Bubbles and Mania

As long as you dont bet the farm, should be fine to buy a lottery ticket here and there. i think the worst part is that we(at least many of us) spend dozens of hours on this website each week, mostly just looking for assurance that we made the right choices. This kills productivity worse than weed.

I disagree on several levels.

1. Don't look at market cap (for either coin or stock market), it's not a real number and doesn't represent anything real.

2. Coins are a risk-on investment. Regular investors, especially when the stock market falls, are looking to go risk-off, not on.

3. There is a fatal flaw in nearly all cryptos right now; which make the coin redundant.

4. Unless and untill you can buy and sell everyday product in a multitude of locations, coin will be nothing but a speculative instrument.

5. Until recently, you weren't able to short coin. As a result, prices were determined by longs, which always means a long increase in prices. Now that you can short coin, there will be price pressures.

I left it open-ended. I have my own opinions of course, but they are probably not the same as others.

If you see a connection, good for you, you would be right.

If you want to bash boomers for being idiots for falling for these, that is your choice too.

Bubbles are a recurring event in history. Every generation have a few.

>Now, I'm not so much of a fool that I don't know that most of you are coiners; so I will turn this into something you all seem to like... boomer bashing.
>Here are some of the bubbles and mania that the boomers fell for. If you see any similarities between them and crypto, that's your own business.

Well alluding to it like this one can make a safe assumption that you believe cryptos are experiencing a similar bubble. I would be correct in this assumption, wouldn't I?

Oh ya, of course it is.

The problem, which I can go into great detail if people want a real conversation, is that the coins are redundant, they have no utility, therefore they have no value.

Under the prevailing theory, they DO have utility; but when you look at things closely, you have to conclude that they dont'.

this fuckin thread again
yes we know its a bubble
no we dont give a shit

Ok and before I begin an argument with you, let me preface it by asking you:
1. "coins" as in every coin excluding the big two, being Ethereum and bitcoin.
OR
2."coins" as in every single crypto currency in existence.

i disagree with all your points. the gap between our philosophies is too wide and i doubt there's bridging. its a wait and see sort of thing, i guess.

at the very least, once more money laundering is done in crypto, we should see prices explode upwards. i don't have any faith in BTC, though, since its like the AOL of the early internet. at most, $100k per BTC, but no more imo.

In the larger sense all of them, though Bitcoin and ETH will last a lot longer than the others.

And before I start, here's my ground rule... I understand the concepts, but I'm not up on all of the terms. So when I talk about something, don't bust my balls because I use the wrong terms, focus on the concepts. OK, here we go...

1. From my understanding, the advantages listed for blockchain are immutability, public ledger, and trustless distributed verification.

2. The coins themselves are the result of the outside verification, and serve as a reward/payment for doing the work of verifying transactions.

3. Though they speak about a decentralized database, they are not entirely correct.

Physically, the physical decentralization is no different than if a single company or entity were to have multiple distributed servers set up around the world.

Theoretically, the difference is that the servers are being run by a bunch of individuals, and it is therefore assumed to be more trustful/trustless since you don't have "the man" controlling transactions.

4. The cost of having it set up this way is a massive amount of energy being required to verify all of these transactions. According to articles I've seen, the cost is roughly $5000 per bitcoin.

5. This is an inherently flawed system, for two reasons:

a) what you gain by turning over transaction verification to strangers is overcome by the large overhead (electrical and other) needed to verify transactions. and if usage of coin were to really expand, the electrical usage would grow exponentially.

b) what you gain by turning over transaction to control to strangers is overcome by the dangers of turning transaction control over to strangers.

(continued in next reply)

Look mommy I posted it again

6. If you look at the system as a whole, you realize that if you keep the verification of transactions and maintenance of the ledger in house, it can be done with less electrical overhead (because you wouldn't be making verification more difficult like bitcoin does)

7. Also, if you keep verification inhouse, you no longer have the need for a coin, since you don't need to reward outside parties for doing the work.

8. Which means that the coin becomes redundant; and companies can use blockchain without having to bother with the creation of coins.

9. So, given the choice between high overhead, high electricity use, expensive coins and doing it easier, cheaper, and faster on their own, they will chose the more efficient approach.

10. And finally, once you separate the advantages of blockchain from the requirement to have coins, all of the existing coin prices will collapse because they no longer serve a function.

checked

you are aware that private blockchains are a thing that already exists, right?
also most of your points only apply to PoW

Yes on point 1, OK on point 2.

From what I've been hearing, those shilling most of the coins use 2 selling points....

1) some company or another is adopting the tech, therefore they will have to drag our coin along.

2) coins are great, because you can operate black market transactions under the radar.

I think my points, and your comments, confirm that reason 1 really isn't going to be true.

And I personally think the market for black market transactions isn't enough to support more than 2 or 3 coin. Pablo down in columbia isn't going to move money across the border in PacCoin.

(but I DO recognize that there will always be a demand for black market currencies, which is why I think Bitcoin and ETH will outlast the others.)

And I didn't even touch on the whole subject of the "public ledger". I mean, is this REALLY a good idea?

Assuming that there were other ways to verify transactions on both sides, does anyone really WANT all of their purchases to be public record forever?

I know most corporations wouldn't, because they wouldn't want their competition knowing their inside secrets.

And on an individual level, do I have a reason why I need to prove I spend X bitcoin on a big mac 3 years ago?

Given what we learned several years ago about room 641a, I think a public ledger is the last thing we are going to want.

>1. From my understanding, the advantages listed for blockchain are immutability, public ledger, and trustless distributed verification.
so, right away your argument is a bit flawed by taking this belief. You said earlier "Dont bust my balls because I use the wrong terms, focus on the concepts." And I think its important to focus here on the actual concept of it and not every gritty detail on Bitcoin. Think less "trustless, decentralized currency", and think of it more as an asset that does not exist physically. So I disagree strongly when you say that these are the main advantages.
The properties of a blockchain is not an advantage. The properties of a blockchain is the only thing that allows Bitcoin, or any other crypto, to exists. Without it, the data could be altered, the network could not be ran and it would be rendered completely useless. No one would want to pay for data if they knew the data could be altered or faked.

For example, one would not say "The advantages of an automobile is wheels" when in reality the wheel is not an advantage for the automobile, but simply the advantage that wheels have allow automobiles to exist.

So, The value of bitcoin is derived from the fact that people are willing to pay to own this piece of data that is made secure through its blockchain. Higher adoption rate and more generated nodes are the two main advantages of any crypto. Any shiny bells or whistles is quite useless if someone wants to use it as an asset or as a way of hedging investments or even as a currency itself. Similar to gold. The difference is its just another form of doing so.

I could go on about hashing difficulty or energy consumption, but I fear it would be irrelevant because I think you need to look at Cryptos in an entirely different way. You need to start from point A before you argue about point D because your outlook would be flawed from the start.

(cont.)
Instead of looking at bitcoin as this magical token that offers advantages through, in your words "immutability, public ledger, and trustless distributed verification." look at the idea of bitcoin as the advantage itself. The idea that certain Data is proven to be valuable.

This is entirely different from an argument someone would make for Ethereum. Look at Bitcoin has a cryptographic asset, and Ethereum as a metaphysical computer existing peer to peer.

Yeahhhh.... because beanie babies are the same fucking thing as a new way of transmitting and securing data in the most tech heavy period in civilization, and as max circulation is achieved on the few critical coins to succeed they will just sit there as quaint collectors items in the new crypto based apps of billion dollar companies right? Posts like this prove that OP and people like him are basically just extremely stupid niggers trying to talk shit about things they know literally nothing about. Fuck off and die etc.

crypto investor here
Have half of my networth in crypto
It's a bubble delusionfag, get over it
Does that mean there isn't money to be made? no, plenty to be made
But you know and i know, 99% of these coins are over valued garbage. They 'may' do something in the future, for now they are a piece of typed paper worth millions to billions. Prove me wrong, oh yea you can't

FFS OP, you were here yesterday saying the same shit and you didn't learn anything?

Remember me? I told you to look up proof of stake (vs proof of work). That's half your argument gone.

>Physically, the physical decentralization is no different than if a single company or entity were to have multiple distributed servers set up around the world.
if your stupid-boomer company stops paying it's bills the whole network disappears.
>According to articles I've seen, the cost is roughly $5000 per bitcoin.
you and other retarded boomers correlate the reward for solving the block with the ammount of electricity used. That's the miner's problem, not yours. That 5000 dollars for which the miners profit several thousand moves 10-20 million dollars of mostly small transactions. If you think that's larger overhead than a bank you are a retarded cuck and I hope you didn't have any children.

>4. Unless and untill you can buy and sell everyday product in a multitude of locations, coin will be nothing but a speculative instrument.
>5. Until recently, you weren't able to short coin. As a result, prices were determined by longs, which always means a long increase in prices. Now that you can short coin, there will be price pressures.
Obvious newfag. There are countless services that let you purchase ANY product with bitcoin. Cars, Houses, Retirement homes, daily products. grocery. All you need to do is learn to google.
You been able to short since 2010. U.S. "Accredited investors" is able to short recently on their exchanges but shorting bitcoin has been around forever.

You are right user. Only deluded people don't see it is a bubble.

My strategy: Invest only money I am absolutely willing to lose and ride the bubble. If I exit early enough - great, if not it won't hurt me much.