Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Post Reply
Topic Author
GuyLafleur
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 5:51 pm

Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by GuyLafleur »

Hi all,

I'm agnostic on Bitcoin, but would be interested to know what some of the more economics-minded posters think of the Winklevoss twins' arguments as to why the Dollar, gold, and oil are not long-term stores of value, but Bitcoin is: https://winklevosscapital.com/the-case- ... k-bitcoin/
User avatar
arcticpineapplecorp.
Posts: 6084
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:22 pm

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by arcticpineapplecorp. »

GuyLafleur wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 1:17 pm Hi all,

I'm agnostic on Bitcoin, but would be interested to know what some of the more economics-minded posters think of the Winklevoss twins' arguments as to why the Dollar, gold, and oil are not long-term stores of value, but Bitcoin is: https://winklevosscapital.com/the-case- ... k-bitcoin/
why not $1 million:

https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... ts+bitcoin

love this:
And if stock market gains are your measure of success, you will choose not to upset the apple cart, even if it’s wildly untethered to reality. You will naturally avoid a painful intervention and rehabilitation and continue to kick the can down the road as long as you can.
right. because stocks can't be valued (in reality) but bitcoin can?
It's "Stay" the course, not Stray the Course. Buy and Hold works. You should really try it sometime. get a plan: www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Investment_policy_statement
MotoTrojan
Posts: 10622
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:39 pm

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by MotoTrojan »

The scarcity argument for gold while on the surface kind of nuts is a pretty fascinating concept. Flying across the world sounded crazy not that long ago, so at some point we may be able to access the vast amounts of gold beneath our deepest oceans and in space. More realistically though I think a bigger risk is a supply-shock from a central bank deciding to do away with it.

Rational Reminder had a great episode recently on gold I recommend a listen to: https://rationalreminder.ca/podcast/111

As to the Winklevoss twins argument, I just don't understand how you can talk about scarcity (yes I get that BTC has a fixed number available) when you could make an infinite number of functional cryptocurrencies. There is a reason gold is gold and I can't just show up with some carbon steel and demand $2000/oz. If gold was more plentiful it would be used in a staggering amount of applications, but even with it's scarcity there are many that demand it's use and will gladly pay the price.
Anon9001
Posts: 681
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:28 am
Location: भारत

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by Anon9001 »

There were threads on Bitcoin going back to 2011 here and I am astonished how these forum posters keep repeating the same line "scam" "worthless" even when it gone from 1$ to 11,000 USD. You would think they would have gotten more humble in their ramblings due to how wrong they got the out-come. I would not be suprised if they keep rambling about it being a scam even if it reaches 500,000 USD that Winkelovoss think is fair value. Don't rely on advice here regarding Bitcoins. These people don't understand it like they don't understand Tech stocks. As for my opinion It could go either way to Moon of 500,000 or 0. I will not make any predictions regarding this asset. It is too soon to say anything. It is like early Internet in terms of clumsiness and slowness.
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 41770
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by nisiprius »

In 2013 the Winklevoss twins filed for creation of a bitcoin ETF, and got it assigned the ticker symbol COIN. They have continuously announced that it was just a few months away from regulatory approval, at least through 2018. Perhaps they've finally stopped, I'm not sure. Many stories about how someone in the SEC was secretly on their side, then after it was rejected they were going to get it reconsidered, etc.

In 2019, the Winklevoss twins announced the launch of an app called SPEDN, said that they were "we're actually delivering on the spend use case of using your crypto," claimed that the app was accepted by a couple of dozen major retailers including Starbucks, Nordstrom's, and Whole Foods. The app appears to be dead and no crypto fan on Bogleheads has reported ever being able to use it to buy anything.

I have long since written off anything they say as having any credibility. They're charlatans. And they're perpetually selling bitcoin-related things. Might as well pay attention to what Charles Ponzi has to say about the future value of international postal reply coupons.
Last edited by nisiprius on Fri Aug 28, 2020 1:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
donfairplay
Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:16 pm

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by donfairplay »

The "Winklevii" aren't suing me for intellectual property theft. They're suing me because for the first time in their lives, things didn't go exactly the way they were supposed to for them.
- Mark Zuckerberg (as played by Jesse Eisenberg), The Social Network
JHU ALmuni
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 12:40 pm

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by JHU ALmuni »

Asking about BTC here is like asking about oil on renewable energy forums :mrgreen: personally I started investing in BTC and other alt coins two years ago. No regrets :beer
User avatar
djmbob
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 6:16 pm

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by djmbob »

Oh yes, it's "safer" than other investments, I've heard....

Oops, wait a sec... https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/s ... n-hackers/

Cheers,
Ray
drk
Posts: 1917
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:33 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by drk »

arcticpineapplecorp. wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 1:18 pm why not $1 million:
"A million dollars isn't cool. You know what's cool? A billion dollars."
Day9
Posts: 952
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 6:22 pm

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by Day9 »

Deja vu from every Christmas party I attended in 2017
I'm just a fan of the person I got my user name from
FireAway
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:56 pm

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by FireAway »

These chumps own enormous quantities of bitcoin. Of course they're bullish on it. Why would anyone value their opinion on this? This is just pump and dump.

BTW, that doesn't mean I disbelieve that bitcoin could go way up. Just that these two are the last people I would look to for advice on this subject.
User avatar
DDubya
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by DDubya »

Some years ago I listened to a podcast with a founder of Xapo, a bitcoin wallet. He said bitcoin had a "non-trivial" chance of being valued at $1 million and a "non-trivial" chance of being valued at $0. This never struck me as the definition of a store of value.
"The intensity of the conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing on whether it is true or not." | "No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up."
JBTX
Posts: 6802
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 12:46 pm

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by JBTX »

While I have no idea how it should be valued or will be valued in the future, I am half tempted to buy one or two just for entertainment purposes.

If one wanted to buy some what is the safest way to buy it?

The article while somewhat hyperbolic did articulate some valid points. I actually thought the total bitcoin value = total gold value at least thought provoking. Also never really gave much thought to gold supply exploding due to space travel, but I would think that would have to be very far into the future- decades.
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 41770
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by nisiprius »

Why would anyone consider bitcoin to be a "store of value" when nothing in Satoshi Nakamoto's paper says that that was a design goal?

The "store of value" and "digital gold" are retconned storylines that were invented only after it became clear that bitcoin had failed completely at it's stated purpose, which was for a) "small casual transactions," b) over the Internet, at c) a much much lower cost than credit cards. The whole argument was that the possibility of reversing transactions was costly because of the need for mediation, and that huge cost savings were possible by designing a system in which transactions were irreversible.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
User avatar
ohboy!
Posts: 265
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2018 2:21 pm

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by ohboy! »

Anon9001 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 1:35 pm There were threads on Bitcoin going back to 2011 here and I am astonished how these forum posters keep repeating the same line "scam" "worthless" even when it gone from 1$ to 11,000 USD. You would think they would have gotten more humble in their ramblings due to how wrong they got the out-come. I would not be suprised if they keep rambling about it being a scam even if it reaches 500,000 USD that Winkelovoss think is fair value. Don't rely on advice here regarding Bitcoins. These people don't understand it like they don't understand Tech stocks. As for my opinion It could go either way to Moon of 500,000 or 0. I will not make any predictions regarding this asset. It is too soon to say anything. It is like early Internet in terms of clumsiness and slowness.
Hit....the....nail...on...the....head

https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency ... _term=link
Last edited by ohboy! on Fri Aug 28, 2020 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ballons
Posts: 435
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2019 3:05 pm

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by ballons »

Anon9001 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 1:35 pm There were threads on Bitcoin going back to 2011 here and I am astonished how these forum posters keep repeating the same line "scam" "worthless" even when it gone from 1$ to 11,000 USD. You would think they would have gotten more humble in their ramblings due to how wrong they got the out-come. I would not be suprised if they keep rambling about it being a scam even if it reaches 500,000 USD that Winkelovoss think is fair value. Don't rely on advice here regarding Bitcoins. These people don't understand it like they don't understand Tech stocks. As for my opinion It could go either way to Moon of 500,000 or 0. I will not make any predictions regarding this asset. It is too soon to say anything. It is like early Internet in terms of clumsiness and slowness.
And yet you still use USD to pay for your electricity and internet service to post about the benefits of bitcoin.

Telling people to seek out confirmation bias is terrible financial advice.
User avatar
ohboy!
Posts: 265
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2018 2:21 pm

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by ohboy! »

nisiprius wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 3:19 pm Why would anyone consider bitcoin to be a "store of value" when nothing in Satoshi Nakamoto's paper says that that was a design goal?

The "store of value" and "digital gold" are retconned storylines that were invented only after it became clear that bitcoin had failed completely at it's stated purpose, which was for a) "small casual transactions," b) over the Internet, at c) a much much lower cost than credit cards. The whole argument was that the possibility of reversing transactions was costly because of the need for mediation, and that huge cost savings were possible by designing a system in which transactions were irreversible.
Coinbase or Binance are the two easiest ways that I know of for US persons.
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 41770
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by nisiprius »

JBTX wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 3:14 pm...If one wanted to buy some what is the safest way to buy it?...
I would guess: in the form of a US-registered bitcoin ETF that holds actual bitcoin assets, registered with the SEC and regulated under the Investment Company Act of 1940. With all the usual protections, such as requiring the bitcoin assets to be held by an independent custodian. And I don't think there is one. Which I think tell you something. And I don't expect to see one soon.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 41770
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by nisiprius »

ohboy! wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 3:22 pm
nisiprius wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 3:19 pm Why would anyone consider bitcoin to be a "store of value" when nothing in Satoshi Nakamoto's paper says that that was a design goal?

The "store of value" and "digital gold" are retconned storylines that were invented only after it became clear that bitcoin had failed completely at it's stated purpose, which was for a) "small casual transactions," b) over the Internet, at c) a much much lower cost than credit cards. The whole argument was that the possibility of reversing transactions was costly because of the need for mediation, and that huge cost savings were possible by designing a system in which transactions were irreversible.
Coinbase or Binance are the two easiest ways that I know of for US persons.
Those are exchanges. That isn't buying things with bitcoin, any more than you "can buy things from Amazon with bitcoin" just because there are sellers on the Internet who will sell you USD-denominated Amazon gift cards in exchange for bitcoin.

They require trust in a centralized authority. That trust has often been misplaced. Exchanges have frequently been fraudulent and collapsed, with no way for defrauded depositors to recover. And whenever it happens, the bitcoin advocates say that it was the victim's own fault because nobody should use exchanges, everybody should use personal bitcoin wallets.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
User avatar
arcticpineapplecorp.
Posts: 6084
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:22 pm

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by arcticpineapplecorp. »

Anon9001 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 1:35 pm There were threads on Bitcoin going back to 2011 here and I am astonished how these forum posters keep repeating the same line "scam" "worthless" even when it gone from 1$ to 11,000 USD. You would think they would have gotten more humble in their ramblings due to how wrong they got the out-come. I would not be suprised if they keep rambling about it being a scam even if it reaches 500,000 USD that Winkelovoss think is fair value. Don't rely on advice here regarding Bitcoins. These people don't understand it like they don't understand Tech stocks. As for my opinion It could go either way to Moon of 500,000 or 0. I will not make any predictions regarding this asset. It is too soon to say anything. It is like early Internet in terms of clumsiness and slowness.
1. it's not just bogleheads. it's bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... the-market

2. bogleheads do understand Tech. They understand it's best to own Tech as part of a broadly diversified portfolio, generally according to its market weighted capitalization. This avoids taking sector risk.

3. it's too soon to know whether bitcoin will go to the moon or to $0?

when will you be able to say something?

please let us know when you've figured it out.

of course, by then it would be too late, right?
It's "Stay" the course, not Stray the Course. Buy and Hold works. You should really try it sometime. get a plan: www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Investment_policy_statement
User avatar
geerhardusvos
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2019 10:20 pm
Location: heavenlies

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by geerhardusvos »

Day9 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 2:15 pm Deja vu from every Christmas party I attended in 2017
+1

One nice thing about working from home is that I don’t have to hear about the lame “investment” choices my coworkers are making
VTSAX and chill
Edward Joseph
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2017 9:52 am

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by Edward Joseph »

drk wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 2:14 pm
arcticpineapplecorp. wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 1:18 pm why not $1 million:
"A million dollars isn't cool. You know what's cool? A billion dollars."
Lol! “Drop the the. It’s cleaner.”
oldfort
Posts: 1550
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2020 8:45 pm

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by oldfort »

One area where Bitcoin has completely failed is as a medium of exchange. 300k transactions a day happen on the blockchain. VISA does 500 million transactions a day. Bitcoin usage for everyday purchases is nil.
oldfort
Posts: 1550
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2020 8:45 pm

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by oldfort »

Anon9001 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 1:35 pm There were threads on Bitcoin going back to 2011 here and I am astonished how these forum posters keep repeating the same line "scam" "worthless" even when it gone from 1$ to 11,000 USD. You would think they would have gotten more humble in their ramblings due to how wrong they got the out-come. I would not be suprised if they keep rambling about it being a scam even if it reaches 500,000 USD that Winkelovoss think is fair value. Don't rely on advice here regarding Bitcoins. These people don't understand it like they don't understand Tech stocks. As for my opinion It could go either way to Moon of 500,000 or 0. I will not make any predictions regarding this asset. It is too soon to say anything. It is like early Internet in terms of clumsiness and slowness.
It is a scam. One day Bitcoin will be worthless. It's mathematically inevitable. Madoff's Ponzi scheme lasted what 16+ years. Bitcoin's been around for at most 11 years.
Last edited by oldfort on Fri Aug 28, 2020 4:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Nate79
Posts: 6342
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 6:24 pm
Location: Delaware

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by Nate79 »

There are 3 things certain in life. Death. Taxes. And that in every bitcoin thread there is at least one fanboy (who somehow drifted over here from reddit land) who states that Bogleheads are ignorant because they just don't understand bitcoin enough and that it has gone up so much in the past, mocking those that call it a scam, so blah blah blah.
hyperon
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 1:05 pm

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by hyperon »

oldfort wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 4:19 pm
Anon9001 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 1:35 pm There were threads on Bitcoin going back to 2011 here and I am astonished how these forum posters keep repeating the same line "scam" "worthless" even when it gone from 1$ to 11,000 USD. You would think they would have gotten more humble in their ramblings due to how wrong they got the out-come. I would not be suprised if they keep rambling about it being a scam even if it reaches 500,000 USD that Winkelovoss think is fair value. Don't rely on advice here regarding Bitcoins. These people don't understand it like they don't understand Tech stocks. As for my opinion It could go either way to Moon of 500,000 or 0. I will not make any predictions regarding this asset. It is too soon to say anything. It is like early Internet in terms of clumsiness and slowness.
It is a scam. One day Bitcoin will be worthless. It's mathematically inevitable. Madoff's Ponzi scheme lasted what 16+ years. Bitcoin's been around for at most 11 years.
One day everything will be worthless. It's a non-prediction.
oldfort wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 4:19 pm It's mathematically inevitable.
Please explain.
hyperon
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 1:05 pm

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by hyperon »

Nate79 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 4:34 pm There are 3 things certain in life. Death. Taxes. And that in every bitcoin thread there is at least one fanboy (who somehow drifted over here from reddit land) who states that Bogleheads are ignorant because they just don't understand bitcoin enough and that it has gone up so much in the past, mocking those that call it a scam, so blah blah blah.
I'd suggest that the ignorance lies in the expressions of certainty of any of the discussed outcomes; whether it goes to infinity or zero. If it goes to zero, people who said it's a scam will say we told you so. If it goes to $1,000,000 Bitcoin bulls will say we told you so. This is what is ridiculous; it has little to do with Bitcoin.
000
Posts: 2180
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 12:04 am

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by 000 »

The comparison to Gold is funny (note: I own it).

Which is more likely:
1. Someone designing an efficient algorithm for a relevant mathematical operation, making counterfeiting Bitcoin easily done on any PC?
2. Someone figuring out how to synthesize Au from non-Au atomic elements?
000
Posts: 2180
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 12:04 am

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by 000 »

I will also note that the scarcity claim is absurd. There is no scarcity of numbers and no scarcity of cryptocurrencies that can be created.
User avatar
HomerJ
Posts: 15081
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:50 pm

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by HomerJ »

GuyLafleur wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 1:17 pm Hi all,

I'm agnostic on Bitcoin, but would be interested to know what some of the more economics-minded posters think of the Winklevoss twins' arguments as to why the Dollar, gold, and oil are not long-term stores of value, but Bitcoin is: https://winklevosscapital.com/the-case- ... k-bitcoin/
Oh, are Winklevoss neutral parties? Or do they stand to gain from bitcoin going up?
A Goldman Sachs associate provided a variety of detailed explanations, but then offered a caveat, “If I’m being dead-### honest, though, nobody knows what’s really going on.”
hyperon
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 1:05 pm

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by hyperon »

HomerJ wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:13 pm
GuyLafleur wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 1:17 pm Hi all,

I'm agnostic on Bitcoin, but would be interested to know what some of the more economics-minded posters think of the Winklevoss twins' arguments as to why the Dollar, gold, and oil are not long-term stores of value, but Bitcoin is: https://winklevosscapital.com/the-case- ... k-bitcoin/
Oh, are Winklevoss neutral parties? Or do they stand to gain from bitcoin going up?
The internet believes they have Bitcoin holdings in excess of a billion dollars. They are a great distance from neutrality.
User avatar
HomerJ
Posts: 15081
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:50 pm

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by HomerJ »

Anon9001 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 1:35 pm There were threads on Bitcoin going back to 2011 here and I am astonished how these forum posters keep repeating the same line "scam" "worthless" even when it gone from 1$ to 11,000 USD. You would think they would have gotten more humble in their ramblings due to how wrong they got the out-come. I would not be suprised if they keep rambling about it being a scam even if it reaches 500,000 USD that Winkelovoss think is fair value. Don't rely on advice here regarding Bitcoins. These people don't understand it like they don't understand Tech stocks. As for my opinion It could go either way to Moon of 500,000 or 0. I will not make any predictions regarding this asset. It is too soon to say anything. It is like early Internet in terms of clumsiness and slowness.
So you agree with us. Scams can last a long time.

How long did Bernie Madoff last?
A Goldman Sachs associate provided a variety of detailed explanations, but then offered a caveat, “If I’m being dead-### honest, though, nobody knows what’s really going on.”
hyperon
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 1:05 pm

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by hyperon »

000 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:12 pm I will also note that the scarcity claim is absurd. There is no scarcity of numbers and no scarcity of cryptocurrencies that can be created.
Sorry, but this comment shows a clear misunderstanding of what is meant by Bitcoin's scarcity, especially "and no scarcity of cryptocurrencies that can be created." As I've said in other Bitcoin threads, perhaps the issues that arise on this forum when discussing Bitcoin have little to do with Bitcoin and more to do with the tendency of members to post even though they don't have "informed" opinions.
User avatar
HomerJ
Posts: 15081
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:50 pm

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by HomerJ »

oldfort wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 4:19 pm
Anon9001 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 1:35 pm There were threads on Bitcoin going back to 2011 here and I am astonished how these forum posters keep repeating the same line "scam" "worthless" even when it gone from 1$ to 11,000 USD. You would think they would have gotten more humble in their ramblings due to how wrong they got the out-come. I would not be suprised if they keep rambling about it being a scam even if it reaches 500,000 USD that Winkelovoss think is fair value. Don't rely on advice here regarding Bitcoins. These people don't understand it like they don't understand Tech stocks. As for my opinion It could go either way to Moon of 500,000 or 0. I will not make any predictions regarding this asset. It is too soon to say anything. It is like early Internet in terms of clumsiness and slowness.
It is a scam. One day Bitcoin will be worthless. It's mathematically inevitable. Madoff's Ponzi scheme lasted what 16+ years. Bitcoin's been around for at most 11 years.
This... didn't read this until after I commented on Madoff. Bitcoin could last another decade... but someday it WILL be worthless.

Blockchain is something. But Bitcoin will someday disappear.

Just like the Internet is something. Do you still use the Netscape browser?
A Goldman Sachs associate provided a variety of detailed explanations, but then offered a caveat, “If I’m being dead-### honest, though, nobody knows what’s really going on.”
000
Posts: 2180
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 12:04 am

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by 000 »

hyperon wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:21 pm
000 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:12 pm I will also note that the scarcity claim is absurd. There is no scarcity of numbers and no scarcity of cryptocurrencies that can be created.
Sorry, but this comment shows a clear misunderstanding of what is meant by Bitcoin's scarcity, especially "and no scarcity of cryptocurrencies that can be created." As I've said in other Bitcoin threads, perhaps the issues that arise on this forum when discussing Bitcoin have little to do with Bitcoin and more to do with the tendency of members to post even though they don't have "informed" opinions.
No, I understand the claims. The problem is that as demand for bitcoin increases, there will be an increasing supply of altcoins to temper its price. Any altcoin that has as good or better guarantees of security, privacy, etc. is a substitute for bitcoin. In fact, due to the scalability and privacy issues of bitcoin, I imagine someone can create an altcoin that is even more suitable for the purposes for which bitcoin holders are holding it.

Because bitcoin hasn't gone mainstream yet, it doesn't have enough "network effect" to stop this from happening.
User avatar
HomerJ
Posts: 15081
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:50 pm

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by HomerJ »

hyperon wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:21 pm
000 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:12 pm I will also note that the scarcity claim is absurd. There is no scarcity of numbers and no scarcity of cryptocurrencies that can be created.
Sorry, but this comment shows a clear misunderstanding of what is meant by Bitcoin's scarcity, especially "and no scarcity of cryptocurrencies that can be created." As I've said in other Bitcoin threads, perhaps the issues that arise on this forum when discussing Bitcoin have little to do with Bitcoin and more to do with the tendency of members to post even though they don't have "informed" opinions.
Nope, you're not informed either. Bitcoins have scarcity built-in, but crypto-currencies do not. Infinite number of crypto-currencies can be built, and built better than bitcoin.

Bitcoin DOES NOT WORK as a currency. maybe the next one will.

Do you know how many automobile companies existed after the internal combustion engine was invented? Here's just the Bs....

A crypto-currency may actually work as currency someday, but it probably won't be bitcoin.

Babcock, H.H. Company (1909–1913)[27]
Babcok Electric Carriage Co. (1906–1912)
Baby Moose (1914)
Bachelle Electric (1900–1903)[10]
Bacon (1901, 1919–1920)[10]
Badger (1910–1911)[28]
Based in Wisconsin
Bailey (1907–1910)[10]
Baker Electric (1899–1916)[29]
Based in Cleveland
Balboa (1924–1925)[10]
Baldner (1900–1903)[10]
Baldwin (1899–1901)[10]
Ball Steam (1868, 1902)[10]
Balzer (1894–1900)
Banker (1905)[10]
Bantam (1914)[30]
Distinct from American Bantam
Barbarino (1923–1925)[10]
Barley Motor Car Co. (1916–1929)
Barrows Electric (1895–1899)[31]
Bates Automobile Company (1904–1905)
Bauer (1914–1916)[10][where?]
Bay State (1907–1908)[10]
Bean-Chamberlain Manufacturing Co. (1901–1902)
Hudson model
Beardsley (1914–1917)[10]
Beechcraft (1946)[32]
Beggs (1919–1923)[10]
Belden (1907–1911)[10]
Bell Motor Car Company (1916–1922)[33]
Based in Pennsylvania
Belmont Electric Auto Co. (1909–1910)
Belmont (1916)[34][where?]
Bendix (1908–1909)[10]
Benham Manufacturing Co. (1914)
Ben Hur (1917–1918)[35]
Based in Cleveland
Benner (1909)[10]
Berg (1903–1905)[36]
Based in Cleveland
Bergdoll (1910–1913)[10]
Berwick Auto Car Co. (1904)
Berkshire (1905–1912)[10]
Berliet[10][when?]
Bertolet (1908–1910)[10]
Bethlehem[37][when?]
Beverly (1904)[10]
Bi-Autogo (1908–1912)[38]
Biddle (1915–1922)
Beisel Motorette Company (1914)
Bimel (1916–1917)[10]
Binghamton Electric (1920)
Binney & Burnham (1901–1902)
Birch Motor Cars (1916–1923)[12]
Birmingham Motors (1921–1923)[10]
Black (1893, 1896–1900)[where?]
Black Motor Company (1908–1910))[39] Renamed to 'Black-Crow' in 1909
Blackhawk (1903)[10]
Blackhawk (1929–1930)
Bliss (1906)
B.L.M. (1906–1907)[10]
Blomstrom (C.H.) Motor Co. (1902–1903)[10][where?]
Blomstrom Manufacturing Co. (1907–1908)[10]
Gyroscope model, based in Michigan.
Blood Brothers Auto and Machine Company (1902–1906)
BMC (1952)[40]
Distinct from the British brand
Boardman (1946)[32]
Bobbi-Kar (1945–1947)[32]
Boisselot (1901)[10]
Borbein Electric (1900, 1904–1909)[10]
Borland Electric (1910–1916)[10]
Boss Steam Car (1897–1909)[41]
Boston-Amesbury (1902–1903)[10]
Boston High Wheel (1907)[10]
Bour-Davis Co. (1915–1922)
Bournonville[10][when?]
Bowman Motor Car Company (1921–1922)[10]
Bramwell (1904–1905)[10][where?]
Bramwell-Robinson (1899–1902)[10][where?]
Brasie (1914–1916)[10]
Brazier (1902–1903)[10]
Brecht (1901–1903)[41]
Brennan (1902–1908)[10]
Brew-Hatcher (1904–1905)
Brewster & Co. (1915–1925, 1934–1937)
Briggs and Stratton (1919–1923)[10]
Smith Flyer model
Briggs-Detroiter Motor Car Co. (1912–1917)
Brightwood[10][when?]
Briscoe Motor Co. (1913–1923)
Bristol (1903–1904)[41]
Broc Electric (1909–1916)[42]
Based in Cleveland
Brogan (1946–1950)[32]
Brook (1920–1921)[10]
Brooks Steamer (1927)[10]
Brown (1914)[10]
Brownie (1916)[43]
Browniekar (1908–1911)[43]
Brush Motor Car Company (1907–1912)
Bryan Steam Car (1918–1923)
Buckeye (1895)[44]
Based in Indiana
Buckmobile (1903–1905)
Buffalo Automobile and Auto-Bi Company (1900–1902)[10]
Buffalo Electric (1912–1915)
Buffum (1901–1907)
Buggy Car Company (1908–1909)[10]
Bugmobile (1907–1909)[45]
Based in Chicago
Burdick (1909)[43]
Burg (1910–1913)[43]
Burns (1908–1912)[43]
Burrows (1914–1915)
Burtt Manufacturing Co. (1902–1906)[10]
Cannon model
Bush (1916–1924)
A Goldman Sachs associate provided a variety of detailed explanations, but then offered a caveat, “If I’m being dead-### honest, though, nobody knows what’s really going on.”
000
Posts: 2180
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 12:04 am

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by 000 »

HomerJ wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:28 pm
hyperon wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:21 pm
000 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:12 pm I will also note that the scarcity claim is absurd. There is no scarcity of numbers and no scarcity of cryptocurrencies that can be created.
Sorry, but this comment shows a clear misunderstanding of what is meant by Bitcoin's scarcity, especially "and no scarcity of cryptocurrencies that can be created." As I've said in other Bitcoin threads, perhaps the issues that arise on this forum when discussing Bitcoin have little to do with Bitcoin and more to do with the tendency of members to post even though they don't have "informed" opinions.
Nope, you're not informed either. Bitcoins have scarcity built-in, but crypto-currencies do not. Infinite number of crypto-currencies can be built, and built better than bitcoin.

Bitcoin DOES NOT WORK as a currency. maybe the next one will.

Do you know how many automobile companies existed after the internal combustion engine was invented? Here's just the Bs....

A crypto-currency may actually work as currency someday, but it probably won't be bitcoin.

Babcock, H.H. Company (1909–1913)[27]
Babcok Electric Carriage Co. (1906–1912)
Baby Moose (1914)
Bachelle Electric (1900–1903)[10]
[...]
Great post.

As I stated in another Bitcoin thread here:
000 wrote: Tue Aug 18, 2020 8:42 pm It seems to me there is a modest chance that someone will be able to build a better cryptocurrency based on studying BTC.

"First mover advantage" has not always been a positive in tech:
  • UNIVAC vs IBM
  • SNA and DECnet vs TCP/IP
  • IBM vs ORCL
  • Xerox vs NeXT/Apple
  • IBM vs PC Clones
  • UNIX vs MSFT
  • BSD vs Linux
  • Early search engines vs Google
  • Myspace vs Facebook
  • RIM vs Apple
hyperon
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 1:05 pm

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by hyperon »

000 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:27 pm
hyperon wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:21 pm
000 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:12 pm I will also note that the scarcity claim is absurd. There is no scarcity of numbers and no scarcity of cryptocurrencies that can be created.
Sorry, but this comment shows a clear misunderstanding of what is meant by Bitcoin's scarcity, especially "and no scarcity of cryptocurrencies that can be created." As I've said in other Bitcoin threads, perhaps the issues that arise on this forum when discussing Bitcoin have little to do with Bitcoin and more to do with the tendency of members to post even though they don't have "informed" opinions.
No, I understand the claims. The problem is that as demand for bitcoin increases, there will be an increasing supply of altcoins to temper its price. Any altcoin that has as good or better guarantees of security, privacy, etc. is a substitute for bitcoin. In fact, due to the scalability and privacy issues of bitcoin, I imagine someone can create an altcoin that is even more suitable for the purposes for which bitcoin holders are holding it.

Because bitcoin hasn't gone mainstream yet, it doesn't have enough "network effect" to stop this from happening.
That makes much more sense; appreciate the clarification. I mostly agree, but know I just don't know...
hyperon
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 1:05 pm

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by hyperon »

HomerJ wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:28 pm
hyperon wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:21 pm
000 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:12 pm I will also note that the scarcity claim is absurd. There is no scarcity of numbers and no scarcity of cryptocurrencies that can be created.
Sorry, but this comment shows a clear misunderstanding of what is meant by Bitcoin's scarcity, especially "and no scarcity of cryptocurrencies that can be created." As I've said in other Bitcoin threads, perhaps the issues that arise on this forum when discussing Bitcoin have little to do with Bitcoin and more to do with the tendency of members to post even though they don't have "informed" opinions.
Nope, you're not informed either. Bitcoins have scarcity built-in, but crypto-currencies do not. Infinite number of crypto-currencies can be built, and built better than bitcoin.
Read my post. I didn't say otherwise (on both counts). There could be an infinite number of cryptocurrencies, and if there are still 21 million Bitcoin then Bitcoin itself is still "scarce."
User avatar
HomerJ
Posts: 15081
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:50 pm

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by HomerJ »

000 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:32 pm
HomerJ wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:28 pm
hyperon wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:21 pm
000 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:12 pm I will also note that the scarcity claim is absurd. There is no scarcity of numbers and no scarcity of cryptocurrencies that can be created.
Sorry, but this comment shows a clear misunderstanding of what is meant by Bitcoin's scarcity, especially "and no scarcity of cryptocurrencies that can be created." As I've said in other Bitcoin threads, perhaps the issues that arise on this forum when discussing Bitcoin have little to do with Bitcoin and more to do with the tendency of members to post even though they don't have "informed" opinions.
Nope, you're not informed either. Bitcoins have scarcity built-in, but crypto-currencies do not. Infinite number of crypto-currencies can be built, and built better than bitcoin.

Bitcoin DOES NOT WORK as a currency. maybe the next one will.

Do you know how many automobile companies existed after the internal combustion engine was invented? Here's just the Bs....

A crypto-currency may actually work as currency someday, but it probably won't be bitcoin.

Babcock, H.H. Company (1909–1913)[27]
Babcok Electric Carriage Co. (1906–1912)
Baby Moose (1914)
Bachelle Electric (1900–1903)[10]
[...]
Great post.

As I stated in another Bitcoin thread here:
000 wrote: Tue Aug 18, 2020 8:42 pm It seems to me there is a modest chance that someone will be able to build a better cryptocurrency based on studying BTC.

"First mover advantage" has not always been a positive in tech:
  • UNIVAC vs IBM
  • SNA and DECnet vs TCP/IP
  • IBM vs ORCL
  • Xerox vs NeXT/Apple
  • IBM vs PC Clones
  • UNIX vs MSFT
  • BSD vs Linux
  • Early search engines vs Google
  • Myspace vs Facebook
  • RIM vs Apple
I like this one... Talk about "before their time!"

Bachelle Electric (1900–1903)[10]
A Goldman Sachs associate provided a variety of detailed explanations, but then offered a caveat, “If I’m being dead-### honest, though, nobody knows what’s really going on.”
000
Posts: 2180
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 12:04 am

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by 000 »

HomerJ wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:48 pm I like this one... Talk about "before their time!"

Bachelle Electric (1900–1903)[10]
:mrgreen:
User avatar
HomerJ
Posts: 15081
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:50 pm

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by HomerJ »

hyperon wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:38 pm
HomerJ wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:28 pm
hyperon wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:21 pm
000 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:12 pm I will also note that the scarcity claim is absurd. There is no scarcity of numbers and no scarcity of cryptocurrencies that can be created.
Sorry, but this comment shows a clear misunderstanding of what is meant by Bitcoin's scarcity, especially "and no scarcity of cryptocurrencies that can be created." As I've said in other Bitcoin threads, perhaps the issues that arise on this forum when discussing Bitcoin have little to do with Bitcoin and more to do with the tendency of members to post even though they don't have "informed" opinions.
Nope, you're not informed either. Bitcoins have scarcity built-in, but crypto-currencies do not. Infinite number of crypto-currencies can be built, and built better than bitcoin.
Read my post. I didn't say otherwise (on both counts). There could be an infinite number of cryptocurrencies, and if there are still 21 million Bitcoin then Bitcoin itself is still "scarce."
Agreed. My apologies...
A Goldman Sachs associate provided a variety of detailed explanations, but then offered a caveat, “If I’m being dead-### honest, though, nobody knows what’s really going on.”
oldfort
Posts: 1550
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2020 8:45 pm

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by oldfort »

hyperon wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:00 pm
oldfort wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 4:19 pm
Anon9001 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 1:35 pm There were threads on Bitcoin going back to 2011 here and I am astonished how these forum posters keep repeating the same line "scam" "worthless" even when it gone from 1$ to 11,000 USD. You would think they would have gotten more humble in their ramblings due to how wrong they got the out-come. I would not be suprised if they keep rambling about it being a scam even if it reaches 500,000 USD that Winkelovoss think is fair value. Don't rely on advice here regarding Bitcoins. These people don't understand it like they don't understand Tech stocks. As for my opinion It could go either way to Moon of 500,000 or 0. I will not make any predictions regarding this asset. It is too soon to say anything. It is like early Internet in terms of clumsiness and slowness.
It is a scam. One day Bitcoin will be worthless. It's mathematically inevitable. Madoff's Ponzi scheme lasted what 16+ years. Bitcoin's been around for at most 11 years.
One day everything will be worthless. It's a non-prediction.
oldfort wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 4:19 pm It's mathematically inevitable.
Please explain.
Quantum computing will kill Bitcoin, if Bitcoin doesn’t die before then.
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 41770
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by nisiprius »

Serious question. Of the people in this thread who own bitcoin, how many of you have literally exchanged BTC 1.0 (or more) bitcoin for USD $10,000/BTC or more? That is, when you say bitcoin is "at" $11,000 or whatever, are you saying that because you personally have found someone willing to pay you USD $11,000 for one and you actually completed the transaction--perhaps to rebalance your portfolio? Or are you just saying $11,000 because you see that number on a web screen at Coindesk or somewhere like that?

Is this a personally tested market value?

I'm thinking waaaay back to a 1982 magazine article, Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond?
Last edited by nisiprius on Fri Aug 28, 2020 8:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
User avatar
bobcat2
Posts: 5434
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: just barely Outside the Beltway

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by bobcat2 »

FireAway wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 2:38 pm These chumps own enormous quantities of bitcoin. Of course they're bullish on it. Why would anyone value their opinion on this? This is just pump and dump.

BTW, that doesn't mean I disbelieve that bitcoin could go way up. Just that these two are the last people I would look to for advice on this subject.
:thumbsup :thumbsup

Whenever I read about the Winklevoss twins, I almost always think about the following.
Link - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3JtmZugzl4

Much like Larry Summers I am often devastated when listening to the Winklevii :!: :D

BobK
In finance risk is defined as uncertainty that is consequential (nontrivial). | The two main methods of dealing with financial risk are the matching of assets to goals & diversifying.
User avatar
HomerJ
Posts: 15081
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:50 pm

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by HomerJ »

FireAway wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 2:38 pm These chumps own enormous quantities of bitcoin. Of course they're bullish on it. Why would anyone value their opinion on this? This is just pump and dump.

BTW, that doesn't mean I disbelieve that bitcoin could go way up. Just that these two are the last people I would look to for advice on this subject.
Agreed. They could be 100% right, but you should NEVER EVER follow the advice of someone who will profit immensely from their prediction.
A Goldman Sachs associate provided a variety of detailed explanations, but then offered a caveat, “If I’m being dead-### honest, though, nobody knows what’s really going on.”
hyperon
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 1:05 pm

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by hyperon »

oldfort wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:57 pm
hyperon wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:00 pm
oldfort wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 4:19 pm
Anon9001 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 1:35 pm There were threads on Bitcoin going back to 2011 here and I am astonished how these forum posters keep repeating the same line "scam" "worthless" even when it gone from 1$ to 11,000 USD. You would think they would have gotten more humble in their ramblings due to how wrong they got the out-come. I would not be suprised if they keep rambling about it being a scam even if it reaches 500,000 USD that Winkelovoss think is fair value. Don't rely on advice here regarding Bitcoins. These people don't understand it like they don't understand Tech stocks. As for my opinion It could go either way to Moon of 500,000 or 0. I will not make any predictions regarding this asset. It is too soon to say anything. It is like early Internet in terms of clumsiness and slowness.
It is a scam. One day Bitcoin will be worthless. It's mathematically inevitable. Madoff's Ponzi scheme lasted what 16+ years. Bitcoin's been around for at most 11 years.
One day everything will be worthless. It's a non-prediction.
oldfort wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 4:19 pm It's mathematically inevitable.
Please explain.
Quantum computing will kill Bitcoin, if Bitcoin doesn’t die before then.
Sure, maybe (some big ifs in there), but if quantum computing gets that far then all our other electronically held investments are very likely equally at risk.
oldfort
Posts: 1550
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2020 8:45 pm

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by oldfort »

hyperon wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 8:20 pm
oldfort wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:57 pm
hyperon wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:00 pm
oldfort wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 4:19 pm
Anon9001 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 1:35 pm There were threads on Bitcoin going back to 2011 here and I am astonished how these forum posters keep repeating the same line "scam" "worthless" even when it gone from 1$ to 11,000 USD. You would think they would have gotten more humble in their ramblings due to how wrong they got the out-come. I would not be suprised if they keep rambling about it being a scam even if it reaches 500,000 USD that Winkelovoss think is fair value. Don't rely on advice here regarding Bitcoins. These people don't understand it like they don't understand Tech stocks. As for my opinion It could go either way to Moon of 500,000 or 0. I will not make any predictions regarding this asset. It is too soon to say anything. It is like early Internet in terms of clumsiness and slowness.
It is a scam. One day Bitcoin will be worthless. It's mathematically inevitable. Madoff's Ponzi scheme lasted what 16+ years. Bitcoin's been around for at most 11 years.
One day everything will be worthless. It's a non-prediction.
oldfort wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 4:19 pm It's mathematically inevitable.
Please explain.
Quantum computing will kill Bitcoin, if Bitcoin doesn’t die before then.
Sure, maybe (some big ifs in there), but if quantum computing gets that far then all our other electronically held investments are very likely equally at risk.
Not really, because security for other systems can be updated. The algorithms for Bitcoin are fixed at inception.
softwaregeek
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed May 08, 2019 8:59 pm

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by softwaregeek »

JBTX wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 3:14 pm While I have no idea how it should be valued or will be valued in the future, I am half tempted to buy one or two just for entertainment purposes.

If one wanted to buy some what is the safest way to buy it?

The article while somewhat hyperbolic did articulate some valid points. I actually thought the total bitcoin value = total gold value at least thought provoking. Also never really gave much thought to gold supply exploding due to space travel, but I would think that would have to be very far into the future- decades.
Coinbase, kraken and revolut are all good ways. Revolut is an incredibly interesting banking app that also does bitcoin.
000
Posts: 2180
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 12:04 am

Re: Winklevoss: The Case for $500,000 Bitcoin

Post by 000 »

oldfort wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 8:23 pm Not really, because security for other systems can be updated. The algorithms for Bitcoin are fixed at inception.
Yes. I will also add that major institutions have offline records. In fact, there is a whole company -- Iron Mountain -- dedicated to this.
Post Reply