261–270 of 371 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gold is highly volatile.
Volatility only exists in comparison. BTC and Gold in one graph: http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/59975b50f1a85079738... I'd say in this comparison gold is the stable option.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. I have made a clear delineation in the semantic content of my definitions, while you continue to attempt to confuse the issue.
I mean, the definitions aren't yours to make. These words exist in the dictionary.
Go read my original post again. I am advocating against ambiguity in language, as this serves to obscure analysis. You are clearly happy to obliterate distinction, however, and have made no attempt at a positive argument why it is beneficial to discourse.
Language is a constant negotiation about the meaning of words, and I have made my position clear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is naive of Buffet when his only evidence of a "bad ending" is the existence of a massive rally. The entire near-future automated economy depends on programmable money. There is literally nothing interesting happening in FinTech right now apart from the crypto space.
“entire near-future automated economy depends on programmable money” It also depends on banks and states signing up to that vision. We have seen zero adoption on that front. On top of that, it still does not explain the hundreds of alt coins.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, the definitions aren't yours to make. These words exist in the dictionary.
Writers of dictionaries are archaeologists of language. They do not prescribe the meaning of words like a programmer or mathematician. Their definitions are posterior to language. The definitions are in fact mine to make, provided they result in successful communication with people who have adopted similar definitions. Go read my original post again. I am advocating against ambiguity in language, as this serves to ob…
We can only communicate to the extent that we agree on the definitions of words, so for you to invent your own definitions, which contradict how other people use the word, as codified in dictionaries, then there's zero hope of reaching shared understanding.
It would be absurd for me to claim that "the sky is brown", the later argue that I was right all along because I'm defining "brown" to be "blue".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just like with dot com burst, it doesnt mean someone will turn the lights off forever. Just like the internet eventually got mainstream and websites are being bought and sold for billions these days, same way BitCoin will never be at 0,001 cent with nobody touch it with a long stick.
Sure, if you cherry pick. What ever happened to the supposed value of "hot" domain names? Right, we got search, and got used to typing in weird strings, and stopped caring about owning car.com or whatever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your analysis is wrong. Startups and crypto investments can be seen as bets and a 10x increase in favor of you is a lot. And you are not taking into account the effort factor: startups are hard while storing some cryptoassets works even when you sleep. Not saying this will work forever, just saying that many people found it lucky to enjoy the momentum.
> Your analysis is wrong. Startups and crypto investments can be seen as bets and a 10x increase in favor of you is a lot. So you think a 1000% increase in likelihood to win the lottery is meaningful? I’m not saying a 1000% increase is insignificant relatively speaking. I’m saying that in the absolute context, it can be essentially meaningless. Which circles back to my point: you should add an absolute context to you…
> you should add an absolute context to your numbers instead of just saying you know more cryptocurrency millionaires than startup millionaires.
My intention is not writing a paper here in HN but showing an observation that impacts the life of people around me because like it or not they can spend the rest of their life doing whatever they want at an scale I have not seen in my lifetime in an underdeveloped country like Argentina.
Beyond all your calculations it is something singular to note and that is why I mentioned it here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Writers of dictionaries are archaeologists of language. They do not prescribe the meaning of words like a programmer or mathematician. Their definitions are posterior to language. The definitions are in fact mine to make, provided they result in successful communication with people who have adopted similar definitions. Go read my original post again. I am advocating against ambiguity in language, as this serves to ob…
I'll bow out here, but I'll just point out that this is a great example of how one's adherence to their ideas makes rational conversation impossible. We can only communicate to the extent that we agree on the definitions of words, so for you to invent your own definitions, which contradict how other people use the word, as codified in dictionaries, then there's zero hope of reaching shared understanding. It would be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Might some argue that some of the capital being placed in these currencies, whether they're by clever millionaires who studied whitepapers, or Uber drivers (as the anecdote goes) who jumped in after taking out a line of credit on the house, is investment in some of the companies behind the tech? For example, BTC companies like Blockstream funded things like satellites, while the Ethereum founder has been donating mon…
No, by buying some cryptocurrency you're not investing in the company behind the tech (if there even is one) at all . If the currency does well but the company does badly, you still win. If the currency does badly but the company does well, you still lose. You're exposed to the fluctuations of the currency, and completely unexposed to the valuation of the company.
I'm not trying to sugar-coat or rationalize the mania, only trying to explore the idea that this is both and neither gambling and investing.
I think people object to the idea that money used to purchase crypto currency in the first place is capital.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll bow out here, but I'll just point out that this is a great example of how one's adherence to their ideas makes rational conversation impossible. We can only communicate to the extent that we agree on the definitions of words, so for you to invent your own definitions, which contradict how other people use the word, as codified in dictionaries, then there's zero hope of reaching shared understanding. It would be…
I will simply point out that at every opportunity, I have been upfront about what definitions I am adopting and the distinctions I am attempting to make, while you have done nothing but dissemble and create ambiguity, without offering a positive program of your own. I will leave it up to other readers to make their own conclusions.
If the threat of regulation drops it 25%, that's not a very good store of value or medium of exchange.
Compared to some currencies, it is. Brazil Real has lost 80% of its value relative to the dollar since 2013. I think this is overdone considered the last time Korea threatened regulation it only fell 10%.