1. Exchanges fake volume to make the books appear thicker than they are
1. Exchanges fake orders to make the books appear thicker than they are. Theres many examples of people doing a market sell only to find that most of the sell orders instantly disappear. That kind of behaviour is illegal in a healthy market, but not in the crypto wild West
1. Each exchange is isolated. The fragmented market makes it thinner (are you gonna sell across 100 different exchanges?). Some exchanges have been known to copy-paste other exchanges' order books into their own, with the plan that they will on-sell. This leads to double-counting.
You don't win imaginary fiat, it's the conversion rate if you go to the market right now and take offers at so price. inevitably someone ends up with more fiat than would like to hold and it goes back to pump the price again. It is its own thing not an arm of the government.
They don't. When they signal and when they buy isn't necessarily related. It's common practice for such people to pump their holdings by announcing them, same thing happens in the stock market. Even richer and more famous people wouldn't usually do it themselves, they just feed the info to the right journalists who do their work for them spreading the "news".
But sure, billionaires are sooo dumb. He's probably going to sell low and lose bigly. That's how he made his previous 12 billion dollars.
In this tweet he clarified that he started buying back in 2016 at $800 price, uses ButtScale.
This was necessary, because a condescending senior butter immediately assumed him to be part of a "stampede" and intentionally mixed up "portfolio" with "net worth"...
What's interesting to me about that tweet is the related tweets at the bottom with the btc hashtag. Absolutely, all of them is exactly "you need to buy, it will go up!".
Bitcoin is a new form of ponzi, it has the backing of global social network referrals. Welcome to web 3.0, where it's going to be all ponzi all the time!
jaumenuezwarning, I have the brain worms...5 days ago
10 year ponzi ? aha, so everything is a ponzi: Amazon, Apple, Google, what not! You are a very smart guy figuring this up by yourself in 2020. Bitcoin provides much more than just a save heaven for your wealth. No company, no government, no bank can provide that. Not too late for you to start saving some satoshis Mr. Butthurt.
>10 year ponzi ? aha, so everything is a ponzi: Amazon, Apple, Google, what not
Those are companies. They have revenue.
>Bitcoin provides much more than just a save heaven for your wealth
What's the much more part?
Btw, the selling point you guys have isn't that it's a "save heaven" (safe haven?), it's that it increases your wealth substantially. If it was supposed to a safe heaven, the argument would be "buy btc so your wealth can remain stable!" But if that was the PR, no one would buy it.
jaumenuezwarning, I have the brain worms...5 days ago
>>10 year ponzi ? aha, so everything is a ponzi: Amazon, Apple, Google, what not
>Those are companies. They have revenue.
So what? You buy shares. They provide something useful, just like the Bitcoin protocol.
>>Bitcoin provides much more than just a save heaven for your wealth
>What's the much more part?
A safe heaven is enough, but you can get privacy (aka Liberty). Some people still appreciate that. Read about cypherpunks, their efforts to create digital cash ( cash = anonymous payments) and why cypto is a thing. Do you even know what Bitcoin was created for? Who created it? Do you know what 'open source' means?
Also, if it gets enough mainstream traction as a SoV, it will be accepted for payments (using other protocol layers on top of Bitcoin).
>Btw, the selling point you guys have isn't that it's a "save heaven" (safe haven?), it's that it increases your wealth substantially. If it was supposed to a safe heaven, the argument would be "buy btc so your wealth can remain stable!" But if that was the PR, no one would buy it.
There is no "guys" here. Anyone can buy bitcoin for whatever reason they want, but Satoshi knew what he was doing:
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
He also knew how to bootstrap and incentivise something like this.
Bitcoin is a global revolution nobody can stop now. But don't worry, no one will force you to use it, you can stay at home looking through the window.
bitcoin1975warning, I have the brain worms...5 days ago
Lol. Yes they would. What do you think people bought gold for that gave it a multi trillion market cap? yeh...
Rich people and institutions don't buy the same way normies buy. Microstrat, for example, accumulated half a billion dollars worth of bitcoin without moving the price. They literally made tens of thousands of microtransactions to do it.
Likewise, i read an article a few years back on how Grayscale accumulated bitcoin at 4k for a reserve bitcoin fund. They just didn't tell anyone about it.
That is such a weird angle. We are being told that prices are going up because microstrategy and greyscale and whatever are accumulating bitcoin, now the argument is that the institutional demand has no impact on btc price?
...or, you know, he swapped his personal BTC stash for that paid for by his investors. It's possible.
Does the fact that even that article admits that even small movements of money swing the BTC price due to how thin the order books are?
No, I mean when bitcoin pumps, public figures keep coming out saying they wanna buy.
jmarrrk22warning, I have the brain worms...6 days ago
Please god, I hope this doesn't trigger Carlos Slim to fomo BTC to $20k+
If this pyramid scheme doesn't die like r/buttcoin predicted many times, and early adopter butters become the new wealthy elite, I will have to kill myself. What a nightmare.
thonbrocketwarning, I have the brain worms...6 days ago
>I will have to kill myself.
Yup. The only course compatible with honour.
I foresee a great gathering of r\\buttcoiners in, say, Jonestown, Guyana, where our GrandLizard jStolfi addresses the congregation on the subject of million-dollar Butts in lugubrious tones; following which everybody quaffs laxative-laced kombucha, and they shit themselves to death in serried ranks. Except, of course, the GL himself, who demurs when the handmaids offer up the fatal goblet, and wanders off, Scrooge-like, to caress his secret crypto hoard. Smart fella, that Stolfi.
All great tragedy to wives and sweethearts, of course. But comedy gold to any passing Butters.
jmarrrk22warning, I have the brain worms...6 days ago
lol. I'm surprised to see real comedy in a ~~hate~~ ~~propaganda~~ ~~cope~~ comedy subreddit.
Shitcoin84warning, I have the brain worms...6 days ago
Bitcoin = Nasdaq index
1) No connection to reality.
2) Trades irrationally.
3) Pumped by FED in the case of Nasdaq and pumped by Tether in the case of BTC.
4) Both are government indirectly/directly controlled.
5) Both fester extrem greed and rewards the worst type of people: psychos, megalomaniacs, thiefs, fraudsters, gamblers, and people in general with no moral compass.
And thats why the probability that both continue going up is quite high, yet both are a danger to society as a whole. In order to keep Nasdaq levitating, FED needs to print more which destablizes the system, and the higher BTC goes, the more legitimacy is being given to blockchain tech that will be used for the new CBDC monetary system, which will result in financial serfdom for the majority of us.
jmarrrk22warning, I have the brain worms...6 days ago
When cash production ends and we enter the totalitarian CBDC dystopia, the only escape will be gold/silver coins and BTC/ETH/XMR.
Otherwise 100% of your assets will be KYC'd and frozen with the press of a button if you commit thoughtcrime.
Drugs will be legalized. The new war will be against the underground trading of gold/silver/BTC/ETH/XMR.
Shitcoin84warning, I have the brain worms...5 days ago
What you are missing is that BTC is part of the totalitarian CBDC dystopia. That was the whole fucking purpose of BTC. Yet all you "libertarian" imbiciles swallowed the bait so easily, and the only thing they needed to do was to pump the price of bitcoin up.
Sheeps will forever stay sheeps.
jmarrrk22warning, I have the brain worms...5 days ago
nah, BTC is a giant gateway to freedom money like XMR
Shitcoin84warning, I have the brain worms...5 days ago
Only the feeble mind believes in Satoshi Pickahu. All the smart and open minded BTC investors i know of, aknowledge that its much more likely that it was created by the government.
Is there another ponzi in history which crashed and recovered 80-90% of its value multiple times over its lifespan, and was still running after more than 10 years? I don't understand this ponzi, how does it still exist?
it exists because there's no central person who controls cryptocurrency. this sub is fine for skepticism but asking a ridiculous question like "how does bitcoin still exist?" is just dumb when everyone and their mother has backups of the software and code used to run the various crypto networks.
Ponzi schemes have ongoing expenses(even if thats just paying out dividends to old investors) that cause them to constantly need more money and eventually collapse.
Bitcoin may be overpriced, but its not a ponzi scheme.
Holders don't have to pay miners though(aside from modest inflation I guess). And price doesn't need to rise constantly to avoid collapse. We have had bad years for Bitcoin and then good years.
Thats the key aspect of a ponzi scheme. If people lose confidence in it, ponzis run out of money and quickly go to 0. Bitcoin is more comparable to gold(gold as a raw material is worth a tiny fraction of gold as a speculative asset).. Its highly speculative and depends on overall confidence, which leads to big price swings, but its not going to quickly go to 0.
Fixed income frauds collapse as soon as there are no new investors. Bitcoin is an equity fraud. It crashes slowly when there are no new investors.
Miners are paid by new investors and the money lost to miners is money that will not be recovered. It's an ongoing cost that creates a negative sum game.
The scheme of John Law in the 18th century was similar to bitcoin. It was based on a new technology (paper money) plus a flawed theory of money plus of course a lot of investors. Every scheme like this sustains itself with new investors (it's a [pyramid scheme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme#/media/File:Pyramid_scheme.svg)).
Bitcoin is like that scheme except that it's global so it'll last a few more years.
> Every scheme like this sustains itself with new investors (it's a pyramid scheme).
So let's follow the logic. When there are no new investors, bitcoin goes to zero?
EDIT: And, just doing some cursory reading on John Law's Missippi bubble, I can already see some differences. Law's bubble relied on giving people claims that were assumed to be backed by something valuable. Bitcoin owners, however, don't have a claim anything valuable outside of the bitcoin they hold. It's fundamentally no different than holding any commodity.
When there are no new investors then it stops being profitable for previous investors and they'll slowly give up on it. In the walk toward zero there can be many booms and crashes as there were when it walked in the opposite direction.
It'll not be obvious that the "old era" has gone and the "new era" has arrived.
You're looking at the fine print and that doesn't really matter. The reason why people buy bitcoin is because the price went up. The same was true for Law's money.
Edit: And indeed, while most other schemes have an intellegible theory to support them, and once the theory is found to be false they collapse very rapidly, the same can't be said for bitcoin. As a result, there is no reason to expect any rapid collapse at all. I would say that it's similar to gold, except that it's completely worthless instead of partially worthless. It's like gold minus the industrial uses and/or the jewellery and all that. It's a concentrated of bad monetary economics. It's the gold standard minus gold the commodity.
But as I've said the fine print and the intellectual justification don't really matter. What really rules the roost is the easy profit. When that goes away the pseudo intellectuals will go away on their own. It's like trumpism in a sense. After trumpism loses power then all the trumpist pseudo intellectuals stop being trumpist. They're all quacks.
> once the theory is found to be false they collapse very rapidly, the same can't be said for bitcoin. As a result, there is no reason to expect any rapid collapse at all.
Bruh.... if the same can't be said for bitcoin, why expect **ANY** collapse ever???
> It's the gold standard minus gold the commodity.
So bitcoin is actually worth the monetary premium gold is. Hasn't gold has had that monetary premium for thousands of years?
If bitcoin has the same type of monetary premium that has given gold extra value for **thousands** of years **AND** by your own admission doesn't have a pyramid style intellectual scheme to collapse it's value..... I mean, what then, even is the point of this sub? Why bother waiting for bitcoin to collapse?
>Bruh.... if the same can't be said for bitcoin, why expect ANY collapse ever???
I've never said that I expect it to collapse. I expect its price to converge to zero because I know that people aren't willing to buy and hold pseudo assets with no value.
They may be willing to do it if they expect to sell at an higher price, but I know this expectation is a temporary thing that can't be sustained indefinitely.
>So bitcoin is actually worth the monetary premium gold is. Hasn't gold has had that monetary premium for thousands of years?
The "monetary premium" has vanished and reappeared multiple times. It's not something that you can rely on. It comes and goes. Its entire existence is based on a misunderstanding of monetary economics. The misunderstanding comes and goes.
>**AND** by your own admission doesn't have a pyramid style intellectual scheme to collapse it's value.....
You're making it sound as if a pyramid scheme with no passable intellectual arguments is more solid than the others. It's the opposite. Not having any argument makes it less solid. But at same time, indeed, it makes a sudden crash less likely.
The nature of the thing is the pyramid scheme. The talk doens't matter much. The talk matters only to the extent that it influences expected profits. But we know that the actual profits come from the other investors anyway.
Gold can afford to survive even without "monetary premium" but bitcoin can't. Bitcoin is based on a misunderstanding from start to finish. Gold may bubble up here and there due to the misunderstanding.
For example in the 90s, that is, 30 years ago, there was no "monetary premium" for gold. The price was below the cost of production and some central banks even liquidated large amounts of gold. Still, gold has survived because it can't go to zero.
> Still, gold has survived because it can't go to zero.
Well, at this point especially, neither can bitcoin!
I'll repeat what I said elsewhere. As long as subjective and particular reasons for buying bitcoin exists bitcoin can never go to zero. Thus, at the very worst, bitcoin is just like gold. And hence, the entire point of waiting for bitcoin to go to zero (and hence, this sub) is worthless.
And if you want to see how trivial "subjective and particular" reasons can be, just look at dogecoin. Dogecoin has a literal **infinite** inflation rate. If you buy doge, the value of your doge will **always be inflated away. It's literally worthless by design, because it's designed as a joke!** But people still buy it.
So if Dogecoin still has value, what hope do you have for seeing Bitcoin valueless?
Also, I would dispute the idea that just because the price of gold was below cost of production, that a monetary premium for gold did not exist. The monetary premium for gold is simply the amount of the price of gold that is determined by hoarding. After all, if people did not hoard gold, the price of gold would have been even lower relative to the cost of production.
Alright, so, two serious question.
1) What does "give up on it" even mean?
I would guess it means "sell at a lower and lower price". But.... what happens when the number of sellers at a particular low price runs out? Remember, there's only a finite amount of bitcoin.
2) Doesn't this assume that bitcoin isn't going to be used by any "investors" for its intended purpose as a medium of exchange? Remember, you can buy stuff on paypal with it now.
>Remember, you can buy stuff on paypal with it now.
You tell paypal i want 10 satoshis. They tell you based on marketprices it costs, say 10 dollars. You pay them usin fiat, and in your paypal profile, they say you have 10 satoshi (which is 10 usd).
Now you want to pay someone in paypal. Paypal tells you, cool, they remove it from your profile, and pay the other person 10 usd fiat.
At no point is the bitcoin in your btc wallet, at no point is blockchain used for transfer btc between the two parties. It's extremely annoying that we have heard that the reason btc is so revolutionary is blockchain and then everyone is excited about paypal for specifically not utilizing that at all.
All paypal basically does is this: it links your fiat to global market rate of btc.
"Give up" means more and more people are no longer willing to hold it because they don't expect to make a profit or even to break even on it (you've to actually earn 10%/year to keep up with the stock market).
The price doesn't matter, lower price encourages holding only if you expect it to bounce back. As these expectations are disappointed, it'll then crash again. It's a slow process and it's basically the opposite process of how it went up.
You can't "use" money in any sense. It's an asset that brings benefits to society because it circulates. These benefits are not captured in the price. It doesn't become valuable because it circulates. Rather it circulates because it's valuable. People generally expect money to preserve its value, and hence, they're willing to sell stuff for money. In the case of bitcoin, there is no such expectation. In case of bitcoin the expectation is for easy profit. When these profits fail to materialize people lose interest. It's not money.
Let's say it even more compactly: buying and selling it "as if it is money" doesn't make it money.
Alright, I'm going to have to go to sleep after this, but one more response....
1) OK, but I feel like this doesn't answer my question. What happens when sellers at a particular low price point simply don't show up? (Ex: at 500 dollars in 2030, not enough sellers are left for buyers to buy at under 500 dollars).
2) Your entire argument rests on the idea that the "previous investors" bought bitcoin **ONLY** to make a profit. But what if I want to buy and hold bitcoin for fun? What if I just want to buy ice cream with it, or use it to trade goods with my anarchist buddies?
Now, if we can imagine additional reasons why people would buy bitcoin other than profit (ex: fun), perhaps we might imagine others. Perhaps I would want to send money overseas. Perhaps my local currency is failing and I want a more reliable way of trading goods. Ect.
So as long as those reasons exist, simply saying "then it stops being profitable for previous investors and they'll slowly give up on it" is overly simplistic.
If sellers don't show up at 500 in 2030 and buyers do show up then price goes up. The problem for your argument is that you've to explain why buyers would show up at 500. Haven't they seen that it's a losing game? Haven't they lost enough money already? You're saying they're having fun and anarchism and all that. Well, in the end the economy is a biological system. Evolution slowly but surely filters out the losers. If you keep wasting money your girlfriend will tell you that she is not having much fun with you.
> Haven't they seen that it's a losing game?
If people are so susceptible to what you call "misunderstanding of monetary economics" why would you expect all potential buyers to see that it is a losing game? I mean, hell, people play the lottery do they not?
> Evolution slowly but surely filters out the losers.
So having fun trading collectibles and participating in social organizations is losing?
Look, my point is this. As long as subjective and particular reasons for buying bitcoin exists, simply saying "then it stops being profitable for previous investors and they'll slowly give up on it" is overly simplistic.
The misunderstanding of monetary economics doesn't matter much when the bitcoin (or the gold) price is going down and has been going down for several years. People want tangible results.
> So having fun trading collectibles and participating in social organizations is losing?
If your social organization takes money from X and gives to Y, at random, and it has a rather high cost to keep it up running, then, yes, it's a losing game. People won't have much fun with this.
> I mean, hell, people play the lottery do they not?
Yes basically it's a lottery ticket. The revenues for lotteries are going down over time as people learn that it's a waste of time.
I don't know I'm not a delusional religious grifting moron so I'm not familiar with the broken logic gymnastics you guys do. This guy is saying that 1 owning it makes it smart. I'm mocking him.
You seem like a deluded greedy moron, why don't you tell me. There's 2100 billionaires. How many need to own it to make it 'smart'?
You were the one who brought up numbers, ie "all the billionaires who didn't buy".
My response is that clearly the number of people who buy something doesn't matter. It's whether bitcoin is a sound thing to own that makes owning it a smart decision.
And clearly, at least one person who is intelligent and industrious enough to become a billionaire has decided that it is. Not exactly a "delusional, religious, greedy, grifting moron".
Oh I know. I've only encountered such thickness in coronavirus deniers and young earth creationists.
But it's good to talk to "the weirdos". Even if they're totally wrong, they still provide an education on "the folly of man", ie, how irrational and foolish humans can be. I find that keeps me humble. Who knows, maybe on some other issue, I'm just like the people I criticize!
And sometimes, the weirdos are even right! Or at least, they might provide an angle on an issue that you hadn't considered.
>Oh I know. I've only encountered such thickness in coronavirus deniers and young earth creationists.
You left the conversation when you couldn't even quote the right person and then had the arrogance to try to claim you were right when you could see in the thread you'd quoted the wrong person.
>But it's good to talk to "the weirdos". Even if they're totally wrong, they still provide an education on "the folly of man", ie, how irrational and foolish humans can be. I find that keeps me humble. Who knows, maybe on some other issue, I'm just like the people I criticize!
You Bitcoin cultists are exactly like anti-vaxxers and young earth creationists
so anything a billionaire does is instantly right and smart? no. of course not. its beyond stupid. you cant see that because you are not very smart yourself. not to mention you are deluded by your greed and rat like grubbing behavior
>And clearly, at least one person who is intelligent and industrious enough to become a billionaire has decided that it is. Not exactly a "delusional, religious, greedy, grifting moron".
But they're outnumbered by the majority of intelligent and industrious billionaires who haven't invested
We don't know if said billionaires are informed enough to accurately judge bitcoins value proposition.
Sure some of them are informed enough to judge bitcoin's worth.... but some of the informed billionaires also judge bitcoin worthy of big investments.
So what this clearly shows is that the arguments for bitcoin have to be taken seriously. They could be wrong but clearly **someone** of real intelligence and wherewithal finds the arguments for bitcoin persuasive.
Meanwhile, r/buttcoin is like
> I'm not a delusional religious grifting moron so I'm not familiar with the broken logic gymnastics you guys do.
Then they wonder why people don't take them seriously.
Your logic is incredibly flawed.
You are using confirmation bias and ignoring data. You make an appeal to authority because some Billionaires have invested in Bitcoin. However many more haven't than have. Rather than weighing the balance and saying, well the majority of these people, who I have already made an appeal to authority for, aren't interested therefore on balance it's probably not a great investment, you instead claim it shows there is something there.
>So what this clearly shows is that the arguments for bitcoin have to be taken seriously.
No. Because the consensus amongst Billionaires is that its not worth investing in. You have cherry picked a few Billionaires with confirmation bias and claim they represent the entire group in terms of expertise.
>They could be wrong but clearly someone of real intelligence and wherewithal finds the arguments for bitcoin persuasive.
Who said Billionaires are all intelligent? There is nothing to show that becoming a Billionaire is solely dependent on intelligence.
>Then they wonder why people don't take them seriously.
You need to get out into the real world more if you believe Coiners are taken seriously...
Hey, you're the one who brought up number of people when you said "all the billionaires who didn't buy". My response, "So does every billionaire have to own some BTC for it to be smart?" was to show how absurd **your** statement is.
> Because the consensus amongst Billionaires is that its not worth investing in.
If some billionaires believe bitcoin is worth investing in, then clearly there **isn't** a consensus.
Furthermore, I highly doubt that the fact that a majority of billionaires don't own bitcoin is an indication of an **informed** consensus. Those billionaires likely didn't all look at bitcoin, examine the pros and cons, and **chose** not to invest.
> There is nothing to show that becoming a Billionaire is solely dependent on intelligence.
[So Jamie Dimon isn't intelligent?](https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2020/05/30/jp-morgan-bitcoins-biggest-enemy-suddenly-appears-to-be-going-all-in-on-crypto/?sh=5cc9e15423a6) So the second richest man in Mexico who runs all these companies isn't intelligent?
Come on man, you are reaching for any argument.
>So the second richest man in Mexico who runs all these companies isn't intelligent?
How about the richest man? I mean if the second richest man's investment strategy is important, the richest man should be even more important than, right? (It obviously doesn't work like that, but it just highlights how ridicolous the argument is).
Anyway, that guy said he had 10% of his LIQUID portfolio in btc. Rich guys like him are generally not very liquid. Jeff bezos is worth 185 billion. Do you think he has 185 billion cash in the bank? We can be sure that almost none of it is liquid portfolio. Let's say he has 10 millon usd liquidity. And 10% of that would be 1 million, which would be a tiny fraction of his net worth.
>Hey, you're the one who brought up number of people when you said "all the billionaires who didn't buy".
Actually I didn't. That was a different poster.
>If some billionaires believe bitcoin is worth investing in, then clearly there isn't a consensus.
Well done. However only one of use was asserting that their opinion could be used to make some definitive predictions about Bitcoins value. That person was you.
>Furthermore, I highly doubt that the fact that a majority of billionaires don't own bitcoin is an indication of an informed consensus. Those billionaires likely didn't all look at bitcoin, examine the pros and cons, and chose not to invest.
More confirmation bias. You seem particularly susceptible to it. There is no indication either way, so don't let your emotions shape your assumptions.
>So Jamie Dimon isn't intelligent? So the second richest man in Mexico who runs all these companies isn't intelligent?
Appeal to authority. Appeal to authority. I have no idea, I haven't had a conversation with either of these people and had an opportunity to interact with them day to day. Intelligence is not a single measurable entity. But I have met many highly intelligent people who were not very successful and a large number of very successful people that were dumb as shit. Drive is a much more usual trait in successful people than intelligence.
>Come on man, you are reaching for any argument.
You've done nothing except make baseless assertions and appeals to authority
stocks are considered liquid assets, it would be normal for him to have a billion in stocks...the other 10 billion is real estate and in his businesses
also worth noting he is a CPA, accountants getting into Bitcoin is good sign