Quote from: sirazimuth on Today at 04:48:06 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on Today at 04:28:31 AM

Quote from: empowering on May 27, 2022, 07:49:34 PM

Ken Griffin (Citadel) – Bitcoin /regulation and various

https://youtu.be/73IeQW_E10w

....another one bites the dust

The overall point of possibly "coming around to crypto" may well be fair.. but the video is a bit cringe-worthy to get through.. with some of the seeming confusing language contained therein - which causes me to question if Griffin really knows what is "crypto"... I don't have too many clues about what is crypto either, but at least the video did use the word bitcoin in a few spots.. but still Griffin tends to speak in pretty damned broad generalizations.. perhaps he has some smarter folks on his team.. but I am having my doubts, otherwise they should have already helped him to fix his language a wee bit moar better -be e some ofthe guys are having some trouble actually using the word bitcoin.. so that might be part of their blockage in their really communicating something meaningful besides some vagueries in regards to FOMO regrets.. .. and the channel referring to Warren Buffet or Mark Cuban as evidence of folks "coming around to 'crypto " hardly inspires me.

I know I joke about it a lot, but I totally agree with you, Jay.
I really wish bitcoin and "crypto" could be separated into 2 distinct entities.
As long as shitcoins exist, I'm not sure that can ever happen.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. Bitcoin and shitcoins are, for better or worse (mostly worst)
joined at the hip. Trading, mining etc. I would not be "mining" bitcoin on my gpus , were it not for a certain crypto shitcoin, not to be mentioned.
I don't have a solution. I wish I did. That is all.

Maybe there are times when either I misspeak or I fail to adequately communicate my intended message?

For sure, through the years, you (sirazimuth) should have noticed a kind of pattern in which it should appear that I am less bothered by the actual existence of crypto currencies or that such term is used from time to time. I don't even presume a world in which shitcoins do not exist.. so in that regard, I am in agreement with your assertion that they are likely always going to play some kind of a role that may be confused for bitcoin roles - nonetheless that the fact that shitcoins are always likely to exist does not justify speaking in goobledy-gook speaking ways about them and verbally/conceptually mixing them up with our savior, king daddy.

I might be inaccurate in my own self-assessment, but it seems to me that I tend to be more bothered by ambiguities and generalities in the way subjects related to bitcoin are discussed, especially if some of us might be trying to figure if some other topic might be being discussed or is the discussed subject matter somehow related to bitcoin.

I am not going to want to allow for excuses of speakers who try to get out of clearly presenting ideas merely because "everyone else is" talking that way and/or using those kinds of vague references.

In my thinking, even billionaires should not be allowed to get away with such vagueness in their references... but still it seems that it would likely not be easy to coral the language that billionaires choose to use. They are likely constantly surrounded by a lot of yes men.

When a billionaire speaks with such vagueness, I tend to speculate that such billionaire may well be engaging in such obscure speech practices on purpose.. How do you get to be a billionaire without knowing how to speak clearly about potentially complicated or BIG picture things?

I suppose that it is possible that some of the billionaires do not really know the difference between bitcoin and crypto or maybe they are being vague because they have not exactly solidified their plans in respect to bitcoin/crypto, yet? Give the poor fellas some benefit of the doubt, right?

Maybe another reason that I get frustrated by vagueness is that it quite likely causes confusion with normies and/or misleads a large number of normies.. and sure, we cannot necessarily expect billionaires to want to communicate clearly to normies, right? Blame the billionaire or blame the person doing the interview for failing to seek clarifications. The interviewer might be too star struck to interrupt or seek clarification or even worried that they might offend or lose access to such billionaire.

Quote from: sirazimuth on Today at 06:34:03 AM

Quote from: ivomm on Today at 05:22:43 AM

.....price will go way over 100K.

Its a given that bitcoin will breech 100K in the future. Maybe even before I'm six feet under (or more likely, reduced to a fine ash in the cremo)

That's pretty vague.

Any of us could keel over at any minute.

At least Philip gave us an outline of probabilities regarding the number of years that he might have left.

Quote from: sirazimuth on Today at 06:34:03 AM

But that's really not saying a lot, when a loaf of bread will be $25... or more importantly, a 6pak of Bud Light swill will be $74.99...

Yeah, of course, we know that the purchasing power of the dollar is going to continue to devalue, and that's why it is better to attempt to be more concrete in terms of pegging the matter (get your mind out of the gutter).... that is perhaps talking in terms of todays dollars..

For sure, nothing is exactly guaranteed, and bitcoin itself remains a bit of a moving target.. but I still think that it would be fair to suggest that bitcoin had around a $9k value for 2018 through 2020 (even though we know that in reality we could have gotten BTC for quite a bit lower prices during that time), but even if we are generous and we suggest that our jumping off BTC price was around $9k for that period. We still know that we are in a way better place than anyone else by having had accumulated BTC and held BTC.. and hopefully we I did not have to spend too much of it in the past couple of years.. so our purchasing power has somewhat been preserved during that time...

Some folks in equities might have done o.k in terms of possibly maintaining or not losing too much of their purchasing power (but even that is a bit questionable, now)... and those in pure cash got really clobbered during that time, even if they were with the strongest of the fiats (the dollar)..

The closest comparison might have been real property.. but surely property does not tend to be very liquid and it surely has a lot of possible expenses to maintain it, too.

I suppose in the end, I am not really arguing with you.. just want to supplement what you said, even while tempted to slap you just for (funzies and) your seemingly ongoingly intentional flippantness. Cheesy