Quote from: JayJuanGee on July 08, 2022, 02:03:38 PM

Quote from: Snowshow on July 08, 2022, 07:44:55 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on July 08, 2022, 05:29:57 AM

[edited out]

You responded to nothing. Let me help you. I am talking about the fact that bitcoin is just a number, a label that you get when joining Nakamoto scheme and that no human being is able to utilize it - which is why everyone must dump that numeric label to someone else. Only in that way people can get the resources and have the utility. That's essentially what I am saying.

In order to respond properly to the above, you have to show that people are able to utilize bitcoins without dumping them to someone else. Gold can be utilized as a metal for various purposes. Debt (recorded with fiat money) is utilized at loan repayments as explained in OP. Bike is utilized for driving. Shares in companies are utilized through access to profits or equity of the companies. So, no need to dump them to someone else. Now you explain how bitcoin can be utilized without dumping it to someone else.

Nothing else is important for this topic. You must show that people are able to utilize bitcoin. Also, a guy with 10 bitcoins in comparison to a guy with 0.1 bitcoin, must be able to get 100 times more utility if bitcoin is able to be utilized.

I already sufficiently and adequately responded to all of these points. I have no burdens to show more or to repeat myself as you are proclaiming.

Quote from: Snowshow on July 08, 2022, 07:44:55 AM

So, stop writing endless rants about irrelevant issues and try to address the issue this topic is about.

Did someone die and put you in charge of my discretion or anything else? I hope not.

Accordingly, if I feel like writing more, including but not limited to an "endless rant," about some matter that I believe is helpful or useful to point out within this thread, then I will. Many of us have probably spent way too much time entertaining you on your various attempts to frame this topic related to whether bitcoin has value and or whether its price adequately reflects it value.

Surely you have concluded that BTC's value is way less than its price, and seem to be arguing that BTC's price should be at zero in order to be aligned with its value (as you perceive it to be), and I have doubts about anyone who knows much of anything about BTC really agreeing with you in regards to bitcoin's value being zero.

I doubt that we really need to get into too many assessments regarding how much relative value that people place on BTC in relationship to its spot price, and of course those opinions differ quite substantially, including that there may well be close to 99% of the world's population that have not engaged in a sufficient amount of action to actually buy any BTC (or to get involved in BTC - such as buying it), yet I am not going to presume that all no coiners (99% of the world's population) believe that BTC's value is zero like you do. Maybe we should label those people as pre-coiners rather than no coiners? and it is likely safer to assume that the nocoiners/precoiners have not sufficiently been motivated to take action to buy BTC because they have not figured out a way that they believe BTC might benefit them in the present or future that is sufficient enough for them to either try to figure out how to get some or to start acting in that direction. There are probably a decent number of them that have no clue what bitcoin is, and surely there are some of them that heard the name bitcoin, and others who think that they know what bitcoin is but have hardly any clue (maybe like you, Snowshow?).

Of course, there are also quite a few folks who believe that BTC's value is greater than its current spot price and even consider the 200-week moving average that is currently at about $22,535 reflects a kind of bottom indicator - especially since the 200-week moving average in bitcoin has historically moved up which means vast majority of time BTC's spot price tends to be quite a lot higher than the 200-week moving average. Again, you can look at the above link that shows bitcoin prices back to 2012 and the 200-week moving average (which is largely a 4-year price average) to see how the 200-week moving average continues to move up and the vast majority of the time, the BTC spot price has been higher than the 200-week moving average.. Of course, there are no guarantees that such ongoing upward trends will continue, but there is no real meaningful or important information to suggest that such upward trending fo the BTC price and also the 200-week moving average will not continue. So, as I type this post, the BTC's current spot price of $21,350-ish, which is even below the current 200-week moving average seems to reflect a bargain price if using that 200-week moving average as a kind of price bottom indicator.

Again, there are no guarantees in regard to which way BTC's price might go, but it does seem that currently bitcoin does have one of the free-est of trading markets in the world in terms of how it is traded in a variety of locations around the world, many of them 24/7 but not all of them, and of course, BTC can be traded directly between individuals too, used for transactions directly on the blockchain, and through various second layers, including but not limited to lightning network.

It seems reasonable to speculate that the BTC's spot price is likely to move towards its value in the long run in such a way that with the continued passage of time, BTC spot prices are likely to become less and less volatile, but it could take 100 to 200 years to witness greater stability in the BTC spot price in the event that world-wide adoption continues to increase, which seems to be ongoingly happening (even though sometimes seems to be slowly taking place), but continues to happen, and surely many of us into bitcoin speculate that world-wide adoption will continue to expand which tends to contribute towards continued upward pulls on the BTC price in the coming years.

I also mentioned previously that I believe that bitcoin has a projected value of at least 1,000x the value of gold, and currently the BTC spot price is less than 1/10th Gold's spot price, so surely it could take 100 to 200 years for BTC's spot price to meet up with I believe to be its projected value relative to gold, and I doubt that we even need to sort these kinds of matters out because even if BTC's current or future spot price might not exactly represent the value that various members of the population assign to it, we will likely continue to witness turmoil in the BTC's price in the coming years, and likely ongooing upward pulls on the BTC spot price - even though in the shorter term it is much more difficult to figure out if the BTC price might be going up or down, even though I would consider the 200-week moving average as an ongoingly good BTC price bottom indicator, even though we do have various ongoing macro-issus potentially pulling downwardly on the BTC price and some other leveraging and historical risk-taking mistakes that are getting sorted out currently too.

So even in the real world, if you happen to be correct Snowshow in regards to the BTC value being at or near zero, then in the longer term, we should expect to see a continued gravitation of the BTC price in that ongoing downward direction towards zero, and surely I personally consider it bad financial advice to either refuse to get involved in BTC or to sell your BTC based on beliefs that the BTC price is going down, but people are free to do what they like.. and it seem to me that anyone with an investment timeline of 4-10 years or longer will likely be in profits 4-10 years down the road with their various purchases of BTC today... and of course, there are no guarantees, even though it is quite likely - like I already mentioned, that the ongoing existence of BTC is likely facilitating the largest of wealth transfers in history, even though it could take a while to play out - but the fact that we have such an ongoing transfer of wealth going on through BTC, you should appreciate that I am suggesting that the wealth is being transferred from the folks who do not have BTC to those who do have BTC, even though such wealth transfer is likely to take a long to time to play out (perhaps 100-200 years or longer? and cheaper prices now as compared with the passage of time).

... and of course, there are no guarantees, either.. but good for folks to consider their allocations into bitcoin, and even if you might feel like a bitcoin naysayer, it still seems prudent to get some kind of allocation, even if it is on the low end of the 1-25% initial allocation that I recommend. The more bullish folks might well gravitate towards higher allocations and the more bearish folks towards the lower end, and we have also seen in recent times that conservative investors who are not overleveraging themselves in their bitcoin investment are likely going to do better than those who are either gambling with their BTC or overly leveraging it.

By the way Snowshow, even a seemingly dumb fuck like you, may well be better off to make sure that he has at least a 1% allocation in bitcoin in case you are wrong about bitcoin going to zero.. and probably you already have BTC anyhow.. I am not even going to concede that you are that dumb to really believe all the bullshit that you are spreading. Maybe even your handlers are paying you in BTC, no?

So, this guy Nakamoto invented a scheme for giving numeric labels to people when they join the scheme by putting it their resources. And you, instead of acknowledging that this is not a payment system but a traditional investment scam with a modern way of labeling members, write endless rants on Nakamoto's these labels like they are some kind of gift from the sky?