, be destroyed in the interest of humanity.

Again, I have pointed out both layer 1 and layer 2 use cases. We haven't even touched on layer 3, where privacy centered applications are developed. Look at Sphynx or many of the peer to peer applications, which are properly decentralized and censorship resistant. That may not mean a huge amount to you, but there's plenty of people that have no other way of communication without state interference. Anything could completely crash, look at the housing markets over the last few decades, cycle after cycle of boom and bust. Bitcoin has recovered and become stronger through every adversity it has had so far, and that's reflected in the price....Now if that isn't value in and of itself I don't know what it.

Yes, it is clear that you don't know what value is. Bitcoin has no intrinsic value and could go to zero. Land, for example, cannot do this. Investing in any nonproductive speculative asset is a bad idea, as is investing in any asset, productive or otherwise, that is the subject of excessive speculation which has inflated its price a ways beyond a reasonable intrinsic value. Any argument along the lines that you make, such as "it crashed and it bounced back!" is not the argument in its favor you think it is. I don't quite understand why you are having such difficulty with the idea that Bitcoin has a fundamental value of zero. Many Bitcoin fans freely admit this. Usually, the response is "yeah but neither does fiat (or x or y) but people agree it is worth x, it is the same with Bitcoin".

I'll point you to Greg Foss in relation to TIPS, he's done a considerable amount of work in the area.
https://twitter.com/FossGregfoss

https://podbay.fm/p/we-study-billionair ... 1618369043

We will see how it plays out. I, personally (as well as lots of others) regard TIIPS as an important part of the defense against inflation. Lets see how it plays out. Of course, putting all your money in it would also be stupid.

Again I come back to the data - show me when Bitcoin has failed. It's not a sales pitch when the product is performing as expected.

The "sales pitch" is the dystopian libertarian paradise people say Bitcoin will usher in. In their enthusiasm for this, many seem to overlook more practical issues.

And just on a previous point about criminality, I went and had a Google - Chain analysis who are used by law enforcement to track public blockchains has found across multiple years between 0.5% and 2% of Btc is used in criminality.

If one buys into ESG (I personally don't, I own several oil stocks. Difference is, we need oil, we don't need Bitcoin) Bitcoin is a disaster on ESG grounds and is something that will hinder institutional adoption. There are several reasons, greenhouses gases, and the fact that it has been used by all sorts of criminals, not least to engage in tax evasion and laundering.