The Bubbly Bitcoin Thread -- Merged Threads

[BufferBear Bitcoin Bull]

 

[BufferBear Bitcoin Bull]

Interesting...Apple making moves towards supporting BTC payments or even better in time, disclosing a move to MS's strategy of holding it as part of its Treasury? 

 

 

Edited May 26, 2021 by Buffer Bear

[BufferBear Bitcoin Bull]

Seen these around town and on the tube...

[BufferBear Bitcoin Bull]

Especially for you @Warlord

 

[BufferBear Bitcoin Bull]

 

[BufferBear Bitcoin Bull]

 

[BufferBear Bitcoin Bull]

A run of postive news...is this what they mean when it's said: ".............and then suddenly."

#networkeffects

Edited May 26, 2021 by Buffer Bear

[BufferBear Bitcoin Bull]

 

[BufferBear Bitcoin Bull]

 

Edited May 26, 2021 by Buffer Bear

[scottbeard]

5 hours ago, Mixle said:

People can self-select and group up to find different aggregate measures in different villages. It's not evenly distributed in time or space. You can aggregate all you like, but when you actually trade, it's what you can get at a specific place only when you do. And you'll have a premium or discount to your "aggregate". Aggregate values split/bifurcate/fork. That's why different countries have different currencies.

You’re still missing the point.

Whenever a new store of value thing comes along, if people value it they can ONLY do so by reducing the value of existing stores of value.

Lets say I invent Scottcoins and some people like the idea and buy them. Those people are now spending money on Scottcoins which means they are spending less on everything else: the value of gold, bitcoins, Picasso paintings, whatever, in aggregate falls.

[BufferBear Bitcoin Bull]

2 hours ago, Buffer Bear said:

 

 

 

[BufferBear Bitcoin Bull]

 

[Mixle]

17 hours ago, scottbeard said:

Lets say I invent Scottcoins and some people like the idea and buy them. Those people are now spending money on Scottcoins which means they are spending less on everything else: the value of gold, bitcoins, Picasso paintings, whatever, in aggregate falls.

By that logic, Escher, Dali and Bansky devalue Picasso and Muse devalues Bach.

[goldbug9999]

17 hours ago, scottbeard said:

You’re still missing the point.

Whenever a new store of value thing comes along, if people value it they can ONLY do so by reducing the value of existing stores of value.

Exactly. The whole point of money as a SoV is that its scarce, the less scarce you make it (by storing value in other monies) the less valuable any one money is.

[goldbug9999]

21 minutes ago, Mixle said:

By that logic, Escher, Dali and Bansky devalue Picasso and Muse devalues Bach.

They do. There only so much money to go around. If youve kept the units of the money the same and removed "stuff" from the economy then all the remaining stuff will have a very slightly higher nominal value in said money. Obviously there is some demarcation of markets which would buffer the effects a little.

If you destroyed every Picasso in existence it would make everyone in the world who didn't own one very slightly richer (in aggregate) because that demand for rare things would dissipate elsewhere. Maybe my classic car would gain 10p in value or something.

Just an observation that what were discussing here is probably the difference between keynesian and austrian economic world views, I'm firmly in the latter camp obviously

Edited May 27, 2021 by goldbug9999

[zugzwang]

13 minutes ago, goldbug9999 said:

They do. There only so much money to go around. If youve kept the units of the money the same and removed "stuff" from the economy then all the remaining stuff will have a very slightly higher nominal value in said money. Obviously there is some demarcation of markets which would buffer the effects a little.

If you destroyed every Picasso in existence it would make everyone in the world who didn't own one very slightly richer (in aggregate) because that demand for rare things would dissipate elsewhere. Maybe my classic car would gain 10p in value or something.

Just an observation that what were discussing here is probably the difference between keynesian and austrian economic world views, I'm firmly in the latter camp obviously

The quantity of money in circulation isn't fixed. In an industrial economy it expands more or less continuously as we discover new ways of doing things and more efficient ways of doing the same things.

[Mixle]

25 minutes ago, goldbug9999 said:

If you destroyed every Picasso in existence it would make everyone in the world who didn't own one very slightly richer (in aggregate)

Guess we've gotten to our differences. I'm generally more austrian leaning than keynes; except I do believe dish washers don't devalue washing machines, and Muse in no way devalues Bach, and Ethereum does not devalue silver. Value is the subjective thing that people are willing to work for. While human labour can be thought of as a limited resource that has to be split between stores of value, it is in no way fixed (and nor is its efficiency). How willing people are to work for value is highly variable, subject not only to population growth, but innovation and motivation. A new store of value could, rather than redirecting effort, spur imagination and new effort, and grow the pie.

Edited May 27, 2021 by Mixle

[goldbug9999]

14 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

The quantity of money in circulation isn't fixed. In an industrial economy it expands more or less continuously as we discover new ways of doing things and more efficient ways of doing the same things.

Makes no odds to the main point that any single moment in time: value of one monetary unit  = total amount of stuff (any non-monetary wealth) / number of monetary units. The point being that you cannot create more money without devaluating existing money assuming the amount of stuff is the same, this not be a controversial point on this forum of all places.

[goldbug9999]

32 minutes ago, Mixle said:

Guess we've gotten to our differences. I'm generally more austrian leaning than keynes; except I do believe dish washers don't devalue washing machines, and Muse in no way devalues Bach, and Ethereum does not devalue silver. Value is the subjective thing that people are willing to work for. While human labour can be thought of as a limited resource that has to be split between stores of value, it is in no way fixed (and nor is its efficiency). How willing people are to work for value is highly variable, subject not only to population growth, but innovation and motivation. A new store of value could, rather than redirecting effort, spur imagination and new effort, and grow the pie.

Even if I concede your point about value being sticky within a certain market I still take the view that all crypto "stores of value" are competing for the same pot. Those that claim to not be competing with bitcoin in reality are, the utility guff is just plausible deniability - they all want a piece of bitcoins store of value pie in reality. Ethereum being the most obvious example.

Edited May 27, 2021 by goldbug9999

[Mixle]

9 minutes ago, goldbug9999 said:

Makes no odds to the main point that any single moment in time: value of one monetary unit  = total amount of stuff (any non-monetary wealth) / number of monetary units. The point being that you cannot create more money without devaluating existing money assuming the amount of stuff is the same, this not be a controversial point on this forum of all places.

It is not controversial. But I'm saying your assumption can't hold in the real world.

A long time ago I contributed to a book internationally, and got paid some ~80USD, but the bank took a 50USD fee. Made me feel shit and I didn't do small global pieces of work again. Value destruction. Motivation for global working shot, but if Bitcoin existed the value would not be destroyed.

Edited May 27, 2021 by Mixle

[Mixle]

8 minutes ago, goldbug9999 said:

Even if concede your point about value being sticky within a certain market I still take the view that all crypto "stores of value" are competing for the same pot. Those that claim to not be competing with bitcoin in reality are, the utility guff is just plausible deniability - they all want a piece of bitcoins store of value pie in reality. Ethereum being the most obvious example.

Oh I agree that there is a massive overlap of competition of cryptos for the same SoV function, maybe 95+%. The thing is by choosing a particular one you also choose to contribute to the seigniorage/usury of that SoV. And some small %s of people might value the specific function combo of "not enriching goldbugs/bitcoiners" and "decentralised hard money public ledger".

[markyh]

Seems a slow, slow week. 3rd day of mowing the lawn tomorrow (its a big lawn, 1000m2) , so not been on here much. BTC struggling to break above 200dma.  Looks like a 2nd week closing below the 21 WMA is approaching. Never happened before in a bull market.

i wonder if this is going to be a bull market version of 2018, a slow grind up, then a big break past £65k?

[cnick]

2 hours ago, zugzwang said:

The quantity of money in circulation isn't fixed. In an industrial economy it expands more or less continuously as we discover new ways of doing things and more efficient ways of doing the same things.

So who gets  to decide what has or may have value? You?.....Boris?

[zugzwang]

3 minutes ago, cnick said:

So who gets  to decide what has or may have value? You?.....Boris?

We all do! Even when the State commands the price we can often refuse to buy, or to use the black market.

[scottbeard]

6 hours ago, Mixle said:

By that logic, Escher, Dali and Bansky devalue Picasso and Muse devalues Bach.

Yes - absolutely Banks devalues Picasso because it splits the money chasing art.

Muse doesn’t devalue Bach because music isn’t a store of value.