How can bitcoin take over the us dollar?

a reply to: tanstaafl

Cryptowhale doesn't shill any tokens, which is more than you can say for Saylor. They are all about education and preventing scammers from taking people's money.

If you've learned so much from this visionary BTC sage then answer the issues I've raised in your own words.

It has no use except as speculation, the store of value is a lie. It is not capable of handling a significant number of transactions and there is no way to cash it out without going through the banking system. It has no intrinsic value, it's prior privacy benefits have been completely eroded by restricting withdrawal and it's technical value as a utility has been superceded by multiple others.

If the government wants it eliminated they simply make the banks stop accepting deposits from crypto exchanges, make it a crime to accept it as payment, and it's effectively dead except on the black market. That means there is no reason to hold it except as speculation. What will keep BTC afloat now is hype and the fact that Wall St. is involved with ETFs and holdings.

It simply doesn't scale, that problem can't be solved.

I'm not saying BTC is dead, but this idea that it's saving the world is pure fantasy. BTC was the first and paved the way. The BTC maximalists are now bragging about it being accepted by banking institutions, which Satoshi would have been completely disgusted by. The vision is dead, the experiment a great success, but BTC will not be saving anybody from anything. It's now an exchange traded banker coin that will see the same manipulation as all the rest.

a reply to: Crowfoot

Nah it was to cover a private debt so they wouldn't feel such a way; indebted. Transferring that debt to you would be like a deal with the devil.

There's plenty of bitcoin out there even stuck coin kinds that many people are not aware of yet.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: gb540
But wouldn't be surprised to see some cryptos adopt another currency for their baseline.

Eh? Bitcoin hasn't 'adopted the USD as its baseline'.

It has a running conversion factor in USD, just like it has in any other currency out there.

What I am saying is it isn’t based in it own denomination. It’s based off of other currencies
Gold is based in currency but you can physically hold gold. I want a coin with a b on it

originally posted by: jlafleur02
How can something priced in dollars take over that which is its underlying currency? Am I missing something?

The dollar was once backed by gold, until it wasn't. That doesn't inherently mean that bitcoin will always be linked to the dollar.

Personally I don't see crypto replacing fiat though.

It could compete with the USD, and become more reliable when bitcoin becomes 'fungible' as opposed to being a volatile/speculative twist on being a 'Currency'

originally posted by: gb540

Surprised the Reserve has allowed the cryptos to go as long and far as they have.

If you really believe that cryptos are no threat to the dollar (and I agree that they are not), then there's really no reason for the Reserve to try to squash them. Let people inflate them up to absurd values backed by nothing. I own some Bitcoin. I don't own it because I think it's gonna become a serious world currency. I own it because as long as enough people are interested in it to keep inflating the price, I can make money.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

Every year seems like there's a new bitcoin guru that the believers say really knows his #.

Except they constantly need a new one.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: tanstaafl

Cryptowhale doesn't shill any tokens,

Really? How do you know?

which is more than you can say for Saylor.

I take note that you don't even bother to apologize for linking to a defamatory article and even included a quote from it that defamed Michael J. Saylor, referring to a fictional 'drug-addicted past' that linked to a court docket for a totally different Damien Michael Saylor.

I'm surprised at you, I've always respected your posts. Now... not so much.

-sigh- maybe learn the difference between someone who is passionate enough about something to evangelize for it, and 'shilling'. Someone who even laughs at the couple of tweets morons like to throw in his face from 2010 where he was minimizing, even belittling bitcoin - like you are now. At least he is man enough to have taken a second look, done the work to learn how bitcoin is different, and capable of freeing mankind in a way that has never been experienced before.

They are all about education and preventing scammers from taking people's money.

By engaging in criminal defamation? Yeah, ok, right, whatever...

If you've learned so much from this visionary BTC sage then answer the issues I've raised in your own words.

It has no use except as speculation, the store of value is a lie.

It is not a lie, you just don't understand it. Understandable, it takes at a bare minimum an actual desire to learn unencumbered by predisposed misconceptions. You apparently are not there yet. No worries, the world will wait for you to catch up.

It is not capable of handling a significant number of transactions

This is one my original misconceptions that had to be overcome, and it was my brother that helped.

Bitcoin isn't intended as a daily, point-of-sale platform to handle millions of micro-transactions per second.

Said another way, it is not and was never intended to be something you use directly to pay for your Starbucks or Krispy-Kreme donut+coffee. You would be doing yourself a favor by actually pulling your fingers out of your ears long enough to listen to my next statement, because I know this isn't the first time I've said it...

Lightning is what you are missing. The lightning network/protocol is a second layer application that can be used for micro-transactions at the speed of light at scale and virtually free.

and there is no way to cash it out without going through the banking system.

Never heard of distributed exchanges? Got it...

I'm not saying it is perfect, but... you can take it with you wherever you go, just by remembering the seed phrase in your head. You can go anywhere in the world, with nothing, and once you get access to a computer and the internet, can get full access to all of your bitcoin.

It has no intrinsic value,

Yes, I know, you've already said that, while totally missing the point... FRNs have no intrinsic value either.

it's prior privacy benefits have been completely eroded by restricting withdrawal

I know, I know, you've already made it clear you haven't heard of the decentralized exchanges. As I said - take your head out of the sand, your fingers out of your ears, stop pretending you know everything about bitcoin, and start learning.

and it's technical value as a utility has been superceded by multiple others.

Superseded? Rotflmao! Nope, none of the #-coins even come close to bitcoin+lightning.

Bitcoin is the only crypto that has been formally and officially classified by the SEC and the IRS and all of the other entities that matter as an ASSET. PROPERTY. NOT a currency. That is a very good thing for botcoin, and in fact will likely be the major reason that it actually and ultimately succeeds.

All of the other coins, including Ethereum, are all classified as SECURITIES.

I wonder if you know the significance of that distinction?

If the government wants it eliminated they simply make the banks stop accepting deposits from crypto exchanges, make it a crime to accept it as payment, and it's effectively dead except on the black market.

Yes. Just like they did with gold in 1933... oh, wait, no they can't just take your bitcoin, not if you refuse to give them the keys.

That means there is no reason to hold it except as speculation. What will keep BTC afloat now is hype and the fact that Wall St. is involved with ETFs and holdings.

Far more than Wall Street is involved. As more and bigger players enter the world of bitcoin, things will change.

It simply doesn't scale, that problem can't be solved.

Bitcoin doesn't need to scale. It is the ultimate settlements layer. Yes, it can be used for direct person to person payments, but again, it isn't and was never intended to be used for micro-transactions by everyone. Read 'The Book of Satoshi' for more enlightenment.

I'm not saying BTC is dead, but this idea that it's saving the world is pure fantasy. BTC was the first and paved the way. The BTC maximalists are now bragging about it being accepted by banking institutions, which Satoshi would have been completely disgusted by.

Ah, so you know what Satoshi would think about things. Got it... so tell me, when is he going to move any of his million bitcoins?

The vision is dead, the experiment a great success, but BTC will not be saving anybody from anything. It's now an exchange traded banker coin that will see the same manipulation as all the rest.

Time will tell...

originally posted by: jlafleur02
What I am saying is it isn’t based in it own denomination.

Ummm... yes, it is.

1BTC = 100,000,000 Satoshis.

100,000,000 Satoshis = 1 BTC.

It’s based off of other currencies

Ummm, no. it isn't 'based' off of them', but it does have a conversion factor for each of them.

Just like every national currency has a conversion factor for every other currency, each if which fluctuate at their own rates based on market dynamics - you know, that old 'supply and demand' thingie...

Gold is based in currency

Gold is valued in every currency, separately and individually, yes, as is lumber, and every other commodity.

but you can physically hold gold.

I want a coin with a b on it
So, get a ColdCard and stamp a B on it... ?

a reply to: tanstaafl
You're still not explaining what gives it value. The technological value of BTC has 100% been superceded by other tokens, that's objective reality. If others are faster and cheaper, while still providing the same level of traceability and security, how can you say it hasn't? Give me the technological advatage. Technology doesn't just stop improving. We're not all still using Iphone 1.0 and other cryptocurrency has made improvements. I don't know why you expect people to use it for settlement when other tokens are faster and cheaper. For that matter why would large money movers not just use the Fedcoin? The last time I used BTC for a purchase I had to do it twice and send over the amount due to cover slippage. You can't have a volatile asset for settlement if it can take 4 hours to settle. It's just reality.

You seem very emotional about this. That's just about the most dangerous thing you can be in crypto. I'm not going to apologize for posting a blog that had an error in it. Have you read anything posted in the last six years? It's full of blatant lies and misinformation. I don't really care about internet influencers and they put themselves in the spotlight. If Saylor and cryptowhale want to battle it out they can, not my problem and I'm sure Saylor has taken some swings back. I don't revere influencers and I'm somewhat shocked, because I have always respected your posts as well, that you're expecting an apology from me on behalf of some internet clown. I'm not engaging in their #show, just linking you to it.

I don't need a blog to spot a relentless shill. I worked with commodity option shillers, sat in the bullpen with them all day, and I've watched him long enough. When you're making a bunch of money on something and promote it irrespective of market conditions, you are a shill. Another sign of a shill is demonizing everything else as #coins. It happens to all the popular cryptos, they start brigading and calling all other tokens #coins. Saylor is shilling. He pushes people to buy without any regard for the market. Many times he's tweeted how it's a great time to buy right before the market crashes. He's not an investment advisor. He's a shill. He may be completely authentic in his passion for BTC, but it's irresponsible to push an asset all the time without regard for underlying technicals. You should be able to understand that regardless of what you think of him.

I'm agnostic on crypto. I have no tribe. If Bitcoin goes to a price I think is a good buy, I would buy it.

BTC does not have SEC or any other government endorsement and the SEC has argued themselves, in court, that it hasn't been given a pass as a security. Clayton and Hinman have both made statements that the SEC now deny were official SEC policy. They have not stated that all others are securities, that's 100% false and is part of an ongoing lawsuit. Your BTC sources are lying to you and misrepresenting the most current documented statements, in court, from the SEC themselves. To be clear I don't believe BTC is a security, but to say it's been given clarity is false.

Decentralized exchanges are fine, as is direct p2p, but the government can still stop deposits from any source the want. The government CAN take your BTC, they have seized BTC, and they will seize more in the future. All they have to do is restrict the fiat offramp and you can't cash out. This is already in place and if they want to do it, they can. I'm not saying they will, but they can.

Lightening Network is just a processor to verify transactions, settlement is still through BTC and it still cannot scale for settlement. The network still gets bogged down now just under current conditions. If you require an additional layer, but other tokens have incorporated it in the core chain, then why not just use the all-in-one solution? Nevermind that it was never promoted as a settlement layer until it became clear it wasn't viable for day to day transactions. They didn't change the tech, just the narrative surrounding it. There are no Fedcoin projects announced, which will be the settlement token in nearly every country, utilizing BTC. They can't because the volume is too high. The scaling problem is solved by people being able to slide in and out of Wall St. ETFs and funds without requiring an actual BTC transaction, which is part of the reason I said that's what will keep BTC going.

I know what Satoshi would think because he said it, in his own words, directly to forums. He would be disgusted by the ETFs and institutional funds. BTC was forked because of disagreements on the legacy. Not my problem, but it obviously isn't a monolithic group of BTC adopters that agree with the direction it's going.

I get it. Now I'm disreputable, that's fine. I'm not going to blow smoke. If my objective analysis is offensive there's nothing I can do. If you think I'm being mean to BTC you're probably a little too attached. I can't afford to be attached to a token like it's a religion, it's how I eat. Faith doesn't pay the bills. BTC was, and still is, the first and biggest. It isn't the "best" or the only viable crypto. There are hundreds of millions of real world transactions taking place commercially using other chains outside of speculation and Wall St. BTC is not saving the world from anything, but the blockchain era it ushered in will definitely change everything. Unfortunately, it's not going to be the utopia proselytizers think. They're already locking this down, they were always going to lock it down, and the push for institutional adoption guaranteed that it would happen.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: tanstaafl
You're still not explaining what gives it value.

The same thing that gives anything value... demand and consensus.

POW gives it an 'inherent' value if you like (arguable, ok, but it is reality).

The technological value of BTC has 100% been superceded by other tokens,

Saying it doesn't make it 'objective reality', it is just your opinion, that I happen to disagree with.

If others are faster and cheaper, while still providing the same level of traceability and security, how can you say it hasn't?

There are only a very few that can even realistically be argued to be 'property' vs a 'security', which is a critical difference.

Also, they are all, as far as I know, centrally controlled, unlike bitcoin.

Give me the technological advatage. Technology doesn't just stop improving.

Correct, and which is what I've been saying. The Bitcoin protocol/network is improving every day, with new and better 2nd layer applications arriving weekly, including Lightning.

You seem very emotional about this.

Hah! Not at all... just learning as I go.

That's just about the most dangerous thing you can be in crypto.

I agree.

... that you're expecting an apology from me on behalf of some internet clown. I'm not engaging in their #show, just linking you to it.

But by linking to it, and specifically quoting a massively defamatory part of it, you very precisely are engaging in their # show. Full stop. That is why I suggested you owe an apology - because you posted the link to use the content to justify your opinion/attack on Saylor as a criminal/drug addict - ie, you in essence lent credibility to the lies spewed by the article's author. Nothing in that article was remotely accurate, it was mis-leading FUD. If Saylor had done anything truly wrong, he wouldn't still be the CEO.

I don't need a blog to spot a relentless shill.

You are welcome to your opinion. I disagree...

BTC does not have SEC or any other government endorsement and the SEC has argued themselves, in court, that it hasn't been given a pass as a security. Clayton and Hinman have both made statements that the SEC now deny were official SEC policy. They have not stated that all others are securities, that's 100% false and is part of an ongoing lawsuit. Your BTC sources are lying to you and misrepresenting the most current documented statements, in court, from the SEC themselves. To be clear I don't believe BTC is a security, but to say it's been given clarity is false.

While it is true that the state of things has not been etched in stone, it is well on its way, and back-tracking is (imo) extremely likely, but yes, I agree, that is part of the speculative aspect right now.

Decentralized exchanges are fine, as is direct p2p, but the government can still stop deposits from any source the want. The government CAN take your BTC, they have seized BTC, and they will seize more in the future. All they have to do is restrict the fiat offramp and you can't cash out. This is already in place and if they want to do it, they can. I'm not saying they will, but they can.

Yes, but they can only easily seize 'custodial' bitcoin (that the owner doesn't have full custody of). Smart people will maintain full custody of their bitcoin. Of course, people are subject to coercion, but if the government wanted to 'seize it all', ala the gold theft of 1933, they would have to arrest and millions of individual people... simply not a viable option.

Lightening Network is just a processor to verify transactions, settlement is still through BTC and it still cannot scale for settlement. The network still gets bogged down now just under current conditions.

Maybe... I still haven't used it, and don't have any need at the moment.

But again... technological problems can be solved, and will be solved if there is a will to do so, and it appears there is.

Time will tell.

I know what Satoshi would think because he said it, in his own words, directly to forums. He would be disgusted by the ETFs and institutional funds. BTC was forked because of disagreements on the legacy.

And the forks went nowhere.

If my objective analysis is offensive there's nothing I can do. If you think I'm being mean to BTC you're probably a little too attached.

Offensive? Mean? Lol! Chill out, you're the one who seems to be getting riled up.

We will just have to wait and see, like everyone else. I could be completely wrong... but I'm not.

a reply to: tanstaafl
Actually, you don't seem emotional about the BTC part. That was inaccurate for me to say. It's more the Saylor part. Saylor and people like him definitely rile me up. I just want you to be as informed as possible about the realities rather than fattened up with sweet fantasies. He'll be fine. He's sued plenty of people for this kind of thing before. Forward him the blog and maybe he'll sue the cryptowhale. Send him this thread and maybe he'll sue me.

I don't care what drugs he uses and that wasn't why I linked the blog. It it was the first one that came up searching for his fraud. I'm not fact-checking obvious mudslinging. I will say I'm incredibly disappointed that cryptowhale hasn't corrected that statement and, had I not followed his quite reliable Twitter for a long time, I wouldn't have even clicked a blog link. Live and learn. As I said, I don't care what drugs he uses. Meth, crack, jenkem, all fine in my book.

I care about him commiting fraud against his investors by not just overestimating profit, but claiming a profit while he should have been posting a loss. That claim was entirely accurate. Who knows if it was him directly, but he was the CEO and paid large fines. Expecting him to be honest about BTC is like expecting Pfizer to be honest about adverse vaccine reactions. I don't like rich people that make their money dishonestly on the backs of retail investors.

Layer 2 is not a technological advancent for BTC, that's spin. It's a centralized payment processor for BTC holders. It's like a Visa debit that settles when the transaction clears the actual network. It's also a payday for Lightening Network. Flare Networks will likely allow BTC integration into smart contracts, but that isn't a BTC achievement. It's Flare working around the inherent flaws in BTC to give it utility. No BTC whale is going to be completely honest about the flaws, so they spin Lightening Network as a great thing. Just like they claimed Paypal was a great thing, but it's not really BTC. PayPal is just functioning as an institutional custody option minus all the benefits of holding real BTC.

A judge can order any property seized including your cold wallet BTC stored in a safe buried in your backyard. It's property, an asset. You said it yourself. It can be seized for taxes, bankruptcy, crimes, or the dreaded civil asset forfeiture. If you don't give up the key they'll hold you in contempt and park you in jail until you do.

"We'll see" is fine for you, but it's not fine for those that are being encouraged by people like Saylor to buy in to the market top. Do you not see the problem with pushing an asset on people irrespective of the underlying technicals? It's incredibly unethical that he's taking speaking fees for going out and promoting an asset that he's heavily invested in with no regard whatsoever for the market conditions. He's acting like an investment guru while claiming his BTC fund doesn't count as an ETF, but also promotes his huge company BTC holdings. He's bound to run afoul of the law again.

BTC will retrace. The current unfilled CME (Chicago Mercantile Exchange) gap is around 33k. Historically these gaps are "filled" by the spot trading price moving into that range. When Saylor is telling people to buy at 60k is he telling them there's about an 80% chance BTC will retract to 33k? If you can find him saying that I'll give you my entire BTC holdings.

Saylor has always talked a very good game and has always been incredibly persuasive. He can sell ice to an Inuit. He's also paid 7+ figure fines to avoid prosecution and managed to lose money at the top of the biggest tech bubble in history. That fraud is the really bad part. Everybody loses once in a while (though not usually 6 billion), but fraud is fraud.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: tanstaafl
I just want you to be as informed as possible about the realities rather than fattened up with sweet fantasies.

Understood, thanks for the clarification, but I'm not emotional about him either. I just very much dislike when false claims of criminal or otherwise behavior are cast carelessly about.

When I read the article you quoted, I was extremely concerned, more so when the reference to criminal drug history was brought up - until I started reading the linked case, and then realized - when they referred to him still being in jail in Jan of 2021, and I knew he wasn't - that this can't be right, so quickly discovered the lie.

I don't care what drugs he uses

That's just it. I can't find any hint that he has ever had a drug problem anywhere.

I'm a recovered addict/alcoholic with 33+ yrs sobriety, so don't judge people for having a drug history, but someone who is actively using is not someone to be trusted, so I was actually far more concerned about that aspect than what happened in 1999/2000.

After reading the details of what he was charged with, I am not concerned about that. It sounds more like some kind of creative accounting practices that are likely quite common as I said earlier, similar to Trump and his so-called questionable valuations of his properties, which apparently is done all the time.

I absolutely don't consider anyone who does such things as criminals.

I'm not fact-checking obvious mudslinging.

No, but you are propagating it. That is my whole point that I'm trying to get you to see. If you don't agree that is a problem, fine, but that is my problem with what you did.

I care about him commiting fraud against his investors by not just overestimating profit, but claiming a profit while he should have been posting a loss. That claim was entirely accurate.

Maybe, maybe not. I know enough about the legal system to know that cases like this are almost never what they seem.

Who knows if it was him directly, but he was the CEO and paid large fines.

Happens all the time.

Personally, I have a huge problem with the entire concept of the 'limited liability' afforded to corporations and their executives. That can of worms need a massive overhaul, and execs should be able to be held both criminally and civilly liable under certain conditions (when they knew or should have known of certain actions).

Expecting him to be honest about BTC is like expecting Pfizer to be honest about adverse vaccine reactions. I don't like rich people that make their money dishonestly on the backs of retail investors.

Well, you can believe what you want...

Personally, when he speaks, I listen to the details.

He is a successful business man who still helms a very successful business he co-founded 32+ years ago, one that survived the dotcom bubble, his creative accounting fiasco, etc.

The bottom line is, if he actually did do something seriously wrong, again - I don't see how the BoD and the stock owners would allow him to remain where he is.

I listen to what he is actually saying, big picture wise, and everything he says, as far as I can tell, is spot on (the history of money, etc), and the logical arguments he makes on these foundations, make sense.

Could he be a liar? Anything is possible.

Layer 2 is not a technological advancent for BTC, that's spin. It's a centralized payment processor for BTC holders. It's like a Visa debit that settles when the transaction clears the actual network. It's also a payday for Lightening Network. Flare Networks will likely allow BTC integration into smart contracts, but that isn't a BTC achievement. It's Flare working around the inherent flaws in BTC to give it utility. No BTC whale is going to be completely honest about the flaws, so they spin Lightening Network as a great thing. Just like they claimed Paypal was a great thing, but it's not really BTC. PayPal is just functioning as an institutional custody option minus all the benefits of holding real BTC.

A judge can order any property seized including your cold wallet BTC stored in a safe buried in your backyard. It's property, an asset. You said it yourself. It can be seized for taxes, bankruptcy, crimes, or the dreaded civil asset forfeiture. If you don't give up the key they'll hold you in contempt and park you in jail until you do.

Yes... but they cannot simply take it, which is my point. Your gold? Gone. Cash? Bu-bye. Cars, houses, yachts? See-ya...

"We'll see" is fine for you, but it's not fine for those that are being encouraged by people like Saylor to buy in to the market top.

Who says it is the top? Even Satoshi admitted it could potentially go as high as 10 million per coin or more...

It's incredibly unethical that he's taking speaking fees for going out and promoting an asset that he's heavily invested in with no regard whatsoever for the market conditions.

No it isn't. He's just evangelizing, and is very articulate about it, and people are willing to pay him to hear him speak. It is called capitalism you know.

He's acting like an investment guru while claiming his BTC fund doesn't count as an ETF, but also promotes his huge company BTC holdings. He's bound to run afoul of the law again.

We'll see...

BTC will retrace. The current unfilled CME (Chicago Mercantile Exchange) gap is around 33k. Historically these gaps are "filled" by the spot trading price moving into that range. When Saylor is telling people to buy at 60k is he telling them there's about an 80% chance BTC will retract to 33k? If you can find him saying that I'll give you my entire BTC holdings.

Never heard him say that, but I have seen the evidence that he has bought at the top, right before a downturn, multiple times. I've also heard him say he would continue buying when he has funds with which to buy, regardless of where it is.

Saylor has always talked a very good game and has always been incredibly persuasive. He can sell ice to an Inuit. He's also paid 7+ figure fines to avoid prosecution and managed to lose money at the top of the biggest tech bubble in history. That fraud is the really bad part. Everybody loses once in a while (though not usually 6 billion), but fraud is fraud.

If it was outright fraud, why is he not in jail?

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: tanstaafl

Cryptowhale doesn't shill any tokens, which is more than you can say for Saylor.

Wanted to come back to this to point out something else apparently you are unaware of...

Here is Cryptowhale's main page...

And here he is shilling for XRP...

So, you are wrong, he absolutely does have skin in the game and is, indeed, 'shilling' for a 'competitor' coin.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: tanstaafl

Cryptowhale doesn't shill any tokens, which is more than you can say for Saylor.

Wanted to come back to this to point out something else apparently you are unaware of...

Here is Cryptowhale's main page...

And here he is shilling for XRP...

So, you are wrong, he absolutely does have skin in the game and is, indeed, 'shilling' for a 'competitor' coin.

Oh I know he's invested in crypto. We have very different ideas of shilling though. Selling charity NFTs isn't really quite the same as shilling. Just talking about tokens occasionally isn't shilling to me. Cryptowhale is likely spread across a huge variety of tokens, including heavily into BTC. They're a crypto analyst, they're going to mention crypto. I'm not going to give any real defense for them beyond that. I already regret having clicked the GD page.

As for the other post on Saylor, sure. I can see all of the SEC stuff being less than what it seems. The SEC is also not a reliable agency for enforcement actions and I agree on the whole critique of liability. It's not even unheard of to settle with them because you smell a shakedown. I'll give you all that. Creative accounting on a publicly traded company is nothing like manipulating real estate values or depreciation in a private company. One is screwing the government and one is screwing investors.

You have evidence he bought before a crash or he said he did? Was it reflected on his balance sheets? As an investor a statement that he will buy wherever it is would concern me greatly. You needn't answer, we'll see.

When I talk tops I'm never talking forever tops, can't determine that until forever gets here. The market cap for Bitcoin at 10 million would be 210 trillion which is almost 3 times the world GDP. That would also make it almost 100x the current total market cap of all crypto.

After many posts excoriating me for the link I will plead nolo contendere. The link isn't appropriate for ATS, not up to par. The crypto space is very much the wild west. So much so that the link I provided is hardly scratching the surface of how ugly it gets. It's still is out of place here and I've been rebuked.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
in reply to: tanstaafl

Oh I know he's invested in crypto. We have very different ideas of shilling though. Selling charity NFTs isn't really quite the same as shilling. Just talking about tokens occasionally isn't shilling to me.

Ummm... I guess you didn't read that link either:

"In a new tweetstorm, CryptoWhale tells his 34,000 followers that XRP will be one of the last coins standing once the crypto industry enters a new phase of regulatory scrutiny and acceptance."

If that isn't 'shilling' for XRP, I don't know what is.

That said, I don't care if he does or not, but his disgusting defamation of a very successful businessman is enough for me to ignore anything he may have to say.

You have evidence he bought before a crash or he said he did?

I've heard him say it more than once in some of the vids I've watched, but of course, there's no way to prove it.. Can't link

Was it reflected on his balance sheets?

If you know enough to ask that question, you know enough to answer it yourself. I could probably dig and figure it out, but not interested.

As an investor a statement that he will buy wherever it is would concern me greatly.

I understand and normally would agree, but if one is convinced that bitcoin will succeed in the end, and will always go up, it makes sense.

One thing I do believe is, it is normal for an extremely disruptive financial technology like bitcoin to be extremely volatile. I also believe my eyes, and can see the upward, almost skyrocketing trend line for it. But, of course, with only 13 years of history, that trend line could be extremely deceptive.

There are no guarantees. I accept that.

When I talk tops I'm never talking forever tops, can't determine that until forever gets here. The market cap for Bitcoin at 10 million would be 210 trillion which is almost 3 times the world GDP. That would also make it almost 100x the current total market cap of all crypto.

True, but in my opinion, the altcoins are a primary cause of the confusion, uncertainty and volatility right now, and the propnents of them are capitalizing on this trying to create the illusion of 'parity' between them and bitcoin, but there are two distinctions that make bitcoin unique:

1. It is the only truly decentralized, open source implementation, and

2. It is the only one that has a hard-coded inflation proof cap on the total number of bitcoins that can ever exist.

These two characteristics are what make it unique, and what, in my opinion, are why it is uniquely situated to... not 'take over' the world currency, but to be the choice of free thinking people to place their money. In other words, it won't take-over anything, people will simply choose it over the others.

This, combined with major ongoing upgrades and improvements to the fundamental protocol (like the recent taproot upgrade and continuing improvements in the Lightning network/protocol, are what will make it be the overall winner in the end.

Also, I'm not saying that means there is no room for competitors like maybe XRP, Ethereum, etc. Competition is almost always good, and I'm all in favor of it.

After many posts excoriating me for the link I will plead nolo contendere. The link isn't appropriate for ATS, not up to par. The crypto space is very much the wild west. So much so that the link I provided is hardly scratching the surface of how ugly it gets. It's still is out of place here and I've been rebuked.

No worries, I've done similar things too many times to count...