NYTransplant

Tell me you're on the stonks thread, without telling me you're on the stonks thread.

Looks like your opinion could be correct. See you at $100k?

I think we'll see a slight pullback (mid-$80k) before the run to $100k, but I'm not selling what I hold.

Second question, can you explain how BTC is leveraged? Specifically, more leveraged than any other "real asset" that people can invest in? I'm fully aware of the fact that people are buying BTC on margin, and companies like MSTR have used debt to acquire BTC, but how is this any different than the stock market or mortgages? The introduction of options trading against IBIT does add more leverage, but I'd argue that we haven't gotten to the point where you can leverage leverage on BTC the way you can with many investments. So, is the leverage just worse because it's Bitcoin, or is there some way in which people are getting significantly more leverage on their BTC investments than other "real investments?"

So, it's safe to say that your primary argument is less about a 51% attack, and more about the code being hacked. If that's the case, is it safe to say that I should have the same level of concern for a BTC hack as I have for my Fidelity account being hacked? If that's your point, then sure, I'll accept it, but in that situation, we're going to have much bigger problems, as I think it's safe to say, unless BTC flips the banking industry, hackers will be going after the bigger fish first.

Sounds good. First question - do you think that a 51% attack on Bitcoin is a legit concern? You mentioned it in the past few pages, was that some sort of brain fart, or can you provide an explanation for how this could happen without the price of Bitcoin going parabolic (I think $1 million/BTC would be a very conservative number if an attempt was made).

Agree with you on this. Stocks are not Ponzi schemes, as the value is in the underlying company, and there is an actual asset there. To be critical, your claim that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme and my claim that the US dollar is a Ponzi scheme are not accurate, either. For Bitcoin, investors are not being paid with other people's money. They are paying more for an actual asset, albeit a digital asset. An asset with a finite supply. Celsius was a Ponzi scheme, unfortunately for me. Miners contribute energy to generate more bitcoin, and thus they have skin in the game. They aren't creating BTC out of thin air. Conversely, the US does create money out of thin air. I'd argue that the US dollar is the biggest scam the world has seen. The US managed to establish the dollar as the world reserve currency in 1944, when it was backed by gold. The world committed to the currency and for ~25 years, all was well and good. But, then the US started printing more money than they had gold to cover and in 1971, you could no longer claim gold in exchange for currency. There is nothing behind the US dollar. Nothing other than a promise from our government that is adding debt at a ridiculous rate. It's appropriate that Trump is going into office, this could be his biggest bankruptcy ever.

It's totally a gamble for sure, but there is a chance that it could have widespread adoption and become a real world asset. I think most people investing in it are assuming that risk. At the moment crypto makes up 5-10% of my portfolio. In my mind, that's a pretty solid risk/reward for something that could 10x or more. If you want to discuss the real risk of BTC, I'm all for it. The BS arguments that Captainant has posed (other than the energy consumption) just shit up this thread. As stated earlier, leverage is no bigger of an issue than it is with any other asset at the moment, and I'd argue that BTC is less leveraged than most other assets. Edit: funny that they just announced options for IBIT. The risk of a 51% move is complete bullshit, given the economics of supply demand. Hell, I'd welcome someone trying to make that play, as I can't even imagine what the price of BTC would be as a result of that play. Fiat currencies are a Ponzi scheme. I take a dollar with the assumption that the next idiot will give me something in exchange for that dollar. Other than being a piece of paper with print on it, there is nothing backing it. Worse than that, the government has full authority to manipulate the supply of that piece of paper at will. Bitcoin is still in the very early stages of adoption, and thus extreme price fluctuations are to be expected as adoption increases. If universal adoption occurs, the price will stabilize (at a significantly higher level), if it doesn't it could go to $0. I believe there are strong signs for the former, and that's why I'm taking the risk that I am.

Appreciate the advice, I do plan to take some gains as the price skyrockets, but I won't sell it all. I would like your thoughts on when a Ponzi scheme becomes "too big to fail?" Is it when governments start putting it on their balance sheet? Are fiat currencies Ponzi schemes? If not, why not? "Every major bitcoin player" is a bit of an exaggeration. I'll admit, I got hosed in the Celsius deal, as I wasn't paying close enough attention. That was a tough hit to take, but I still believe in the fundamentals of Bitcoin. Thankfully, we've never had any bad actors in the realm of real investments. No companies, wealth managers, or investment bankers have ever stolen people's money or gone to jail. Guess I'll just stick to the safe investments.

Appreciate the advice. I'll hang out and lurk, while watching my "Ponzi scheme" asset continue to increase in value.

Been on this board since 2018. I don't tend to engage with the trolls, but Captainant's head is so far in the sand, that it's filling his vagina. Figured I'd bounce in to call him out, and go back to lurking on this thread. Oh, and celebrating the fact that BTC continues to hit ATH's.

Sorry, I guess flavor of the day would be more accurate. In the past couple pages, I've seen you bring up: Government Interest - a point which is invalid, as government purchasing does not mean government control. Leveraging via ETF's - a point which is invalid with the major ETF's, as they are purchasing BTC with cash inflows (the opposite of leveraging) Inefficiency of payments - The typical ACH takes 1-3 days to clear and you're complaining about transfers taking 10-20 minutes to move A 51% attack - this is impossible, based on your premise that a government would "take control of a mining pool" (there are less than 2 million BTC left to be mined, or less than 10% of all BTC) So, yeah, I'm just trying to keep up.

Is this your new argument against Bitcoin? I've been watching you move the goalposts through most of this thread, and just want to make sure I'm keeping up.

https://www.pcarmarket.com/ Edit - missed your reference. Sorry. Might be worth check autotempest.com as well.

Can you be a bit more specific. You're covering almost 80 years of production at this point.