Bitcoin....who's gotten into it?

[byates1]

Mud has chosen the anal reaming over the easiest money maker in the last half decade. Got to respect the devotion to fucking yourself in the ass while the rest of us profit.

[J. Barron DeJong]

I gotta go with mud on this one.

[garyfromterrace]

I gotta go with mud on this one.

Yep.

[byates1]

Of course. You've all made 0 money. Hilarious

[byates1]

Not one but 3 butt plugs reaming themselves w traffic cones. Must be a movement of sorts

[shera]

65k, finally. Fingers crossed it will hold.

[J. Barron DeJong]

The US economy is strong:



I hope next time there’s need for fiscal stimulus they once again err on the side of going too big than going too small.

Also, Harris is reaching out to the crypto community, so I guess stale can vote for her now. (I hope she’s lying.)

[MultiVerse]

The US economy is strong:

I hope next time there’s need for fiscal stimulus they once again err on the side of going too big than going too small.

The U.S. economy *is* strong. It's not because of fiscal stimulus. Lots of other wealthy countries had similar or higher percent of GDP stimulus levels. Germany, for example, spent a higher percentage on their discretionary fiscal response.

The U.S. economy is strong because its private sector innovates. Uber, SpaceX, fracking, fintech, and now AI. No other country, certainly not the governments of Canada, Uk, or Germany, allow anything like the American innovation economy.

People like Jong promoting bad economic policy will destroy our economy if given the chance. Instead of letting grubby crony capitalists take over the private sector, US politicians mostly allowed the private market to innovate better than other countries with this as the result:



It's no coincidence that the world's most most successful companies like Apple, Amazon, Nvidia, along with so many more originated in the US and not in Europe & Canada.

[bobz]

Of course. You've all made 0 money. Hilarious

Mud has chosen the anal reaming over the easiest money maker in the last half decade.

You know, Bob, your arguments for BTC investments would be more compelling if they weren't so hyperbolic.

1) A lot of people here have been doing pretty well with investments, rather better than zero, speaking for both my stocks and this little SF peninsula house I'm sitting in.

2) BTC, over the past five years, is up 693%; it eight-bagged. Awesome! AAPL did almost as well; up 635% (not including dividends). MSFT is up 950% (ditto). During the same period, NVDA 29-bagged. These aren't obscure stocks, and it's easy to make the case that these companies, having intrinsic value grounded in highly successful business performance, gave the investor little reason to believe that there was huge downside risk. Which is something that can be said for BTC only in retrospect. S&P overall is up nearly 100% in five years, which is pretty great considering how, well, "easy" it is.

Furthermore, the bulk of BTC's "easiest money maker in the last half decade" gains occurred during a half-year period between late 2020 and early 2021; since then, there's really only one six-month window that saw somewhat more than a 2x gain, and some pretty significant six-month windows that saw moderate to huge losses. Turns out, losing money on BTC is easy, too.


Come on, man. Look, there's money to be made, at the very least swing trading the thing. Glad you're doing well with it. But, really, there's no reason to believe that something like the 2020-2021 move is about to happen again. Nobody's going to turn into a Winklevoss twin buying BTC at $65K, any more than they're going to 1000-bag AMZN buying in 2024 (even though that did indeed happen before).

[byates1]

It's just odd to see ppl w 0 skin in the game, a very limited understanding of BTC, shit on it for years while generally speaking it had been performing extremely well.

And when someone calls shera pathetic your gonna hear it from me.

Nvidia is the rocket ship media darling, fine. Other than that BTC is crushing most all. I agree it will most likely moderate going forward, and I'm kind of in the thiel camp that it could be flat from here. Up and flat, but flat.

I'm pretty sure these BTC haters fuck themselves w traffic cones, but I could be wrong..

[bennymac]

[byates1]

Benny may not be the hero we want, but he's the hero we need

[skaredshtles]

<snip> Up and flat, but flat.

[byates1]

BTC 200000 2040

[skaredshtles]

BTC 200000 2040

So about 8% per annum appreciation? Seems pretty low considering the volatility risk of the "asset."

[J. Barron DeJong]

So about 8% per annum appreciation? Seems pretty low considering the volatility risk of the "asset."

S&P 500 Total Return has grown more than 11% per year over the past 30 years.

I’ll stick with that, thanks.

[byates1]

So about 8% per annum appreciation? Seems pretty low considering the volatility risk of the "asset."

BTC could be over. I've said it for the last 6 months.

[shera]

He forgot some zeros

[bobz]

Nvidia is the rocket ship media darling, fine.

The media didn't take NVDA up 3000%, exploding revenue and profits did. I know, novel concept that an asset's valuation should be based on something other than hype.

He forgot some zeros

Indeed! Instead let's go over to Swan Bitcoin, where they highlight a prediction (well, there's an italicized disclaimer), "$1B per 1 BTC by 2038 — 2040". Yeah, don't try to click through for any kind of explanation or justification; if you have to ask, you must be some kind of crypto noob amiright? Anyway, cool, in a decade and a half Bitcoin's cap will be roughly 10x to 100x the future global GDP, sure why not, hey it isn't like valuation is holding it back.

So about 8% per annum appreciation? Seems pretty low considering the volatility risk of the "asset."

It does beg the question, why bother? You could have made 15% last week on the company that makes Merrill boots.

It begs a bigger question, though (a question that remains relevant regardless, unless you really think that BTC's cap is going to overtake the global GDP): Why should the relatively small collection of guys who hold most of the world's Bitcoins, the "Whales", why should they bother? These are people who made fortunes off of massively exponential growth (BTCers pretend that this isn't ever acknowledged; I'm acknowledging it), and now they're supposed to be satisfied with 8%, or perhaps even 20% annual growth? Nah. So what happens then? Is there enough "well shit it'll probably keep going up I guess" mad money in the world to significantly cash them out without seriously depressing the price?

[J. Barron DeJong]

FFFUUUUUUUDDDD!!!!!

[shera]

Well, not tooooo many zeros.

We would need to settle on the number of dollars assigned to the total value of all assets at a future date. Using at least 2% rate of inflation. Maybe look to the market cap of gold for some ballpark idea of the value of bitcoin in the future. What do you think gold will be worth? Then hold bitcoin at some fixed fraction of that.

Anyway I don't know what it will be, but I figure $200k is too low.

[MultiVerse]

First Amendment protection for software code? Maybe not: Tornado Cash Dev Roman Storm’s Criminal Case Will Proceed to Trial, NY Judge [Failla ] Orders

“At this stage in the case, this court cannot simply accept Mr. Storm's narrative that he is being prosecuted merely for writing code,” Failla said. “If the jury ultimately accepts this narrative, then it will acquit. But there's no basis for me to decide that as a matter of law.”

Both Storm and his supporters have argued that to be prosecuted for writing code would be akin to being prosecuted for speech, suggesting that coding should be protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But Failla didn’t buy it, saying “The functional capability of code is not speech within the meaning of the First Amendment.”

https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2024...-judge-orders/

[byates1]

The media didn't take NVDA up 3000%, exploding revenue and profits did. I know, novel concept that an asset's valuation should be based on something other than hype.


Indeed! Instead let's go over to Swan Bitcoin, where they highlight a prediction (well, there's an italicized disclaimer), "$1B per 1 BTC by 2038 — 2040". Yeah, don't try to click through for any kind of explanation or justification; if you have to ask, you must be some kind of crypto noob amiright? Anyway, cool, in a decade and a half Bitcoin's cap will be roughly 10x to 100x the future global GDP, sure why not, hey it isn't like valuation is holding it back.


It does beg the question, why bother? You could have made 15% last week on the company that makes Merrill boots.

It begs a bigger question, though (a question that remains relevant regardless, unless you really think that BTC's cap is going to overtake the global GDP): Why should the relatively small collection of guys who hold most of the world's Bitcoins, the "Whales", why should they bother? These are people who made fortunes off of massively exponential growth (BTCers pretend that this isn't ever acknowledged; I'm acknowledging it), and now they're supposed to be satisfied with 8%, or perhaps even 20% annual growth? Nah. So what happens then? Is there enough "well shit it'll probably keep going up I guess" mad money in the world to significantly cash them out without seriously depressing the price?

We could go back and go over all this again w another 50 pages of all tbe shit we have covered. Thanks for joining in. I'm too tired to keep responding what I think about BTC. There are pages and pages of drivel, conversation and whatever preceding you joining after 5 years.

I'll be at mammoth for a month plus this spring, let's ski some corn, and you can call me an idiot day in and out

[bobz]

We could go back and go over all this again w another 50 pages of all tbe shit we have covered. Thanks for joining in. I'm too tired to keep responding what I think about BTC. There are pages and pages of drivel, conversation and whatever preceding you joining after 5 years.

I'll be at mammoth for a month plus this spring, let's ski some corn, and you can call me an idiot day in and out

Hey, I'm dabbling here, and if I'm repeating something that's been hashed through already, oh well, I wouldn't know.

Funny, you saying (more or less) that Bitcoin is plateauing (though naturally with ongoing volatility) is pretty much what I'm saying; we aren't actually arguing with each other! I'm just not seeing why you're pushing so hard for an asset that's settling in for years of slogging with probably at best moderate upside.

[byates1]

I'm not really pushing anymore. I think BTC is a fringe asset worth having. I hold 5% physical gold, 10ish,% BTC and the rest typical long term shit.

Having 0 debt, owning land/re outright and living frugally/ well within your means is the best way to a stress free life. See you on the hill