It's funny cause normally we think of high-school aged student drivers as still kinda young and inexperienced. But yeah, now that you put it like that I guess 15 years is pretty ancient for a currency.
I’m not pretending Bitcoin is new. My comment was because of that fact. It’s the same old tired song and dance. Bitcoin goes up: “these idiot kids got lucky.” Bitcoin goes down: “about time those idiots learn their lesson! Bitcoin’s a scam!”
Bitcoin is undeniably volatile, but it is becoming less volatile over time and it continues to (on an investment period longer than a year or so) be a fantastic hedge against inflation.
Even if you buy stocks, the general consensus is that you should be looking at a longer timeframe to ensure you can handle any short-term losses.
Yeah. "BTC Is an inflation hedge". Then BTC doesn't protect you from inflation. Then "Inflation hedge doesn't mean inflation or hedge, it really means..."
I'm tired of BTC community defining terms, and then redefining them when the statistics don't work out in their favor. I recognize that BTC community wants "number goes up", but just stick with that and be honest with yourself. Don't invent new bullshit terms for bullshit reasons that are discarded almost immediately.
That doesn’t mean it will continue to rise in the future. It also isn’t tied to anything outside of these very expensive exchanges. I can’t use bitcoin to buy a candy bar or pay someone to fix my toilet. Nor is there intrinsic worth to it.
Value is subjective, not intrinsic. It is guarenteed to rise like everything else of limited supply; the value of fiat currencies must necessarily decrease over time in their operation, because the base monetary unit can only be issued as credit which must be paid back at interest. Were the value of fiat currencies to increase in any meaningful sense, it will result in widespread defaults in the banking sector.
Lunacoins / Terracoin foretell the fate of all cryptocurrencies. They might have some monetary qualities, but they lack the important bits like hardness.
The problem with vapid statements is that I can just copy/paste your argument and change the words around... demonstrating how its a useless phrase all together.
-----------
"Inflation Hedge" would be a truly useful thing. That's why it sticks, because people desperately want to prove BTC to be useful. Unfortunately, the stats just don't work out, so you see people twisting the meaning of "inflation" and "hedge" in this very thread.
"Hedges" are things that have high amounts of correlation. (Ex: Hedge on gasoline would be buying assets correlated with gasoline. Exxon, or maybe Brent Crude). And the r-value / correlations can be readily demonstrated. Either positive r-value or negative, it doesn't matter. The important bit is that there's a strong correlation (or anti-correlation).
Hardness is literally a monetary quality, its a moneys resistance to inflation. If the Zimbabwean dollar were to gain value it would be immediately printed into oblivion, exploited for all its worth. The same does go for basically every cryptocurrency, bitcoin is the only one whos total supply is fixed, reliably. Your ignorance of these monetary qualities and what role they play does not make it a vapid arguement.
Other cryptos tend to track bitcoin because of increased demand from people who dont understand the qualitative difference between a quality product and scams. Bitcoin holds the majority of market share, and over time basically all of these loose 100% of their value. You should ask yourself what causes bitcoin to have a floor when its had 4 80+% drops in its lifetime.
I find it fascinating just how fixed everyone is on this topic. You are either for it or against it and will die trying to prove the other side wrong. We are just a few steps away from having a Holy War lol.
What is going to be different about the next five years vs. the past five years? The point is that inflation happened and the price of Bitcoin in USD went down. Why is that pattern going to change?
Or you could just look at the last 15 years and stop pretending that BTC is anything new.
If BTC were a person, it'd be entering high school and thinking about a student-driver license. We've got an extensive history to draw upon now.
It's funny cause normally we think of high-school aged student drivers as still kinda young and inexperienced. But yeah, now that you put it like that I guess 15 years is pretty ancient for a currency.
I’m not pretending Bitcoin is new. My comment was because of that fact. It’s the same old tired song and dance. Bitcoin goes up: “these idiot kids got lucky.” Bitcoin goes down: “about time those idiots learn their lesson! Bitcoin’s a scam!”
Bitcoin is undeniably volatile, but it is becoming less volatile over time and it continues to (on an investment period longer than a year or so) be a fantastic hedge against inflation.
Even if you buy stocks, the general consensus is that you should be looking at a longer timeframe to ensure you can handle any short-term losses.
> It’s the same old tired song and dance.
Yeah. "BTC Is an inflation hedge". Then BTC doesn't protect you from inflation. Then "Inflation hedge doesn't mean inflation or hedge, it really means..."
I'm tired of BTC community defining terms, and then redefining them when the statistics don't work out in their favor. I recognize that BTC community wants "number goes up", but just stick with that and be honest with yourself. Don't invent new bullshit terms for bullshit reasons that are discarded almost immediately.
> be a fantastic hedge against inflation.
Holy crap here we go again.
A history of bitcoin capturing orders of magnitude more value over basically any 4 year period, yea, the records pretty good for an emerging money.
That doesn’t mean it will continue to rise in the future. It also isn’t tied to anything outside of these very expensive exchanges. I can’t use bitcoin to buy a candy bar or pay someone to fix my toilet. Nor is there intrinsic worth to it.
Value is subjective, not intrinsic. It is guarenteed to rise like everything else of limited supply; the value of fiat currencies must necessarily decrease over time in their operation, because the base monetary unit can only be issued as credit which must be paid back at interest. Were the value of fiat currencies to increase in any meaningful sense, it will result in widespread defaults in the banking sector.
> It is guarenteed to rise like everything else of limited supply
They aren't making any more VHS copies of Toy Story, which IIRC was estimated to be ~21 Million copies of tape.
You are being pedantic, bitcoin has monetary qualities that put it in contention in this regard.
Okay.
* Zimbabwean dollars aren't being made anymore.
* Lunacoins / Terracoin isn't being made anymore.
Do these have any reason to go up? And they are (were) real currencies / cryptocoins.
> * Lunacoins / Terracoin isn't being made anymore.*
Actually, it is. There is even activity in the repos.
https://github.com/terra-money
People still trade it too:
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/terra-luna-v2/
I don't agree with it personally, but just clarifying a fact.
I'm not talking about terra-luna v2.
I'm talking about v1.
Zimbabwean dollars foretell the fate of all paper currencies, they might have some monetary qualities, but they lack the important bits like hardness.
Lunacoins / Terracoin foretell the fate of all cryptocurrencies. They might have some monetary qualities, but they lack the important bits like hardness.
The problem with vapid statements is that I can just copy/paste your argument and change the words around... demonstrating how its a useless phrase all together.
-----------
"Inflation Hedge" would be a truly useful thing. That's why it sticks, because people desperately want to prove BTC to be useful. Unfortunately, the stats just don't work out, so you see people twisting the meaning of "inflation" and "hedge" in this very thread.
"Hedges" are things that have high amounts of correlation. (Ex: Hedge on gasoline would be buying assets correlated with gasoline. Exxon, or maybe Brent Crude). And the r-value / correlations can be readily demonstrated. Either positive r-value or negative, it doesn't matter. The important bit is that there's a strong correlation (or anti-correlation).
Hardness is literally a monetary quality, its a moneys resistance to inflation. If the Zimbabwean dollar were to gain value it would be immediately printed into oblivion, exploited for all its worth. The same does go for basically every cryptocurrency, bitcoin is the only one whos total supply is fixed, reliably. Your ignorance of these monetary qualities and what role they play does not make it a vapid arguement.
Why is BTC so correlated to DOGE?
Why is there such a correlation between all cryptocoins and BTC?
Methinks your definition of "hardness" isn't as important as you think it is.
Other cryptos tend to track bitcoin because of increased demand from people who dont understand the qualitative difference between a quality product and scams. Bitcoin holds the majority of market share, and over time basically all of these loose 100% of their value. You should ask yourself what causes bitcoin to have a floor when its had 4 80+% drops in its lifetime.
I find it fascinating just how fixed everyone is on this topic. You are either for it or against it and will die trying to prove the other side wrong. We are just a few steps away from having a Holy War lol.
The difference is that only one side have, at one time, been on the other side. Until they saw the error of their ways.
The desperate rationalisation will only increase with each halving cycle. The oh-so-clever "tulips" joke is becoming increasingly tragic.
I believe Bitcoin is a bit more durable than a VHS, but this is a fun comparison nonetheless.
Fun as in buffoonery.
Why not? You could open a store and accept it as a method of payment.
What is going to be different about the next five years vs. the past five years? The point is that inflation happened and the price of Bitcoin in USD went down. Why is that pattern going to change?