131–140 of 163 posts
Duplicate comment from the other thread: 11 years ago I sold 100 BTC, and made pretty good money. With that said, the more I think about BTC, the less sense it makes to me. Exceedingly few people actually use it for anything practical. The “store of value” functionality has completely eclipsed the practical use that Bitcoin maxis were preaching back then. Since 2016-2017, it seems like people have bought it for the s…
Bitcoin as a digital store of value is fine. It makes sense to store money in something digital and secure to hedge against local instabilities in currencies, governments etc. People store money in it because it currently secure and it been battle tested, nobody has been able to hack it. However, I am concerned about the security model on a 5-10+ year perspective. Miners secure the blockchain and get paid for it in b…
> Bitcoin as a digital store of value is fine. It is not. It has multiple >70% drawdowns over the last ~decade: * https://newhedge.io/terminal/bitcoin/price-drawdown During the 1930s US stock market crash, things went down 90% and, a century later, has never been that bad. Bitcoin has had multiple Great Depression equivalent drops in one-tenth the time. Something that is a good store of value should not be volatile:…
Could it be that there is a path to medium of exchange ->store of value? -> unit of account?
That could explain the volatility while the market prices it correctly
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that is literally the fallacy. If someone says he's betting on stock X, the opposite is not to go short. That's one way of doing "not what he did". Another way of doing "not what he did" is to for example sell a PUT, because maybe you think it's just going to stay flat. Another way is to not do anything, and instead wait, because going short costs money (you're borrowing a stock and borrowing fees on it), and so…
Isn’t selling puts „going short“? I understand „going short“ as „betting the stock is going down“, not literally selling shorts. But I’m also not a daytrader, so I’m not clear on the words used. And not doing anything clearly isn’t the opposite. If someone says he’s going North, what’s the opposite of that? It would be going south, even though you could go west or east too, or just do nothing. Just because it’s a spe…
Selling PUT options is equivalent to being long i.e. the more the stock price goes up, the more money you can make.
The OP seems confused.
I'm starting to think Inverse HN would perhaps rival Inverse Cramer.
The inverse Cramer ETF lost 15% after a year and got shut down. Being wrong on the stock market does not mean that someone doing the opposite is right. Just like in software dev, there are infintely many ways to be wrong and by comparison only very few to be right.
They don't actually have to be positive every year. They just have to do better than comparable indexes. It's hard to tell the value of a strategy after just one year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel this way about AI. Oh wait, AI is actually an existential risk to humanity, also.
Generative AI is hardly an existential risk. There’s huge fears around AGI, but that’s not what people are building.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t selling puts „going short“? I understand „going short“ as „betting the stock is going down“, not literally selling shorts. But I’m also not a daytrader, so I’m not clear on the words used. And not doing anything clearly isn’t the opposite. If someone says he’s going North, what’s the opposite of that? It would be going south, even though you could go west or east too, or just do nothing. Just because it’s a spe…
Buying PUT options is equivalent to shorting i.e. the more the stock price goes down, the more money you make. Selling PUT options is equivalent to being long i.e. the more the stock price goes up, the more money you can make. The OP seems confused.
Bitcoin as a digital store of value is fine. It makes sense to store money in something digital and secure to hedge against local instabilities in currencies, governments etc. People store money in it because it currently secure and it been battle tested, nobody has been able to hack it. However, I am concerned about the security model on a 5-10+ year perspective. Miners secure the blockchain and get paid for it in b…
I stopped following Bitcoin closely a decade ago, so I might be wrong, but I think the issue is the following. Mining was supposed to be eventually financed by transaction fees instead of the mining reward but the usage of Bitcoin for payments never really materialized. So there are not enough transactions to pay for the mining costs at reasonably low transaction costs. This also interacts with the low transaction limit of Bitcoin, even if people wanted to use Bitcoins for payments at large scale, there is no capacity for that. And the other way around, without the necessary capacity, transaction fees will be high, which will deter people from using Bitcoin for payments.
This increases the market for bitcoin mining and subsequently energy waste. For me personally this enough reason to ban bitcoin
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Trying” is an overly generous interpretation of what’s going on. Training an LLM is not actually working on AGI just as people building skyscrapers aren’t getting to the moon. It’s an inherent limitation on the approach.
> It’s an inherent limitation on the approach. What's your evidence for this?
But the current LLM process separates learning from interacting and the learning process is based on huge volumes of text. It’s possible to bolt on specific capabilities like say a chess engine, but you’re now building something different not an LLM.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Trying” is an overly generous interpretation of what’s going on. Training an LLM is not actually working on AGI just as people building skyscrapers aren’t getting to the moon. It’s an inherent limitation on the approach.
Training LLMs is not the only thing people are trying. They dominate the public attention right now but there are people everywhere trying all kinds of approaches. Here's one from IBM: https://research.ibm.com/topics/neuro-symbolic-ai First sentence: "We see Neuro-symbolic AI as a pathway to achieve artificial general intelligence"