521–530 of 830 posts
So it sounds like lemming group think. It seems like someone one should hold “just in case,” but no real valid reason to do so yet (that I’ve heard). We know transactions are slow and expensive, so it’s not a good replacement for ordinary commerce. It can be used to transfer across borders, but there often is asymmetry in capital movement that makes this difficult in the places you need it most (poor countries with r…
That's what you're missing here, not everything needs to be on-chain to be valuable. Exchanges and businesses and services can aggregate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The transaction fee right now is $18. Even if you only go to the ledger rarely, that gets expensive fast. (And, if you go to the ledger rarely, there's all kinds of complicated creditworthiness and double spend issues).
And the entire Bitcoin blockchain can only support just 7 (yes 7) transactions a second.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just virtue signaling. If bitcoin replaces gold it would be a net win for the environment. And btc uses mostly renewables and excess energy. Also there are many other random applications that use more energy than btc like HFT, gaming, video rendering, but we dont persecute individual liberty, expression, or advancement. A society moving forward simply takes more energy. The solution is to tackle the entire energy spa…
... All being equal, it probably isn't good to build a system of distributed ledger whose entire trustworthiness and participation depends upon "proof of energy usage". Pushing one transaction through Bitcoin effectively uses about half the electricity that a typical US household uses in a month.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The majority of people will also never own a Berkshire A share. It doesn't really matter.
BTC's price story is based on the idea that a huge portion of people will use it. Berksire A is expensive for an entirely different reason. The story seems to rapidly shift between "BTC will save Venezuelans from an oppressive government" and "we never said it mattered if people could use BTC for transfers of non-huge amounts of money".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm afraid it makes sense if they are hedging bets against a major global economy...
Hedging against what? There are plenty of ways to hedge against inflation risk or currency risk without buying into an asset that can lose 50% or more of its value very quickly (and has, a number of times).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The majority of people will also never own a Berkshire A share. It doesn't really matter.
BTC's price story is based on the idea that a huge portion of people will use it. Berksire A is expensive for an entirely different reason. The story seems to rapidly shift between "BTC will save Venezuelans from an oppressive government" and "we never said it mattered if people could use BTC for transfers of non-huge amounts of money".
Of course people have trouble pricing Bitcoin, but the same is true for many other assets. If literally the only use for Bitcoin would be to speculate on all the cryptocurrencies, that would be enough to make it valuable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tesla's stock has never been a car manufacturer stock. That's why it has so much short-selling against it. If you value it as a car manufacturer and compare it's (underlying business numbers):(stock price) to anything else, it's insane. "at any company that made sense" is true, to a point. But the point of tesla has been, for a not-insignificant number of people, not meant to make sense. It's faith based. It's cult b…
Despite seeming like polar opposites they have a lot of similarities. A great knack for “triggering” their detractors, and a hyperdefensiveness in the face of criticism.
and it is probably related to medieval kings and queens, religious prophets and why some monkeys are more equal than others.