Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



It's legitimately amusing to see a Ham shoe shine boy incessantly screeching with no knowledge of how Buttcoin works beyond "NUMBER GO UP, ME COULD HAVE HAD BIG NUMBER, GOON BAD"

There are many reasons that it's a terrible investment, and these have been explained over and over again, and yet the man continues to screech while pointing at an imaginary number inflated by ridiculous amounts of margin trading on an exchange that can't be withdrawn from

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



In a sense, sure. It isn't at all my business what people do with their money, as long as that action is legal; currently, Bitcoin is, so who loving cares? However, it's immensely volatile and has no guarantee of return, security, or any worth. It's not investing, it's gambling. As financial advice goes "don't gamble" is a decent piece of it.

But past that, Hammy, the big thing here is that this has been explained to you. A lot. In several threads. Your rebuttal has never, ever been anything but "NUMBER GO UP" or "It's not your business what people do with their money I know a guy who made a bunch of cash playing roulette it's a great investment"

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



It's not a pejorative term; this is gambling. When investing in a company, for example, you are backing the productive ability of a company to produce things which will result in profit, thereby increasing the worth of your shares in that company. There is nothing here that is gaining worth, and no production to be had; it is, in a literal sense, completely imaginary money. This is similar to gambling in many ways, most primarily because someone must lose, which is not necessarily true in stocks due to profit produced by companies in exchange for their products. Nothing is being produced by Bitcoin, and no profit can be acquired from it; this is why inherent worth is so important. At some point, to liquidate your Bitcoin to USD, someone else must buy it, and it's impossible for that valuation to be accurate because nothing was used to produce the Bitcoin but a lot of wasted electricity; there are no assets to liquidate to pay out stockholders, no items being produced to increase the valuation of the company that Bitcoin represents. Perhaps you can make money on Bitcoin, but to do so, you would need to sell that Bitcoin to someone else who would now be stuck with it; eventually, nobody will be interested in purchasing the Bitcoin, at which point it becomes a worthless commodity. This is not an investment, it's a grown up(Well, college-aged.)game of loving hot potato.

And no, the fact of the matter is that people should indeed be told "It is a bad idea to invest in Bitcoin because it's immensely volatile." Many people don't know a ton about finances, and are indeed swayed by a number that is bigger than it was last year. Bitcoin is not a safe investment; and again, the fact that you can only fall back on "NUMBER GO UP" is the inherent issue; yes, sure, the number is bigger now. You need to consider and understand why that is, and it really is not because of acceptance or confidence; it's because Exchanges restricted cash withdrawals while allowing margin trading, essentially creating an 'alternate' USD that was only worth anything within the Exchange, but was still tracked alongside the normal worth of USD. This is something you need to comprehend before getting into investment.

I hope this effort post helps, but it likely will not

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



The nature of my job means that it's prudent for me to be on the up and up about how finance stuff works, but I don't think that's directly relevant to the discussion. I can accept that it's very possible that large scale financial institutions may invest in Bitcoin, but I would also sincerely advise wariness about the why of that. I'd always advise wariness about any investment if you do not understand why that is happening; that something is going to go up really can't be enough. These banks are indeed willing to simply gamble because they can re-acquire their investments through tax dollars very easily, but it's also important to understand that the core concepts of Bitcoin are not well protected against the scale of force that large financial institutions can bring to bear. The Bitcoin market is very easy to manipulate; simple scams can very easily drive the price up or down(Typically up.)by market manipulation which is used to put out sell or buy orders never intended to be fulfilled. A system like this simply cannot weather the force of wealth a bank can bring to bear; consider my last post, when I laid out the point that someone must lose in Bitcoin.

Do you really want to put your investment knowledge and ability to manipulate financial markets against that of an entire financial institution?

Relative to your above point about the nature of currency, currency has valuation because it's directly representative of the worth and/or wealth of a nation which has printed it. An American dollar is backed by the American government, and its use worth thereby enforced by said government's economic production. It's similar to a company which produces valued products, in this sense; for a simplistic view, think of an American dollar as a share in the United States. By holding this currency, you are directly investing in the US.

Blade Runner fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Oct 5, 2017

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



I've gone into this previously, about how it's essentially gambling because of the lack of anything meriting any valuation whatsoever. Bitcoins are basically chips to a non-existent casino. The reason that large financial institutions can do this is myriad: Firstly, they have the money not only to lose, but to individually manipulate the markets to allow a greater outcome for themselves and secondly because they have experienced financial advisors making their decisions. I would not typically advise any individual with no experience in stocks or finance to personally invest in the stock market, either. That said, no, I do not believe it is investment for a large firm to put their money in Bitcoin; it's still gambling, but gambling they can easily afford to do in a market that currently has no regulations(This will not last if any bank seriously investigates the use of Bitcoin, which will likely result in a massive crash because Bitcoin is primarily inferior to Securities, if regulated according to the laws that would likely be used.) My use of the term 'invest' there was primarily because it looked better composition-wise. If you take umbrage with it on word choice alone, I apologize.

Bitcoin would not be useful in that scenario for many reasons, one of the bigger and more obvious ones being that it requires electronics and people in a debt spiraling African country probably aren't going to have the latest iPhone. Even past that, however, I severely doubt most governments would be willing to give up control of their currency to an external system, even if facing hyperinflation, and Bitcoin would quickly go back to being devalued if a stronger government took force and re-instated a trustworthy currency.

Blade Runner fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Oct 5, 2017

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



Ham Sandwiches posted:

The scenario you are making up is loving bizarre. What i'm talking about is:

The citizens of Fuckistan have Fuckdollars which suddenly become useless when Fuckistan goes to war with the united states.

The citizens of Fuckistan may not be able to use Fuckdollars in any way but they can try using any Bitcoins they have for their transactions.

The citizens of the neighboring countries may say "We don't want your worthless fuckdollars because they'll be gone when Fuckistan is gone but we'll accept Bitcoins for bread since we can convert those back into our currency"

and that would generally cause the price to go up as more people started using it to do this

The essential issue with this is, as I said, Bitcoin does not have anything that merits valuation. In a sense, all monetary goods are stocks, pieces of paper or electronic numbers which represent a certain amount of stake in a company; this also goes for currency, because you are investing in that country's wealth. There is no institution backing Bitcoin, which makes it inherently worthless by its very nature. You are investing in the stock of a company that does not exist.

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



The "shady position" thing being worthwhile for Bitcoin is absolutely worthless because of the sheer nature of Bitcoin's transactions. They're not anonymous, at all; they're essentially the polar opposite of anonymous, because you broadcast every transaction into a public ledger. It's also extremely easy for any large scale financial institution or country to just crash on a whim. Bitcoin has survived up until now because nobody in any regulatory commission cares enough to glance at it for more than a few seconds, as the volume of trade is too low. Anyone actually trading in 'shady' goods would be far better off either using cash or simply bartering, if cash isn't an option for whatever reason.

It is absolutely not a positive that there is nothing meriting valuation in Bitcoin. It means that you can set an arbitrarily high number and then declare all current commodities to be worth that; essentially, someone purchases .000000001 Bitcoins for a dollar, and now a Bitcoin is worth 100,000,000 dollars. It doesn't matter whether anyone would actually pay that, or if anyone interested has the money; if you have ten Bitcoins, you're a trillionaire within the Bitcoin system.

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



I go to sleep and you people scream at each other about the butts coins without me
I have been betrayed
Anyway, I just woke up and I'm a bit groggy, so forgive me my trespasses if my financial screeching has some malapropisms, or something.
Really, let's get to work on some explanations.

Bitcoin is used for illegal transactions, but it's extremely important that people understand it isn't any good for those transactions. Somehow, people managed to be convinced that a form of currency where every transaction is tracked all the time and put out publicly is anonymous. The man who managed to trick people into this is far better at convincing people of things than I am, so I'm really glad he's not trying to get me into Bitcoin. The reason anyone gets away with using it to buy drugs is that acquiring drugs across state lines in the way that people tend to with it is a Federal issue, and the Federal government has more poo poo to care about than investigating a man buying a single gram of weed on the internet. Don't do it anyway, though, because crime is bad.(Also because they can literally always just look back and find out that you did it.) As for your addressing of my post, you're far too hung up on the gambling thing; there are many, many kinds of investments, and some are riskier than others. I would certainly call some of the riskier ones gambling; gambling is, in my eyes, playing a game of chance for money where you have no real ability to influence the outcome and are likely to lose your entire capital. In Bitcoin, there are no real loss mitigation strategies other than ceasing your use of Bitcoin; it's backed by nothing, and you have no recourse if people just...stop wanting to buy it, which is more likely than not considering there's really no reason to do so. The lack of regulation also rings of a gambling sort of situation.

As for Bitcoin being a "new thing", it really isn't. The way in which it works is very similar to unregulated securities, as of current, and I honestly do not comprehend what issues relative to fiat currency it is meant to solve. It seems like a prevailing thought is that 'big gov' is bad, and therefore Bitcoin will give us freedom from it. However, currency is not able to exist in a vacuum like that. It needs to be backed by something in order to actually give people confidence in it, and Bitcoin isn't backed by anything at all. It's the metaphorical Zimbabwe dollars you decry as worthless; nobody can trust that it has any worth because it honestly does not. In a sense, no currency has actual worth; they're all just pieces of paper. Trust in the government gives these things worth, and there is no regulatory institution to trust in for Bitcoin. This is not a good thing and will never be a good thing; counterfeiting Bitcoin is currently not a thing that's done, but that's because it just wouldn't be profitable. If you honestly don't believe it would be counterfeited to literal death the moment anyone with the acumen to do so thought it was worth getting into, I don't know what to tell you. Past that, getting into the technical failings of Bitcoin, you can't have an everyday currency that can take hours to charge a transaction. If you'd like to pithily state that credit cards can, at times, take hours to clear a pending transaction, I'd tell you these are immensely different; the business is aware that they are guaranteed that money by the massive financial institution that backs the credit card, and you have no need to stay there until the charge clears. If they're not guaranteed that money, you're probably not going to be able to just walk out. There's also a massive issue with how simple it is to run Bitcoin into a brick wall through something as trivial as a 51% attack, meaning that any government having any trust in it would be impossible unless they controlled the vast majority of the hash power, thereby making it regulated by the government, pretty much making Bitcoin just a much less efficient currency.

Of course financial systems are being gamed by corporations, and yes, the government works to try and stop this where they can. This isn't a grand revelation that revealing or knowing about is special; it's literally just the concept of illegal trading and government regulations. The simple fact of the matter is that fiat currency works because people trust the government. If you do not trust the government to a point where you cannot trust the currency, you are either in an extremely bad place where computer cash can't help you much or you're a crazy man who should be stockpiling cans of beans instead of proof of wasted electricity. Saying that "No nation state can seize the Bitcoin market!" is not only not a good argument, it's just loving wrong. If literally any large scale nation felt like it, they could task a single agency with taking over the Bitcoin market and do that within a couple of weeks. It would not be possible for any individual to compete if the United States government decided to simply take the network by beginning mining efforts and investing a fraction of a percent of the budget it uses on toilet paper into it. The nature of Bitcoin means that literally anyone can start printing them if they have enough hash power, outpace everyone else to the point that they are literally the only ones who can ever print more, and you absolutely cannot compete with a government's ability to do that. Nobody can. This one is especially egregious to me because it presents an utter lack of knowledge of not only how financial systems work, but also how the thing you yourself are advocating for works on a technical level. I don't comprehend how anyone who knows anything about Bitcoin, technically nonsensical and poorly coded as it is, could believe this. Bitcoin has a massive amount of technical issues that make it absolutely worthless for most applications and run utterly counter to its touted strengths; a nationless currency that any nation with the inclination to could crush, that works anonymously but displays every transaction publicly.

Let's move onto your last point: Yes, valuation of startups is nonsensical and primarily caused by the ridiculous valuation of things like Facebook. People are just pouring money onto anything that looks good because they don't comprehend how the product actually works or why faith in that company is going up, simply that it is going up; this is similar to Bitcoin in that it's basically people having confidence in something they do not comprehend and pouring money into it. These are both bad things. Getting punched in the face is an alternative to getting punched in the stomach, and I would prefer neither.

You also seem to take offense at Bitcoin being called a scam, and primarily seem to take offense because you seem to take it as people meaning that money cannot be made on scams. The contrary is quite true, however; it's very easy to make money on a scam, if you're the one doing the scamming. It's morally reprehensible, however, even if you sincerely believe that what you're doing is above board. Let me give an example: Imagine that a man offers to sell you a bridge for five dollars. Five dollars! That's quite a good price for a whole bridge. You give the man the five dollars, happy with your savvy investment strategy. A while later, you offer another man the bridge for ten dollars. That man thinks it's quite a good deal to buy a bridge for ten dollars! Giving you the money and letting you walk off with your rightly earned princely sum of five dollars, he's very satisfied with himself, a proud bridge owner. However, of course, the original man never owned the bridge to sell you. By selling the bridge to someone else, you've done nothing but foist off the worthless idea of owning it to another person; but, of course, you have five extra dollars. This is similar to Bitcoin. It goes down the line until everybody realizes that none of you actually owns the bridge, and the last person who was tricked is left having lost the game of hot potato.

These effort posts really get the blood pumping.

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



Stefan Prodan posted:

sir this is a mcdonald's drive through

(I did read all of that though)

I would like to purchase a burrito, thank you

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



divabot posted:

you know he'll be back in a few weeks, posting the same things again as if nothing happened, attributing weird versions of claims to the wrong posters

i still made more money from bitcoin than him though

I will return with more giant loving effort posts, hoping that he will stare at them and slink away

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



I go to work and come home. At some point, I go to change my name to something stupid that starts with a B, but my incessant searches about the new Blade Runner movie change the name I've typed in to what I currently have with auto-fill. I do not notice until the name change is made, and it is too late to change it without paying 8 more dollars, and so it will stay in perpetuity as that.

I navigate to GBS, and see that there are 150 new posts in the Bitcoin thread. Hammy-Wammy has returned. I enter, dick in hand, wide eyes settled on the computer, breathing with anticipation, licking my lips profusely, prepared to jerk another effort post onto this thread's face. Alas, it is not to be. I sit and languish, ignored and forgotten.

Anyway, as for the whole 'getting money' thing, getting money doesn't make it not a scam, and just because you don't believe yourself to be scamming someone else doesn't mean it isn't. You're getting money offa stupid people who probably aren't aware that what they're buying is utterly worthless due to a lack of financial acumen, which, to me, is horrible. See my aforementioned effortpost bridge thing; someone has to buy the Bitcoins from you, and this is basically just stealing their money. At some point, people realize Bitcoins don't do anything on an inherent level and aren't backed by anything, at which point things will collapse, and I'd feel legitimately remorseful if people lost money and died over that and I'd made money off of it. If you don't/wouldn't, there are better ways to make money with a lack of empathy.

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



Ham Sandwiches posted:

Hey you're just in time

Reply to David's Effortpost

Here's what I see are the core points, then I'll try to go into the details:
1. David feels that Bitcoin is simultaneously used for illegal transactions and that it is unsuitable as a means of performing those illegal transactions
2. David feels that I spent too much time getting hung up on Gambling, and then defines Gambling, so we can discuss it
3. David claims that Bitcoin is not really new, it's just an unregulated security.
4. David claims that Bitcoin is not backed by any nation states which means people can't have confidence in it.
5. David brings up the limitation on Transactions, both transaction time and transaction volume
6. David claims that Bitcoin can be hijacked by various means, articulates a 51% attack
7. David claims that any nation state could hijack Bitcoin, if they really wanted to / anybody can start printing bitcoin
8. David claims that I take offense to people calling bitcoin a scam

I'm going to try to respond to each point

1. There's a lot of sleight of hand associating cryptocoins with illegal transactions. Maybe we can try to just address the use cases instead of looking at it from the old perspective. With any speculative means of exchange, I think there's a sort of self selecting group that will explore its uses. That includes people that are breaking the law, because they have some very direct incentives to try this new currency right away. Visa in particular blocks lots of transactions that people might otherwise engage in. You want to bet on Fantasy Football? Can't use your credit card. Want to play Poker online? Can't use your credit card. You want to ransom some people's PCs? Can't accept credit cards. You want to buy generic pharmaceuticals from India? Don't put that on your discover.

Let's just set aside the legality aspect for a moment and say that these people have compelling reasons that encourage them to try the new currency. Well, unlike Gold (or beanie babies or tulips) you can send Cryptocoins electronically. So what that means is that *coins can be your Visa for transactions that Visa doesn't allow. The ledger is public but piercing it is not trivial. It seems odd to have to make these arguments - hackers have been using *coins for ransoming PCs for a long time, and only recently has that become an issue with them having to watch how they withdraw the money. Just like with other forms people will come up with money mules that take 40-60% of the profits in exchange for laundering the money - that's how tax fraud and other forms of fraud work right now. There are even third parties that will set up your mule networks for you or have people launder it.

So will ledger visibility stop cryptocoins being used for things that Visa doesn't want you to buy? I don't see it. I fundamentally think that people will find *coins useful for transactions that their country doesn't like but other countries may be ok with, which is already a niche in and of itself. For the subset of transactions that will fly below police / government radar, having a few coins in a wallet really lets you do them much more easily than if you don't have them. I'm saying that a portion of Coin usage will be people doing transactions that would be otherwise tricky, and the ledger doesn't magically stop that.

2. Gambling was a term introduced to define "investments that are grounded in fundamentals" vs "investments that are a guaranteed loss." I would imagine the connotation was clear when the term was chosen. I disagree with calling cryptocoins gambling because it's inaccurate. People know what Gambling is, that's why you used that word - it's playing a game of chance and losing money because you don't understand that's going to happen / choose to do so.

3. I disagree with the statement that Bitcoin is not a new thing. This statement is false. It's a cryptocurrency, which is fundamentally new compared to any existing security. It's a different, novel, digital good that exists in finite supply and has some programmatic rules about how to create. It is new. Bitcoin the actual coin (not all cryptocoins in general) has a finite limit, which is very different than other currency, and it's something that you seemed to gloss over in your post by saying anyone can mine them and flood the market. Cryptocoins are new, and the fact that you can have more and more of them that work in different ways is a bonus - Ethereum is fundamentally different than Bitcoin which is an asset for cryptocurrencies in general.

4. In terms of backing of nation states, I'm simply presenting that cryptocoins are different because they are not tied to any particular nation state. You acknowledge that but look at the negatives while ignoring the positives, which I don't find very useful. Along with those negatives come positives.

The problem is that Zimbabwe Dollars can be printed by Zimbabwe, and Bitcoins cannot be printed by the republic of Bitcoin. It does seem that you are missing that point.
Nation State currencies are different than bitcoin. They belong to the nation states that issue them. This can be a a mixed bag, as the nation state can choose to print more or choose to affect the currency through interest rates. This cannot happen with cryptocoins. They're fundamentally different.

5. My take is that the difficulty of Bitcoin dealing with scaling transactions is vastly overblown. People latch on to the current issues and present them as intractable, while refusing the idea that solutions are on the horizon. The various parties are trying to deal with the scaling from addressing the Bitcoin limitations to having alternate coins that get used for transactions requiring fast response times. It seems pretty likely that this problem will be relegated into the "who cares" pile like all the other ones. I can't say that for sure, but I sure don't see scaling / technical limitations as being the nail in cryptocoins coffin!

6. The 51% attack has been mentioned at length, the thing is that you can use it to undermine Bitcoins, but if cryptocoins are fundamentally useful and it was just some limitation of Bitcoin that ends up imploding that currency, I really don't see why people can't just switch to using some other form like Ethereum or whatever. Like, look at it this way: Let's go through the scenario that this is going to be a show stopper and bitcoins will literally implode and stop trading because of it. At that point in time, either people come to the conclusion that cryptocoins are fundamentally useful but technically flawed, or they are functionally useless and technically flawed. If they are functionally useless I think they will walk away entirely. If they are just technically flawed, I don't see why people wouldn't try again. And that's assuming the total collapse of Bitcoin entirely, which I find unlikely. To me that still doesn't seem like the end of cryptocurrencies in general.

7. I don't get the claims about nation states being able to hijack bitcoin, maybe it's related to the idea that they can do a 51% attack and mine more coins. I get the sense that you really picture the scenario vividly and I find it completely implausible. If you're referring specifically to Bitcoin rather than cryptocurrencies in general, those have a finite number and there's a scaling difficulty that increases as the amount of load comes in. Many people that don't mind coins profitably might decide to start mining to raise the overall amount of hash power and weaken any such attack. I don't buy the idea that it would be trivial for a nation state to destroy cryptocoins, it seems utterly unsubstantiated. Like, please articulate an exact scenario if you want me to engage further on the point, it simply seems like wild speculation.

8. I do not take offense to the idea that Bitcoins are a scam, I disagree with the statement because I feel it is simplistic and wrong. Thank you for painfully explaining to me how in a scam the con artist makes money off of something that doesn't exist. This is very similar to the casino analogy - it's very easy to make money gambling, just be the casino! In both cases it seems to miss the point that, investing in tulips because other people believe them to be valuable is probably not a good idea and it's a historical lesson to be learned. Buying beanie babies is great while people love beanie babies! Not so great when that's over.

So what I disagree with is that presenting Bitcoins / cryptocoins as yet another entry in a long list of well worn scams is simply untrue. Bridge scams, confidence scams, "people think its worth something" scams are long and storied. Cryptocurrencies, a non nation state specific way that you can buy goods and services not tied to any one nation state and capped in supply and using a decentralized system - is fundamentally different. Applying those same tired labels inhibits discourse, just like calling it Gambling did. I think cryptocurrencies should be evaluated on their merits and dealt with according to each person's appetite for risk, rather than using simplistic labels that are clearly inapplicable.

1. The reason is that the police literally just do not care about Bitcoin. It is such a small, meaningless portion of illegal activities that police literally cannot be bothered to look at it for more than a few seconds and prosecute these things unless something ridiculous happens with it. Here's the issue with this: To continue being good for this, it can never have a use outside of it. If you are able to pay for everything in Bitcoin or it even becomes somewhat relevant, the massive eye of federal police investigations will settle down upon Bitcoin, rip open how to track everything to do with it in a few minutes(Bitcoin was coded by a single man who enjoys model trains. It cannot hold up against the United States government trying to do literally whatever it wants to it on a technical level.)and then it becomes pointless for that.

2. You ignored the vast majority of that point relative to the conditions of loss mitigation ability and regulatory commissions which oversee securities and ensure fraud is difficult.

3. The Tesla is, as a product, new. It did not, however, invent the car; saying that cryptocurrencies are new does not make the fact that Bitcoin acts in every way as an unregulated security untrue any more than saying that Tesla being new makes it not a car. Just because it has that weird robo-dick to fuel it up doesn't mean that it doesn't still go vroom.

4. I do not acknowledge any positives because there are no positives to it. You missed the point; the reason Zimbabwe dollars are worthless is lack of faith in the stability of that government. Bitcoin lacks any government to be stable. This is fundamentally a bad thing, because obviously it is; what are you buying, in Bitcoin? What worth are you getting?

5. "The" nail. It is not "the" nail, but is most certainly a nail in the coffin of this stillborn loving idiot child, and the fact that your response to this technical limitation that makes the adoption of Bitcoin as an actual every day currency is that "Someone at some point will fix it probably" explains pretty much everything that needs to be explained about Bitcoin in general.

6. "If Bitcoin were to be undermined and collapse, this would be good for Bitcoin"

7.

Okay, okay, I'll actually explain 6.

The main issue with Bitcoin in that regard and on that level is not that a 51% attack would completely destroy any ability to use Bitcoin forever, it's that it would spook people. In a market which is entirely inflated because of confidence in a product which does not actually exist. Do you understand where I'm going with this? A 51% attack is a technical issue that leads into a psychological issue. If people see the damage that could be done with it, they will divest their funds, and this will destroy Bitcoin.

Actual 7. You need to read more closely. The reason that any nation state could hijack Bitcoin is because of scaling difficulties, not a 51% attack. Currently, the vast majority of the hash power is held by a couple dudes in China. However, if the government so chose, it could very easily set up a buncha Bitcoin mining farms and very easily mine every loving Bitcoin; difficulty increases would mean that these nationally subsidized butt farms would become the new producer of the butts, as it would be impossible for even those Chinese farms to compete. You would be, as an individual, getting into an arms race with the US Government over wasteful spending. You cannot win, in this scenario. I don't understand if this is just coming from a lack of technical knowledge on Bitcoin or what, honestly.

8. No they aren't. Explain how they are. In the end, a market cap is not a meaningful thing that proves this is not a confidence scam, it's an indicator of a confidence scam; "Well, another guy says he wants the bridge but hasta come back later today, so you really should try to buy now..."

All of your points seem to boil down to your insistence that Bitcoins are arbitrarily special and magical, in some way. They are not. Please explain to me and everyone else what exactly makes Bitcoins special, and why anyone ever would use them over literally any other option. What is so special about cryptocurrencies? The market cap is an artificial and utterly arbitrary thing. Not being tied to a nation state is also relatively arbitrary, because, again, any nation state could just loving take it if it felt like it. It seems like discourse with you on this subject involves the tacit acceptance that Bitcoin is somehow special, and I refuse to acknowledge that, because it isn't. It's poorly coded, does nothing particularly well, and has several pitfalls that make it awful for all of its touted use cases. It currently only has any use because its trade volume is so low that the Federal Government just refuses to look into it much.

e: 30 minutes, Bruno, stop 'da clock

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



Paladinus posted:

Okay, you know, I have to agree with you on that one after reading your post carefully. I am not afraid to admit I'm wrong when I'm wrong, and I hope everyone can do that. I would also like to apologise if I cam off mean when replying, I can see now that you know your stuff, and when you say that Bitcoin is not 'another entry in a long list of well worn scams', you can't be more right. It's a brand new type of scam. A scam on your computer. Scam 2.0.

pala no

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



Ham Sandwiches posted:

1. The scenario being presented goes through some effort to pretend that yes, while it's great for all these illegal uses now, it won't be at some magical point in the future because "police" and completely sidesteps the money mule aspects that I brought up. Right now you can commit payroll fraud by sending bogus wire transfers of a few thousand dollars to mules, who forward about half of the money on, and will take the hit if they get caught. Like, right now you can use legitimate banks and legitimate wire transfers to conduct illegal activity, as long as you pay a high enough cut. Does the scenario that says "Right now everyone uses money and the IRS and banks watch wire transfers like a hawk, so clearly people can't use them for illegal activity" - that's false because it's happening all around us right now. So how does this scenario make sense when applied to something even more elusive, like cryptocurrencies?

2. What do you want me to address about it?

3. Are we doing semantics stuff? Why are car analogies being brought in? Ok i'll try to work with it. The Tesla is a new vehicle if you're going to get into electric vs ICE. It was the first major electric car, so if you define 'new' as fundamentally new form of transport then no it's not, if you define new as a fundamentally new form of powering that transport, then yes it's the first viable implementation. I don't understand the point you're making as it compares to cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrencies, a decentralized system of currency not owned by any nation state and mined with computers is new, while the concept of "a medium of exchange" is not. I'm focusing on the advantages that this particular form of currency has in doing transactions and why people would find it useful, kinda like saying "you can charge a Tesla from other sources if gasoline becomes uavailable."

4. Well the existing currencies are all "I put my faith in this particular nation state, not to run the presses, not to screw around with interest rates, not to change direction in a way that is harmful for me as a currency holder." When picking up cryptocurrencies, that's precisely the point. The republic of bitcoin can't go rogue and start buying nuclear weapons and sign a terrible IMF deal, but that's absolutely a risk with nation state currencies. Does that make cryptocoins superior on their own? No but it sure makes them an alternative, which means that they can be useful.

5. To me the flipside is to say "Well there's been roughly 6 years of doomsaying and every single prediction has not really impacted the amount of money in Bitcoin or the valuation of the coin" so I don't really know how we progress on this point. You strongly feel that the predictions of doom will come to pass. I feel that in the future, the current trend will hold and that a solution will present - technical, political, or procedural, that keeps cryptocurrencies viable. Is there a lot of room left other than to disagree here? Time will prove one of the positions right.

6. That seems like a pretty lovely way to interpret that. I kinda went pretty far into good faith territory and explored the scenario where Bitcoin collapses, and explained that people may not swear off cryptocurrencies entirely even if such a catastrophic event were to pass. But it was important to score points rather than try to accept the discussion in good faith.

Spook people? You mean like the endless doomsaying is meant to do? People work very very hard to spook people about cryptocurrencies right now. You've spent many hours of your life doing just that. Is this being presented as something that will magically happen if cryptocurrencies, the speculative thing wall street and journalists and everyone in the know has been calling an outright scam / fraud the whole time? And then all the Joe Sixpacks that bought into Coinbase with their savings accounts (having made no money in the process) will be spooked and never return. I don't see it, not even a little.

7. I don't see China doing anything more to undermine coins than they already are. Japan seems ok with allowing them and seeing how things shake out, and Russia is making statements that are positive. If you have some specific nation state in mind starting a specific attack at some point in time, maybe you can articulate it, because I don't know how to respond to vague hypotheticals. Walk me through the scenario in detail and I'll try to respond in detail.

8. Well let's try to address the difference. In a confidence scam you have the Scammer, and the Victim. The scammer is the person personally enriching themself from misleading the victim. So in the bridge example that guy is getting $5 for convincing me he can sell the bridge. And in the Madoff example Madoff got to live a nice life because people thought they were buying stocks through him.

Bitcoin does not have a mr Bitcoin that gets any money if you buy in. People try to do this indirectly by implying that anyone who is not against bitcoins is trying to get other people to buy bitcoins and thus raise their valuation. So a sort of implicit scam, like tulips. Except even in that case, you can point to the tulip growers that benefited and the cultural aspects of flowers that involved people.

Bitcoin is a third party, decentralized cryptocurrency that is not tied to any particular nation state. Nobody benefits from you mining bitcoins, and no you can't retroactively say "THE EXISTING HOLDERS" lol. It can't be that you simultaneously list all the ways that it is different (you take the perspective of vulnerability - no central bank, no insurance, no people that inherently buy into it) while saying it's not different. There is no nation state currency that is vulnerable to a 51% attack or has scaling issues. So then, if Bitcoin has these concerns it is different - you are simply fixating on the negatives. And every one of those negatives also has some advantages that you seem to be entirely dismissing.

1. Sure, but the only reason Bitcoin can currently easily do that is because of lack of oversight. That's why the use case of criminal activity is just not a good one; if it gets any attention, it's pretty much gonna end up being as difficult as using banks to get things out of it. Or, alternatively, the government will just say it can no longer be used. If you want what specific agencies would be stenciled on the backs of the guys kicking in your door, I mean, I donno.

2. Any of them, really. It was a basic rundown of why there's a fundamental difference between gambling and investing. Loss mitigation, regulation, etc.;

3. Because you're insisting that it is new and better, when it is really neither. The comparison comes in as a semantics thing only because you insist that Bitcoin is different from unregulated securities despite being unregulated securities with some fancier paint on it to distract people from that. There isn't much that's all that special about how it actually works.

4. Cryptocoins are not an alternative because there is no possible way to have trust in them. The REPUBLIC OF BITCOIN may not be able to buy a bunch of nukes, but Exchanges can get loving robbed to poo poo and all the owners of those can do is shrug. If the nation state that you are in ceases to work, you have much bigger issues than your loving Bitcoins, because you probably cannot use them for much. Buy some cans of beans, if you're going to go that route.

5. That's not a good thing, and if you sincerely believe that this valuation on something that is inherently worthless can continue forever, I have no idea what to tell you beyond that you should take an economics course. It's not doomsaying, it's just blunt economics. The valuation of the coin is nonsense. I've explained why to you several times,
with the main issue being difficulties in extracting large amounts of coins from the marketplace in USD along with inflations from false "USD" amounts on Exchanges which cannot be withdrawn from, and you've mostly just dodged past that.

6. I'm acting entirely in good faith in the sense that I honestly believe what I'm saying. The "Good for Bitcoin" quote was a joke. The rest of it was 100% my beliefs, tempered with academic knowledge(I read a book once, furthermore)alongside work experience. There are a lot of hangers-on who refuse to acknowledge that Bitcoin is an immensely volatile thing that's pretty much a scam, primarily shoving their points forward with the sunk cost fallacy. Bitcoin prices crash all the loving time, it's ridiculously volatile and its price is based on pretty much nothing because no real world market forces can effect it, as it has no product.

7. You've ignored the point entirely. Please stop doing that. The whole point is that it is nation free only by choice of those nations. There is nothing that inherently stops a nation from just loving taking over Bitcoin entirely on a whim. Calling it a nation free currency under those circumstances is silly.

8. You literally just cut off the second portion of that point, which is how it applies to Bitcoin; it doesn't matter if you know you're a scammer or not, you're still scamming people. Bitcoin does not and never can have any value. It has made nothing and represents nothing. The total pool of USD in circulation in Bitcoin is only what those who have put money into Bitcoin have put into it. This fundamentally differs from stocks because companies have other ways to make money. If you put money into a company which then starts making dildos, then sells those dildos for a profit, then your stocks are more valuable because more money has been brought into the system of that company by sales, so the company can pay increased dividends or has more assets to sell off in the event of closure. In Bitcoin, the only money that can ever exist in it is money that has been put into it. There is no "Mr. Bitcoin", but the confidence scam is something run by all of its users on one another; you cannot make money off of Bitcoin without that money having come from someone else that you have sold Bitcoin to. This is the fundamental problem. If you make a dollar from Bitcoin, someone else in the world must have one less dollar. If you make a dollar off a stock in Microsoft because they sold a certain amount of products and their stock has increased, then people have gained an item or service from them for their money. Bitcoin does not deal in products or investments, it does not make anything, it purely and only deals with taking money from one person and shoving it into another person's pocket. This is why it is a scam/scheme/whatever. When the valuation is based on nothing and there is nothing of worth being produced, numbers go up in a vacuum, but because it is a sealed off system of currency, it's just you throwing money into a pot with other people and hoping you take all the money out of the pot before everyone else does.

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



Ham Sandwiches posted:

1. It feels like you are trying to not get the point here. The current existing system which is tracked to hell by banks, regulators, the fed , the secret service (they're the guys that go after counterfeit money), the transfer exchanges, Visa, the IRS is used for fraud and theft all the time. Do you know what people used to buy drugs and child porn before Coins? Money. I think you'll either need to provide some explanation of why you think increased scrutiny will make transactions impossible because I don't think you understand what you're saying, just repeating yourself here. What is going to change in 6-12 months with wider adoption that will suddenly make Bitcoin transactions not viable for gray market goods?

2. Please provide a point for me to respond to and I will

3. I went through the Tesla example, are you just ignoring that? The Tesla is 'new' if you're talking about "Can I use it for transport in a place there's no gas." Maybe you've got one of the fancy solar setups and guess what you can now tool around in your Tesla for a while, even if the pumps are dry. That's different from most cars. Is that scenario likely? Not really, but the difference is there. Now this was the example you provided to show that the Tesla is not new (we're talking about Bitcoins right) and then provided as proof that Bitcoins are the same as other investments. I'm really not following your point here, do you have one or are you just repeating that "Bitcoins are not new" without any substantive arguments?

4. This seems like you agreeing with me, I'm glad you understand that Cryptocurrencies are an alternative to nation state currency even though it was most presented in the most negative way possible

5. I see it as an intangible, you see it as worthless. Exchanges were absolutely having issues doing withdrawals in USD about 6 months ago when that all went down. I haven't heard about any such issues for a long time, there haven't been disruptions to the exchanges in a while. The volume and valuation continues to grow. I guess we'll find out if / when the next round of Exchange shocks will occur, but I don't buy into it being a foregone conclusion.

6. Well in that case I agree that Bitcoin is very volatile, I do not feel that volatility makes it a scam.

7. No I feel the Nation Free point is quite important. Every single other currency is tied to the economy of some nation state. If you end up with some horrible circa 2008 level event where financial markets are freezing, Cryptocurrencies are pretty much the only thing outside of that ecosystem. That doesn't mean they wouldn't be affected, but it is precisely this difference that I'm trying to draw attention to.

8. Well I'm glad we actually got to a core disagreement, because that feels substantive: "If you make a dollar from Bitcoin, someone else in the world must have one less dollar." No. If you make a dollar from Bitcoin, a Dollar has been transferred from the Nation State monetary system into the cryptocurrency monetary system. That's what makes it different. Let me use your own sentence here. Bitcoin does not deal in products or investments, it does not make anything, it purely and only deals with taking money from one person and shoving it into another person's pocket. And that makes it better as a currency than those other ones that do entangle with all those secondary concerns.

1. I work for one of the regulatory agencies in that list, so yes, I assure you, I know how the system works. Increased scrutiny will not make the system stop working, it will make the system just as good in that particular respect as any other currency. It will still be able to be used, but why would you if it works just as well(Or poorly.)as anything else for these transactions?

2.

quote:

In Bitcoin, there are no real loss mitigation strategies other than ceasing your use of Bitcoin; it's backed by nothing, and you have no recourse if people just...stop wanting to buy it, which is more likely than not considering there's really no reason to do so. The lack of regulation also rings of a gambling sort of situation.

3. You don't seem to want to understand the difference between something being categorically new and superficially new. Bitcoin is superficially new in that Bitcoin itself has not existed before, but not actually new because things exactly like Bitcoin have existed before and still exist. Bitcoins are indeed new in the most superficial and pedantic way of it, but they're not new in the sense of being an original idea. They're literally just rebranded securities with a bunch of retarded steps involved in buying them.

4. [Explains why what you're describing is stupid as poo poo and makes sense] "Ha ha thanks for agreeing with me! Looks like this is one of those 'self-owns' as the kids call them! Ha ha!"
Bitcoin is worthless as an alternative to currency because currency only works if it has some amount of confidence and trust behind it to back it(Say, a nation state who backs the integrity of it with their military and economy), or a certain amount of use inherent to it.(Say, bartering using cans of beans) Bitcoin has neither of these things, and you may as well be trying to go back to Wampum. At least you can touch that.

5. You don't, economics and the basic logic of trends in economic systems such as this does. Hard to decide who to trust, but "Number go up!!!!!!!!!!" is not and never will be a compelling argument after the realization of the actual details of the situation.

6. Volatility does not make Bitcoin a scam. Bitcoin being a scam makes it a scam, as I described in post 3, subsection 8 of my retarded Bitcoin screeches.

7. Cryptocurrencies would not make it out of that system because nothing would make it out of any financial system if the overarching financial system collapsed. Again, buy some canned food and invest in a survival bunker if that's the poo poo you're worried about, nobody will accept Bitcoins if the USD goes down.

8. That is what makes it a scam. You refuse to comprehend this almost to an insane degree, but yes, if you sell any amount of Bitcoin for a dollar, someone has one less dollar and one more part of a Bitcoin. Your 'using my sentence' to try and turn it around on me does not work, because that sentence explains why Bitcoin is loving retarded and then you just append "And this makes it better, actually." It does not make it better. The fact that it is fundamentally preying on someone's willingness to buy tokens because maybe they'll be worth more tomorrow within a closed system does not make it any better. Those secondary things are not concerns, they are the basic fundamentals of a currency system.

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



Ham Sandwiches posted:

1. Guy entirely beholden to existing financial systems and literally gets paid from the status quo is unable to be open minded about threat to his livelyhood. Well I'll be! What a surprise.

So your original point was that coins were somehow less suitable than money for these gray transactions, and now it's that they're equivalent. No, my original point is that they're slightly better because they are digital and intangible and not tied to any particular nation state that can decide it feels strongly about how you use those coins and which transactions they will allow. There is nobody to tell you no at that level, it has to come from someone further down the chain. Whereas nation state currency can be a problem a variety of ways.

There was a time before the 1900s when nobody used fiat money. There may be a time in the future when fiat money is considered an anachronism. I can't say whether cryptocurrency will be the ones to displace it, but I sure wouldn't bet that the status quo created 100 / 200 years ago and that seems to be really really struggling to create wealth or value or anything resembling a good life for most people is going to remain exactly as it is. I guess you place your bets according to what you consider likely.

2. That's a risk you have to accept when choosing bitcoins, there is no loss mitigation strategy. I personally feel that there was no real loss mitigation strategy in 2008 when the financial system almost froze - everyone was almost hosed. How quickly people forget the savings and loan scandals of the 80s or how common bank collapse used to be. The existing financial system is fraught with all sorts of perils, so I don't buy into the idea that FDIC or whatever suddenly offsets how compromised the existing financial markets are, or how much existing nation states are struggling. I believe that the global economy is in fairly poor shape, and that countries are using various tools to try to prop up the numbers and mask the level of rot. I don't feel post 2008 we returned to a situation of health, we just exited the crisis. These are not good times, looking for alternatives is prudent not foolish.

3. Now there's a new term, categorically new and superficially new! Maybe we can stop arguing about whether cryptocoins are new because it doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere. I am claiming that bitcoin is different than others forms of currency. I don't care whether it's new, just whether it has different strengths and weaknesses and whether that opens it up to different uses. I feel it does.

4. Bitcoin is an alternative to currency because it's more concrete than wampum despite not existing as a tangible good. Bitcoin's blockchain can be queried, the ledger that you tried to FUD up in 1. exists, all that stuff is absolutely different than barter or nation state currency. You may not be interested in using it for such transactions, but it's very odd to argue that other people don't see it differently - they do, and they use it for different things than traditional currency.

5. I'm not using number go up as an indicator of anything other than how much money people are taking out of their existing instruments and converting it to bitcoin. You can consider it as an indicator that more and more people are using it for more and more things. That's about all I get out of the rising price, that it represents increasing adoption and usefulness. So when it's worth twice as much I'd say it's about twice as widespread, from an "impact to the world" standpoint.

6. Ok and I guess we'll get back to arguing Bitcoin's scam status, but then let's stop using volatility as a sign that it's a scam since you just agreed that it's not a sign it's a scam

7. You don't know that, and having a few bitcoins in the case of a financial crisis is probably a sound hedge, just like keeping a few gold coins around is probably a good idea. In addition, for any local economies (like Venezula) that start suddenly imploding, there may be transactions that you can do with coins that would be difficult otherwise. Again, this is stuff that is actually happening in the real world and is a useful application, pretending otherwise does not change the fact that it is happening today, right now.

8. No I disagree with you and it's weird how vitriolic you're getting. I used your sentence presumably because you wouldn't disagree with the things you yourself just listed. And let me try appending a phrase again, hopefully it will be less upsetting this time: "And to me, that makes it different which means it may be a useful alternative in some situations, and something worth considering"

1. "Man who works professionally with finances claims to know more about finances than other man, and tells other man why his pog coins are loving moronic nonsense" is a better way to phrase that, in my opinion, but you do you. There being a time before the 1900s when nobody used fiat money is a diversionary point that does nothing to prove why Bitcoin would be a suitable replacement.

2. You feel that because you do not know enough about finances to go into the complexities of the crisis. The Big Short is a pretty decent introduction in it, but it goes a little deeper than that. Your whole thing makes it very clear that you should not be buying Bitcoins, you should be buying guns and canned food; if the government or economy collapses, your Bitcoin will be useless.

3. It is not fundamentally different from unregulated securities in the way its markets behave. Disagree with that if you want.

4. No it isn't. There is nothing concrete about Bitcoin. The fact that it is an unregulated currency system is inherently unworkable; currency only exists because of regulations upon it.

5. The Bitcoin price is not based on anything but fairy dust, magic, and how hard the bots the Exchanges use are working. The market is unregulated and has no real experienced financial firms involved in it, so it's ridiculously easy to manipulate. I've explained this to you before, I'm not doing it again. Read over my other posts again if you want that.

6. Bitcoin is a scam. Volatility is a sign of a scam, but does not in itself make it a scam. Penny stocks are not a scam, but investing in them is relatively dumb. Bitcoin is a scam for many other reasons.

7. My inability to concretely predict the future is not a good reason to tie up a substantial amount of funds in internet poker chips. Remaining obtuse to the point that Bitcoins will be useless in any scenario that the US collapses is silly, and you keep doing it.

8. I'm becoming vitriolic because I dislike repeating myself. I was happy to explain these things to you once; it didn't take, and so the second or third time became more annoying.

Essentially, this ties back into what I told you at the very start; this has all been explained to you before. I am not saying anything new to you about these things. You do not engage with people, you simply dodge past and cherry pick parts of posts that you cannot adequately retaliate against. You have responded to half of what I've said, comprehended a quarter, and given any sort of rebuttals to about a tenth. This is not me insulting you, this is me telling you why goons pretty much just come in here to make fun of you while you flail your arms and ask why nobody is willing to debate with you; nobody is willing to debate with you not because you are saying things that hit at the core of their rotten financial systems and threaten their livelihoods, it's because it's like pulling teeth to get you to comprehend concepts that people are taught in basic financial courses, and you have this weird Dunning-Kruger effect going on. Most of your responses to posts detailing why Bitcoin does not work are literally just "No, you see, Bitcoin is good." and then you move on entirely, pleased with yourself for the terrifying own you have dealt out. The only response to this is to repeat the argument again until you get it, but you will not get it. You just refuse to engage with the knowledge, disagreeing with it so fundamentally that the concept of accepting it is impossible to you, but you think that your willingness to not curse at other people is the only thing that matters in an argument.

I'm not calling you stupid, because being stupid would honestly be fine. Plenty of stupid people got pulled into Bitcoin, and I feel sorry for them, because they're pretty much getting scammed. I think you're just someone who has an opinion on a thing that isn't supported by facts, and so you've dug in to the point where no amount of facts or knowledge could possibly pull you up from that opinion. If John Galt himself came in and told you that Bitcoin was bad, if it were just a literal fact that Bitcoin was bad, you would still refuse to budge on that point because you've dug in so much that it would be humiliating for you to do so. I don't doubt that you believe the things you're saying, I doubt that these things make any sense, and I'm tired of repeating myself again and again just to have you post pithy 'bitcoin good fiat bad' posts that don't adequately rebut anything, then to get confused and irate when people tell you that you have not actually argued against my posts, you've just said a bunch of nonsense and acted as though it were holy writ.

e: I'm pretty much just gonna be trolling and/or making fun of you in this thread, from here on. Effort posting has completed, because people were pretty much right when I started in on the effort posting; you're never gonna understand because you really don't want to understand.

Blade Runner fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Oct 12, 2017

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



Talking about your author picture is amusing because, as we all know, you must be handsome to be well versed in finance.

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



Even in a system where Buttcoin is used for every transaction, its many technical flaws and the difficulty regarding insuring it would make it bluntly inferior for most uses

Also feel free to quote all my effort posts in a couple years, I stand by them. If each Bit is worth a trillion dollars, I will stand by what I said.

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



There is a formal process to freezing a bank account. It involves being able to get that money back unless it is a freeze activated by law enforcement during an actual criminal investigation. Most attempts to transfer money out of Coinbase after a freeze do not work. (According to Google, so it could be wrong who knows)

Also I'm phone posting from work so I don't got my crazy prolix word choices

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



See edit before your post. A quick Google search, mostly. As for your bank account balance going up, you got every cent of that money (ten whole dollars, baby) by scamming some idiot into buying a virtual bridge, so your bare sense of ethics are entirely owned yes

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



I have given technical explanations to you before, which you just refused to engage with, likely because you did not understand them. My effort posts were full of them. I am done doing the effort post thing, though, so oh well

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



No, I will not do that. You've never posted a single link to anything relevant, and have admitted that you have no technical knowledge in this while just refusing to acknowledge technical points made against the butts.

If you feel like saying that I am owned because of this, sure. I'm just here to make fun of you at this point.

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



Person with no financial or technical knowledge screeching at man currently at his work place in an agency focused on financial regulation: "your knowledge on this subject is pathetic compared to mine"

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



Imagine being such an idiot that a person comes in and gives you a sincere run down on why Bitcoin is bad, and your response is a post that doesn't say much of anything or engage any technical points, then you screech about a man not being interested in posting a Google search as proof that he is a LYING CHARLATAN

Simply picture it in your mind

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



If Bitcoin is terrible and doesn't work but then another coin comes up that does work in the future, doesn't that mean that your Buttcoin investments were terrible, and that it was right not to invest

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



I told you I was just gonna make fun of you back at the end of that dumb big post, and I have not done anything but that since

This is the greatest truth possible

Also, a man crying because he did not get to scam people out of their money on internet pogs calling someone else a bad person is, at best, hypocritical

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



You're insisting that I lied because I don't see engaging with you about that as being worth the effort

You having a meltdown over this scenario you have created where it is a fact that I have lied (I didn't but whatever) like you're a five year old who was PROMISED that pony is so hilarious to me that I will never post the search

This is my hill, this is where I dig into the sand

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



I didn't bail, I just have an actual job I need to go to for a good amount of the day. Remember, that thing that I do that involves the regulation of finance? No? Oh well.

Anyway, the actual reason that it was inevitable that I'd stop talking to you and bail on doing anything but making fun of you is that you don't respond to posts. You quote the post, pick extremely specific things that you can answer while ignoring a good 90% of the points made, then fail to adequately answer the points you have specifically cherry picked to answer. I told you before that Buttcoins are a scam because they are a scam; money cannot be made on them, as a system. An individual person can make money on them, if they are willing to take money from another person in return for a worthless item. They can only be used to extract money from idiots. This is morally reprehensible to me, so I'm gonna laugh at you for being a huge idiot who tried to scam people but fell on his face and got owned.

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



HerStuddMuffin posted:

That assumes most of the market is comprised of money launderers, and not a lot is made up of miners. Is that he case? I understand (maybe?) the difference between the price of bitcoins ($5000 per coin currently, give or take?) and the value of bitcoins ($0) but I'm taking the standpoint of a miner. If mining is profitable, I should sell the coins I mine so I can expand my operations, mine more and make more profits. Sitting on a promise makes no sense. But that's only the case if I can actually get real cash for my coins, not theoretical cash according to some exchange that won't let me cash out. If cashing out is easy, why aren't I cashing out?

A vast majority of the mining market is made up of Chinese mining farms due to strict regulations on conversions of Chinese money to USD, with the butts coins being a convenient way of sidestepping that.

Also, yes. Double your money!!!!!!! That's how things work right

You just get twice the money out of nowhere, we should fork all the time

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



The primary issue is that none of what Uranium has said makes this, in any way, not a scam. Fundamentally, it is a scam because the capital outflow of Bitcoin has been exclusively negative; people have paid for mining machines and electricity to acquire Bitcoins, and the only USD inside of Bitcoin as a system is what was used to purchase those mined Bitcoins, meaning that there is necessarily less money in that system than all people who invested originally had. Again, this is not impossible to make money on. Nobody ever said it was; you very much can make money off of it, but in doing so, you are scamming other people. That is where the issue comes in, for me. Saying something to the effect of "Well, these people know what they're getting into, it's fine for me to make money off of it" and the like does not clear you of blame for scamming others. If you simply do not care that what you are doing is morally reprehensible (Bitcoin certainly isn't illegal, currently, so that's not a factor you need to worry about.) then you may feel free. Like I said before, though, if you're willing to fundamentally gently caress idiots over for money, there are way better ways to do that than Buttcons.

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



You do not have to have malicious intent to scam someone else. Please see my original bridge analogy; whether you believe this item has value or not, it doesn't, and whomever gets hosed over has been scammed by you.

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



Uranium 235 posted:

scam absolutely requires intent to deceive, it's part of the definition of the word

No, it requires deception. Having deceived yourself does not immunize you from running a scam on somebody else.

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



The lack of a Mr. Bitcoin who directly benefits(Untrue, fundamentally; Lord High King Satoshi does benefit immensely from increased investment in Bitcoin, whether you believe he had malicious intent or not)is generally meaningless. The whole point of the analogy was that you can scam someone without knowing you are scamming them or having any malicious intent whatsoever, and this is still a scam regardless of your sincerity. Sincerity does not make a worthless product have worth.

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



Uranium 235 posted:

it definitely requires intent and i'm not going to argue about a dictionary definition with you, it's a complete waste of time

to be clear, i'm talking about the developer of bitcoin. i think he intended to create something that would have utility (and value because of that utility). i get the impression that you're trying to move down the chain of responsibility and talk about people who trade bitcoin

What dictionary definition are you basing this off of? I can find literally none that clearly states it needs intent, or includes the word intent in the definition. If you didn't want to argue about dictionary definitions, you shouldn't have brought it up as the main loving sticking point of your argument. I'm not the one that said "Dictionary says this". You made your argument, live with that.

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



Chaining the blocks is a form of slavery and I am morally opposed to it

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



exploded mummy posted:

what if we only do it for colored coins

Making a coin be worth 3/5ths would really gently caress up my investment position

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



Uranium 235 posted:

take your pick. if you're running a confidence game or a fraudulent/deceptive scheme, you have intent to deceive for personal gain. this is the plain meaning of the word and i honestly don't understand why you're fighting this so hard

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/scam

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/scam

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scam

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/u...ry/english/scam

None of those include anything about intent to decieve, just deception. You can decieve someone of something while believing it is true. It took you like two hours to do a basic Google search, and you're still loving wrong.

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



Ham Sandwiches posted:

Unlike you he was willing to provide the search criteria, not just make up claims as to what was supposedly there.

Here's the definition of deceive by the way!:


Apparently semantic arguments allow one to call anything they want any word they want, and if called on it just kinda keep making stuff up. Cool stuff I think the discourse on bitcoins is absolutely being furthered by your refusal to accept any normal definitions of scam and deceive.

None of that necessitates you knowing that it's untrue, just that it be untrue.

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



You're not scamming people by telling them to buy Bitcoins. You're just an unintelligent person giving bad advice. The shoe shine boy is not scamming. If you sell this worthless product, however, you're scamming. I am not selling anti-Bits.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015



Also, we can switch to the homeopathy analogy. I can 100% admit to that being a better analogy.

  • Locked thread