sharetrader
Page 54 of 182 FirstFirst ... 44450515253545556575864104154 ... LastLast
Results 796 to 810 of 2726
  1. #796
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Nelson
    Posts
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fatboyj View Post
    http://cryptobible.io/cryptocurrency...lions-dollars/

    I see the trillion cap hitting 2nd quarter next year then upwards. And depending on how the bitcoin futures is taken up on the CME later this month the trillion cap could hit 1st quarter. Having futures trading on the CME is absolutely huge and is only the start of the big boys getting into crypto trading.

    Enjoy the ride you fellow crypto holders. If you think 2017 rollercoaster was fun wait till you get on the 2018 coaster.
    And don't forget to wave to the grumpy bystanders holding their bouquets of tulips
    Make no mistake, the world is moving towards a cash/fiat-less society. China is leading the world in moving to digital payment platforms like wechat pay and alipay using crypto. The rest of the world is quickly moving in that direction, once crypto has been integrated into the mainstrean, you can expect the marketcap to f%$#ing explode! 2018 will be a very exciting year for any involved.

  2. #797
    always learning ... BlackPeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Canterbury
    Posts
    5,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RGR367 View Post
    minimoke, maybe you could try this NZ site https://mybitcoinsaver.com/ but I'll leave this coined-bit to younger guys as I'm old enough to retire. Besides, I might give forex a try first as trying to "invest" before this bit coining bubble. I'm happy for those blowing it up big time and GL to new bit coiners.
    Have a look at their processing times: Pay on Monday, get your Bitcoins delivered Friday. 4 full working days for processing - this must make it fun to get the timing right ...
    ----
    "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)

  3. #798
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackPeter View Post
    Look - you (and still more so some of the other crypto fan boys) like to throw away with detrimental terms about your perception of people who happen to disagree with your view of the world. Not unusual these days, but certainly does not make for a good discussion.
    Are you calling my questioning whether you are being deliberately obtuse a 'detrimental term'? Why? It appeared to me that you were not reading/addressing valid logical arguments. I wasn't sure if it was deliberate hence the question.

    And calling me a crypto fanboy, really? Ignoring the hypocrisy, have you even been reading what I am typing? In the very post you were replying to, I said: I agree with you in that 90% of the "crypto's" in existence today will be worth nothing in future.

    Other things I have said over the past week or so in this thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by Blair
    I am invested in crypto and absolutely accept a lot of it could be a bubble. If you don't see that, you're an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blair
    There is a bunch of money going in crypto based on the perceived benefits. If they don't play out, people will pull out and prices will decrease. As people pull out, stop-losses will be triggered and more will pull out etc.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blair
    I can think up a few catalysts for a price crash and if you can't you are either not thinking very objectively or you haven't researched the matter much.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blair
    There are difficult technical problems to be solved if crypto's are to fulfill their potential.

    If I am a fanboy, what term do you use for an actual fanboy?

    What doesn't make for a good discussion is ignoring valid logical arguments because they don't fit with your point of view.

    For example, the argument that there is an economic cost to mining crypto's/validating transactions which is rewarded with tokens. And that you need to spend those tokens in order to participate in a blockchain. Your argument appears to be that blockchain technology is useful, but you shouldn't have to pay to use it?

    The other argument - which I agree with - is that blockchain is useful, but it is not guaranteed that one of the existing blockchains (or a fork thereof) will be one of the "victors".

  4. #799
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,375

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackPeter View Post
    Have a look at their processing times: Pay on Monday, get your Bitcoins delivered Friday. 4 full working days for processing - this must make it fun to get the timing right ...
    I'd be OK with that in a rising market but not sure that looks so good in a falling market.

  5. #800
    always learning ... BlackPeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Canterbury
    Posts
    5,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blair View Post
    Are you calling my questioning whether you are being deliberately obtuse a 'detrimental term'? Why?
    Just google for synonyms for the term you used ... now let's think - why could this be perceived as detrimental?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blair View Post
    And calling me a crypto fanboy, really? Ignoring the hypocrisy, have you even been reading what I am typing?
    I think I did. They say - what goes around, comes around. However - I agree name calling is not useful and you appear certainly to be more reflective on cryptos than some others. Happy to remove the "other" in my original post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blair View Post
    What doesn't make for a good discussion is ignoring valid logical arguments because they don't fit with your point of view.

    For example, the argument that there is an economic cost to mining crypto's/validating transactions which is rewarded with tokens. And that you need to spend those tokens in order to participate in a blockchain. Your argument appears to be that blockchain technology is useful, but you shouldn't have to pay to use it?
    Absolutely - if I missed a "valid logical argument" than please accept my apologies. I would not do that deliberately, but maybe sometimes our views might diverge on what we consider to be as "a valid logical argument". However - feel free to try me.

    I do not see how your example above supports the idea towards investing into any of the given cryptocurrencies. I did not object to miners and service providers being paid for whatever they are doing (as long as it adds value), however paying these fees is not more an investment than paying my monthly (or whatever) fees to the bank. I might get a service for that (hopefully), but its not an investment which I will get back with interest or dividends.

    If I want to invest into banks I need to buy shares of this bank and I will own a part of the bank and get dividends and hopefully a capital appreciation. If I buy a cryptocurrency I own nothing, get no dividend from whatever service provider I buy this currency from but have to pay fees. How is this an investment?


    Quote Originally Posted by Blair View Post
    The other argument - which I agree with - is that blockchain is useful, but it is not guaranteed that one of the existing blockchains (or a fork thereof) will be one of the "victors".
    Glad to hear.
    Last edited by BlackPeter; 04-12-2017 at 11:24 AM. Reason: fixing typo
    ----
    "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)

  6. #801
    Advanced Member trackers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Christchurch, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    2,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackPeter View Post
    Amazing outlook - lost for words ... but why are you that modest? I guess "trillions" is just the total US state deficit - isn't it? If Trump would have any brains he would buy all the cryptos in the world and in less than a year the US would be free of debt. Fatboy for president!

    I guess if we use the trustworthy method of exponential extrapolation the cap will be worth quintillions in next to no time and than we have the problem to find larger numbers . We all will be rich - stinking rich. Nobody will ever need to work anymore. Just use your cryptos to pay for everything. Yes?

    Forget about all these deflating bubbles in the past - this time will be different; Fatboy says so.

    A quite appropriate citation springs to mind: proverbs 16:18 ;

    Discl: Don't;
    Ahh, these are the rebuttals I love the most... Some Trump, bit of the US debt...signed off some biblical scripture. Brilliant!

  7. #802
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackPeter View Post
    Just google for synonyms for the term you used ... now let's think - why could this be perceived as detrimental?


    I think I did. They say - what goes around, comes around. However - I agree name calling is not useful and you appear certainly to be more reflective on cryptos than some others. Happy to remove the "other" in my original post.


    Absolutely - if I missed a "valid logical argument" than please accept my apologies. I would not do that deliberately, but maybe sometimes our views might diverge on what we consider to be as "a valid logical argument". However - feel free to try me.

    I do not see how your example above supports the idea towards investing into any of the given cryptocurrencies. I did not object to miners and service providers being paid for whatever they are doing (as long as it adds value), however paying these fees is not more an investment than paying my monthly (or whatever) fees to the bank. I might get a service for that (hopefully), but its not an investment which I will get back with interest or dividends.

    If I want to invest into banks I need to buy shares of this bank and I will own a part of the bank and get dividends and hopefully a capital appreciation. If I buy a cryptocurrency I own nothing, get no dividend from whatever service provider I buy this currency from but have to pay fees. How is this an investment?
    If you want to perceive something I say as detrimental, so be it. I'm not responsible for your perception.

    You are again using an analogy that is not analogous. I am not sure how to value the decentralized nature of blockchains. The 'stuff' that makes them work is what people are investing in. Nobody knows how that will play out in future and I am not claiming to know. But you cannot deny that there is a lot of progress in terms of real-world application. A lot of smart people are investing their time and money into blockchain-related ideas. A lot more people, some of them smart, are investing some of their money into cryptos.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dictionary.com
    Investing


    1. to put (money) to use, by purchase or expenditure, in something offering potential profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value.


    2. to use (money), as in accumulating something
    Don't you think there are potential profitable returns by putting money into crypto?

    When we break down your argument I think your view is more similar to mine than you realise. I just think that the "fundamental value" you talk of is much more precarious than you are making out.

    Here is a challenge for you. Define at what point will you accept that a given crypto is 'legitimate'.

    How many people have to be employed by the space, directly or indirectly? How many of the "real" companies you invest in via stock markets have to use a given blockchain (or an application which relies on that blockchain)? How much fiat currency do companies have to pay to companies that provide blockchain related services? Define legitimacy using any metrics you like.

    If you have a spare hour sometime, there is an interesting talk on disruptive technology https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kxryv2XrnqM&t=18s

    I don't think it mentions crypto (it's about transportation), but I am sure you will be able to see some potential parallels.

    Fun fact: In the mid 1980's AT&T asked some smart people using conventional wisdom to forecast cellphone adoption by the year 2000 in USA. They came up with a number of 900,000. The actual number was 109 million.

    It is not an isolated case.

    What was the "fundamental value" of a horse before cars were common?

    What is the "fundamental value" of diamonds? How is this affected by the fact that we know supply is artificially limited? How is it impacted by the fact they can be made artificially in a lab?

  8. #803
    always learning ... BlackPeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Canterbury
    Posts
    5,287

    Default

    Blair, not sure I understand your "challenge". I never discussed the "legitimacy" of cryptocurrencies. Trading them seems to be legal in most places of this globe, so they must be "legitimate" - right?

    What I did question is their "fundamental value". And sure - fundamental value is something which changes with context (like the fundamental value of your horse probably did). I do acknowledge as well, that there would be some "fundamental value" in a system which would allow you to transfer money easier and cheaper than these days using banks. I doubt though that this is what cryptocurrencies offer (well, not yet). As well - the competition to transfer money internationally is tough. I find it quite cheap to transfer money into other developed countries (I do this from time to time).

    How big is this theoretical value of the chosen cryptocurrency? Not sure - but it can't be higher than the cost of money transfers these days (otherwise it is not competitive), and this is certainly less than the trillions some people here are already deluding themselves to. As well - such a system would only work if there is only one system - using some of 1300 cryptocurrencies makes it much more complicated and more expensive than using a pair of some hundred fiat currencies. Why would anybody bother to go crypto unless they are looking to sell it later on to a greater fool (i.e. not looking into the transfer of money but at capital appreciation)?

    Currently cryptocurrencies are highly inflated and redundant (all but one). However - as far as I can see - they are legit ... at least in our legislation.

    Can you reformulate your question?
    ----
    "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)

  9. #804
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackPeter View Post
    A quite appropriate citation springs to mind: proverbs 16:18 ;

    Discl: Don't;
    Well done, following up your belief that the value of cryptocurrencies as fiction, you quote a proverb from a book of fiction.

    A simple question, will the market cap of cryptocurrency reach 1 trillion dollars? You say no, you will be wrong. Fatboyj 04:17

  10. #805
    always learning ... BlackPeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Canterbury
    Posts
    5,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fatboyj View Post
    Well done, following up your belief that the value of cryptocurrencies as fiction, you quote a proverb from a book of fiction.

    A simple question, will the market cap of cryptocurrency reach 1 trillion dollars? You say no, you will be wrong. Fatboyj 04:17
    Book of Fiction? Maybe. However - not more "made up" than the crypto hype around this thread - and some of the book's content is even useful.

    As well - just look at its longevity ... how much time do you give your crypto hype in comparison?

    Re your question ... you want to know whether the crypto bubble bursts before or after reaching 1 trillion (I suppose US$)? I don't know ... depends on the supply situation of greater fools .
    ----
    "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)

  11. #806
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackPeter View Post
    Blair, not sure I understand your "challenge". I never discussed the "legitimacy" of cryptocurrencies. Trading them seems to be legal in most places of this globe, so they must be "legitimate" - right?

    What I did question is their "fundamental value". And sure - fundamental value is something which changes with context (like the fundamental value of your horse probably did). I do acknowledge as well, that there would be some "fundamental value" in a system which would allow you to transfer money easier and cheaper than these days using banks. I doubt though that this is what cryptocurrencies offer (well, not yet). As well - the competition to transfer money internationally is tough. I find it quite cheap to transfer money into other developed countries (I do this from time to time).

    How big is this theoretical value of the chosen cryptocurrency? Not sure - but it can't be higher than the cost of money transfers these days (otherwise it is not competitive), and this is certainly less than the trillions some people here are already deluding themselves to. As well - such a system would only work if there is only one system - using some of 1300 cryptocurrencies makes it much more complicated and more expensive than using a pair of some hundred fiat currencies. Why would anybody bother to go crypto unless they are looking to sell it later on to a greater fool (i.e. not looking into the transfer of money but at capital appreciation)?

    Currently cryptocurrencies are highly inflated and redundant (all but one). However - as far as I can see - they are legit ... at least in our legislation.

    Can you reformulate your question?
    Interesting how you are choosing such a narrow definition of legitimate, I thought the intention of my question was obvious.

    Here's an easy reformulation for you: a legitimate form of investment. When will you consider a crypto to be a legitimate form of investment? I am using a definition of legitimate to include "able to be defended with logic or justification; valid". It is apparent to anyone reading this thread you don't consider it a legitimate investment at this point in time, or are we misreading the rhetoric of your posts? The constant use of the "greater fool" implying people investing in crypto are fools? The comparison to the tulip bubble? (the fact that you don't even have the respect to compare it to the dot.com bubble is astounding as it is much more analogous).

    Ripple (https://ripple.com) is one crypto which seeks to change money transfers, but by working with banks. A competitor to SWIFT. Their token XRP is one they would like to see organisations use as a settlement currency.

    As for the cost of transfers, having done it recently with ANZ its about $45 plus what you lose in the exchange rate calculation, typically another 2% or so. When withdrawing money overseas, I get charged 2.5% on all funds drawn down (credit or cash from an ATM), plus again the margin in the exchange rate, and a fee if I use a non ANZ-affiliated ATM. I don't find this cheap, but that's just me as an individual which the banks couldn't care less about.

    But when they have real money tied up with the corresponding bank and given the associated counterparty risk, it is quite significant. That is one very obvious use-case for crypto's. In a world where banks are at the center of the economy, how much does counterparty risk cost?

    Why do you think all but one are inflated? I assume this is your way of saying only one will prevail, rather than saying you know which one is not inflated. Why can there not be multiple blockchains serving different purposes, each having a value?

  12. #807
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    242

    Default Confirmed: Bitcoin Saves.

    A pizzeria in NY

    Bitcoin pizza.jpg

    To think back in 2010 two pepperoni pizzas from Papa John's was purchased for 10,000 bitcoins.

    If there was a Delorean parked outside with a flux capacitor ready to be fired up, some people here would travel back in time and still rather keep the pizzas. The greater fools.

  13. #808
    always learning ... BlackPeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Canterbury
    Posts
    5,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blair View Post
    Interesting how you are choosing such a narrow definition of legitimate, I thought the intention of my question was obvious.

    Here's an easy reformulation for you: a legitimate form of investment. When will you consider a crypto to be a legitimate form of investment? I am using a definition of legitimate to include "able to be defended with logic or justification; valid". It is apparent to anyone reading this thread you don't consider it a legitimate investment at this point in time, or are we misreading the rhetoric of your posts? The constant use of the "greater fool" implying people investing in crypto are fools? The comparison to the tulip bubble? (the fact that you don't even have the respect to compare it to the dot.com bubble is astounding as it is much more analogous).

    Ripple (https://ripple.com) is one crypto which seeks to change money transfers, but by working with banks. A competitor to SWIFT. Their token XRP is one they would like to see organisations use as a settlement currency.

    As for the cost of transfers, having done it recently with ANZ its about $45 plus what you lose in the exchange rate calculation, typically another 2% or so. When withdrawing money overseas, I get charged 2.5% on all funds drawn down (credit or cash from an ATM), plus again the margin in the exchange rate, and a fee if I use a non ANZ-affiliated ATM. I don't find this cheap, but that's just me as an individual which the banks couldn't care less about.

    But when they have real money tied up with the corresponding bank and given the associated counterparty risk, it is quite significant. That is one very obvious use-case for crypto's. In a world where banks are at the center of the economy, how much does counterparty risk cost?

    Why do you think all but one are inflated? I assume this is your way of saying only one will prevail, rather than saying you know which one is not inflated. Why can there not be multiple blockchains serving different purposes, each having a value?
    legitimate
    adjective
    lɪˈdʒɪtɪmət/Submit
    1.
    conforming to the law or to rules.
    "his claims to legitimate authority"
    synonyms: legal, lawful, licit, legalized, authorized, permitted, permissible, allowable, allowed, admissible, recognized, sanctioned, approved, licensed, statutory, constitutional, within the law, going by the rules, above board, valid, honest, upright; More
    2.
    able to be defended with logic or justification; valid.
    "a legitimate excuse for being late"
    synonyms: valid, sound, admissible, acceptable, well founded, justifiable, reasonable, sensible, tenable, defensible, supportable, just, warrantable, fair, bona fide, proper, genuine, plausible, credible, believable, reliable, understandable, logical, rational
    "these are legitimate grounds for unease"
    I picked definition one. Too narrow?

    But sure - so when would I see investing into the crypto domain (not cryptocurrencies) as sensible?

    1) If you can invest into the companies making money out of the crypto hype: Probably now. I'd see however some ethical questions, but you didn't ask regarding them. Note: Buying cryptocoins is NOT investing into the service providers.

    2) If & when there is business case showing crypto currency service providers (lacking a better word) able to make legit money out of their business (e.g. by competing with banks and providing easier and / or cheaper options to transfer money I'd see it as sensible (and ethical) to consider investing money into these service providers (which is likely different to buying cryptocurrency). Obviously - we would need to look as well into the expected return and the risk of such business - not different than to any other investment

    On a different note ... if it is so dear and fee intense for you to transfer your money - why don't you just use your cryptocurrencies? I hear that's cheap as chips and easy as saying "go"? Ah .. not so easy I hear you say?

    I assume you realise that the big business for any bank / or crypto service provider would be to transfer the big sums around the world - and trust me, this is (as a percentage of the transferred sum) already today quite cheap. Let's say I am transferring $10,000 (not a big sum) to Europe and (at the same exchange rate) back to NZ - I would lose less than 1% in total (for the round trip NZD - Euro - NZD using my bank accounts and OCF).

    Can you do that cheaper with NZD - Bitcoin - Euro - Bitcoin - NZD? I doubt it - and so far I don't see a way to avoid the fiat currencies. Can't buy shares with Bitcoin, can't pay my taxes with Bitcoin and can't even pay the bank with Bitcoin.

    If a cryptocurrency would offer me a guaranteed and stable conservation of my money, if it would be generally accepted and if I could buy useful stuff with it as well as pay compulsory stuff (like fees & taxes) with this cryptocurrency, than I would consider using it. Why not?

    All but one inflated? Well, I meant all inflated, but one (or maybe a small number) might survive (at a much lower price). This is unfortunately a case of the more the less merrier ... because every additional cryptocurrency survivor would tear the business case for all the others down.

    Anyway - maybe we just need to agree to disagree. Just watch this thread ... as soon as the fanboys stop tooting you will know that the people who called it a bubble have been right. Whether this is in a couple of weeks, months or a year (or a bit longer), I don't know - and they don't know either.

    I only hope that not too many innocent people get hurt when the bubble bursts ...
    ----
    "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)

  14. #809
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    242

    Default

    ... Or get left out with the constant negative spin you put through in every post. But only the greater fools will listen to your view point and not do their own research. No matter how flat, a pancake has two sides. Yours is the burnt side.

  15. #810
    Guru
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Christchurch, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    2,717

    Default

    blackpeter
    you need to pull your head in and take some responsibility for the things you have been saying... you have been calling bitcoin a tulip bubble forever... it was at 3000us nah man we in a tulip bubble $4000 $5000 $6000 $7000 $8000 $9000 $10,000 $11,000 $12,000
    you will be hooning the tulips till the day you pass man...
    you are an absolute disaster man...
    your advice has been the worst possible advice Ive ever seen in any form of financial advice dating back since forever...
    you need to pull your head in immediately...
    you need to make a public apology....
    go on mate...
    apologise

    .^sc
    Cryptocurrency holdings in utrust cardano and power ledger... ripple... neo.... .....LOCI ...
    Market capitalisation 130billion...
    Coinmarketcap.com

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •