201–210 of 218 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes” – Mark Twain
The earliest match for this popular quotation appeared in an essay by Theodor Reik in 1965. Currently, he is the leading candidate for coiner of the saying. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/01/12/history-rhymes/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two things: > You can't just compare bitcoin to a corporation and get something that makes sense. 1) I agree. I was replying to a comment that did. > Cash just as well "has no assets". 2) USD is backed, ultimately, by the full force of the nuclear armed state and multiple branches of the biggest military the world has ever seen. If you think the US government will allow USD to become irrelevant then you are going to…
No one said that USD is going anywhere. As you pointed out for bitcoin, the people who work on or invest in bitcoin are not part of the asset. This is the same for USD also. Visa equity is the most different amongst the three.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But then you’re trusting those exchanges to be able and/or willing to exit you. There’s no reliable way to short it. (Unless the exchanges let you withdraw the fiat for your positions while they’re open?)
So every business associated with crypto is untrustworthy? It’s hilarious that the anti bitcoiners are so anti bitcoin that it prevents them from using any of the trustworthy exchanges to short it. Exchanges make huge amounts of money in bear and bull markets.
Yes. If it's provenance is unverifiable (it is), and there's no evidence that the money being pumped into it exists (there isn't), then anything even adjacent to it is implicitly exposed to counter-party risk and therefore untrustworthy.
This is without even considering the fact that there's substantial evidence to suggest that most of the money being pumped in does not exist (cough tether cough).
Exchanges make money while the plates are spinning, and they make significantly less in bear markets, none of which guarantees your exit.
If a bank fails it's dissolved and guaranteed deposits get first preference when administrators sift through the wreckage. If a crypto exchange even looks like it might fai.. oops boating accident.
What's hilarious to me is that Saylor still gets asked on live television if he's worried about a margin call. He laughs it off and says something like "oh no, we're not close to that and very liquid" which really means "lol no I'll just say oopsie doopsie some intern lost the key". The people that lent to him are beyond belief stupid.
How are you all still drinking the koolaid?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But then you’re trusting those exchanges to be able and/or willing to exit you. There’s no reliable way to short it. (Unless the exchanges let you withdraw the fiat for your positions while they’re open?)
You can short it using CME futures. Collateral is in USD and insured by various safeguards in case counter parties cant meet margin requirements. You can short it as reliably as any other asset.
It regularly moves wildly faster than any other commonly traded asset. There is no possible way that any margin requirement could cover it, because no-one is going to stake 90% down for 10% margin, which is what you'd need to guarantee against a crash - especially if you're putting up USD for collateral.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Bitcoin has no assets. Cash just as well "has no assets". You can't just compare bitcoin to a corporation and get something that makes sense.
Two things: > You can't just compare bitcoin to a corporation and get something that makes sense. 1) I agree. I was replying to a comment that did. > Cash just as well "has no assets". 2) USD is backed, ultimately, by the full force of the nuclear armed state and multiple branches of the biggest military the world has ever seen. If you think the US government will allow USD to become irrelevant then you are going to…
Yet, somehow they have never been a prime destination for investment.
Economy matters as well. And loss of faith in the USD cannot be fixed with a few mushroom clouds.
People here cheer for fall of Bitcoin and end of cryto not seeing that GOOG dropped from 2999.05 to 2157 and both charts look pretty much the same?
It's sour grapes. I first heard of bitcoin in a HN post 11 or so years ago and I'm still kicking myself for not mining a few thousand then. "Nice idea but it wont succeed" were my thoughts...
At it's peak, annoyed, I tried to find my old computer with my wallet. I gave it an honest try, but then looked up the amount the doge was worth. Somewhere around $20 at it's peak. I would have really been bummed if it'd been worth anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think what OP means is: if you've already paid for the hardware, it make sense to keep mining until the cost of electricity is higher than the value of a coin. And I agree with that.
Exactly. I was speculating on why the hash rate doesn't seem correlated with the price of Bitcoin. The miners already have their rigs, so the initial investment wouldn't be relevant to the decision to keep mining or not. Though, you might expect the hash rate to decay over time as miners stop buying new machines.
Why? Well, imagine you have the capital to buy 3 rigs outright. You can use this to make a profit of $X / day on your outright owned rigs. Well, maybe it’s smarter to buy 30 rigs on credit, pay interest, make $10X/day in profit (before your loan payment).
At some profit $X you should go the credit route because you’ll earn more, in fact a lot more. However if you buy assuming $X and the profit craters you could be in deep trouble
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. I was speculating on why the hash rate doesn't seem correlated with the price of Bitcoin. The miners already have their rigs, so the initial investment wouldn't be relevant to the decision to keep mining or not. Though, you might expect the hash rate to decay over time as miners stop buying new machines.
This makes sense if the buyers totally bought their rigs outright, which isn’t usually the case. They usually buy rigs on credit which assumes a certain amount of profitability to be able to pay it off. Why? Well, imagine you have the capital to buy 3 rigs outright. You can use this to make a profit of $X / day on your outright owned rigs. Well, maybe it’s smarter to buy 30 rigs on credit, pay interest, make $10X/day…
Therefore, it'd make more sense to keep it running for so long as the machine hadn't been repossessed and the profits from mining outweigh variable costs such as electricity.
Repossession and liquidation can be a slow and costly process and the initial cost of the machine is also a sunk cost from the perspective of the lender and a mass wave of defaults could put their liquidity at risk. So, they have an incentive to make accommodations to the borrowers in order to ensure at least some payments keep flowing.
Quoted post unavailable.
Right. So long as rising interest rates, regulatory crackdown, environmental awareness, defrauded investors and a proliferation of competitors don’t affect your thesis of “buy the dip”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the end of crypto How do you propose to replace the $100bn online drug market?
That question can't prop up a liquidity crisis. If everyone runs for the exits then crypto suffers an old fashioned bank run, and it doesn't matter if it has any intrinsic value. A bank suffering a run still has loans on the books that are being paid back, but it has a cash crisis and people can't withdraw. A systemic failure starts knocking over institutions one by one as they each hit a liquidity crunch and don't h…
Any half decent exchange in a western country that holds them to account has over 100% of customer assets, they don't get special rules like banks who only need a few % of customer deposits.
Bank runs aren't really possible unless there is corporate fraud happening.