Bitcoin about to Pop

[Scot Dutchy]

True You cant even smell a Bitcoin.

[Svartalf]

Which is a property of money... pecunia non olet as old Vespasian once said...

[Scot Dutchy]

Yep money really stinks and is filthy. Thank goodness I never use the stuff.

[pErvinalia]

Bitcoin is fresh air. You cant physically hold it. It has no other function than a scam. Its only worth is what an idiot will give for it and that is only digitally. It has no backing or underwriting. The ones who start are the ones that make a profit as new idiots come along and buy into the scam. It is only as good as new idiots come and buy in. If nobody bought in it would crash. Of course people are making money as every rise and fall makes profits. You can make money on a negative economy. It is stimulated by hype and greed. It belongs with pyramid selling.

You love to comment on things you have absolutely no idea about, don't you?

[pErvinalia]

Let's actually go through it:

Bitcoin is fresh air. You cant physically hold it.

You can't physically hold the electronic money that you pay your bills with.

It has no other function than a scam.

It has at least two functions. A store of value, and as a currency to purchase things with.

Its only worth is what an idiot will give for it and that is only digitally. It has no backing or underwriting.

A huge number of financial securities have no backing or underwriting. And your own country's currency has no backing. Its value is declared by fiat. If it had backing it wouldn't have to be declared by fiat. It is underwritten by the state, so that is obviously a difference.

The ones who start are the ones that make a profit as new idiots come along and buy into the scam. It is only as good as new idiots come and buy in. If nobody bought in it would crash.

No different to all the stocks on the stock exchange. If no one bought them they would crash. Duh.

[rainbow]

No different to all the stocks on the stock exchange. If no one bought them they would crash. Duh.

Actually no. Not "all stocks"
Stocks give you a small percentage ownership of a company. That entitles you to a share of profits made, and a proportion of the nett asset value.

You could buy stocks like WeRBitcoin.con, and they would crash because they have no assets and no prospect of making a profit.

[pErvinalia]

No different to all the stocks on the stock exchange. If no one bought them they would crash. Duh.

Actually no. Not "all stocks"
Stocks give you a small percentage ownership of a company. That entitles you to a share of profits made, and a proportion of the nett asset value.
.

While this is true*, it's a non-sequitur. If no one is buying a stock its price will trend to zero. This is basic supply and demand. Any thing's value is only what someone is willing to pay for it.

* It's only true if a company pays dividends. Not all companies do.

[pErvinalia]

Basically, again, your argument doesn't support your contention that bitcoin is a scam, but instead makes a case that bitcoin is a risky and/or bad investment. These arent equivalent arguments. What it shows is that you (and most people in society) have a fundamental lack of understanding of what gives something value. There's only two things that give something value - demand and trust. They both exist with bitcoin, therefore its valuation is valid.

[rainbow]

No different to all the stocks on the stock exchange. If no one bought them they would crash. Duh.

Actually no. Not "all stocks"
Stocks give you a small percentage ownership of a company. That entitles you to a share of profits made, and a proportion of the nett asset value.
.

While this is true*, it's a non-sequitur. If no one is buying a stock its price will trend to zero.

Drivel. If no one is buying and no one is selling, then the price doesn't move. Static, not zero.
It is very rare however that even for illiquid stocks that there are no bids or offers, it is just that the bids are lower than the offers and no sales take place. So in reality there are always buyers for stocks, excepting the real scammy junk.

[rainbow]

* It's only true if a company pays dividends. Not all companies do.

Again false. Fast growing companies retain income for growth, so don't pay dividends. However the nett asset value increases, as does the stock price

[pErvinalia]

You are moving the goalposts (the fallacies are adding up). You said stock holders get a share of the profits. They absolutely don't if dividends aren't paid.

And the previous post is nonsense. If you can't sell something, its face value is worthless. By definition. This is simple supply and demand.

[pErvinalia]

It's clear there's some fundamental misunderstanding of this subject going on in this thread. I've explained how it works enough times. If it's not sinking in there's not much point continuing to explain it.

[Hermit]

You are moving the goalposts (the fallacies are adding up). You said stock holders get a share of the profits. They absolutely don't if dividends aren't paid.

The idea of reinvesting company earnings in, say, a factory instead of paying out a dividend increases its shares' prices. That is just another way stock holders get a share of the profits.

As for the value of cryptocurrencies, they are not based on production of anything. Any increase in the prices they are bought and sold for is based on speculation that some sucker will pay more for it today than they did yesterday in the hope that some other sucker will pay even more for it tomorrow on the grounds that yet another sucker will pay even more for it the day after that. For the third time, their rise and fall is just a form of gambling. What makes cryptocurrencies even worse is that they don't even represent a notional valuation of any particular nation's or trading block's economy, but that didn't sink in on the previous two occasions, so I don't expect you to grok it this time around either.

Tell me, how much wealth have you amassed playing the cryptocurrency game? I bet you'll argue now that you are stoney cold broke for personal reasons - nothing to do in principle with the validity of gambling on the tulip bubble without even the presence of a commodity like tulips.

[JimC]

I think I'll stick to gin futures...

[pErvinalia]

You are moving the goalposts (the fallacies are adding up). You said stock holders get a share of the profits. They absolutely don't if dividends aren't paid.

The idea of reinvesting company earnings in, say, a factory instead of paying out a dividend increases its shares' prices. That is just another way stock holders get a share of the profits.

No, they literally don't. If no dividends are paid, then no profits are realised. Are we in an alternative universe?

And don't say - they realise those profits when they sell the stock. That's based on a faulty assumption that companies earning profits see an increase in their stock price. Companies regularly see a drop in their stock price when making a profit if that profit didn't increase from the previous period and/or meet expectations.

As for the value of cryptocurrencies, they are not based on production of anything.

This is the type of misunderstanding that i'm talking about. Basing value on "production" is just one metric by which value can be assessed. You know this. The damn inventor of the GDP statistic made this point himself. Pity no one listened to him.

Any increase in the prices they are bought and sold for is based on speculation that some sucker will pay more for it today than they did yesterday in the hope that some other sucker will pay even more for it tomorrow on the grounds that yet another sucker will pay even more for it the day after that.

Baseless claim. You have a feeling its like this because you don't understand it. Try and understand the principles and you'll see this is faulty "reasoning".

For the third time, their rise and fall is just a form of gambling.

It doesn't matter how many times you baselessly assert it, it doesn't magically become fact. C'mon, you're smarter than this.

What makes cryptocurrencies even worse is that they don't even represent a notional valuation of any particular nation's or trading block's economy, but that didn't sink in on the previous two occasions, so I don't expect you to grok it this time around either.

It sunk in fine, and I specifically addressed this silly point, a post you failed to respond to. This is what you (and I) accuse 42 of. Ignoring replies and just repeating the same nonsense over and over again in the hope that it becomes accepted by sheer repetition.

Tell me, how much wealth have you amassed playing the cryptocurrency game? I bet you'll argue now that you are stoney cold broke for personal reasons - nothing to do in principle with the validity of gambling on the tulip bubble without even the presence of a commodity like tulips.

I've already told you that I've paid $550 in bills from the Steem cryptocurrency. That was money earned by simply blogging and liking others content.

Again, you really don't understand even the basics of this subject. Educate yourself. You just look like a Dutchy clone - an old guy with no concept of how novel technology works (not to mention not even understanding regular markets/economies).