Bitcoin and other crypto-The CR thread

[Cum Rocket 136]

3 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

It really doesn't help the credibility of crypto people when every time I see someone pushing it or defending it they have some stupid ass username like cum rocket. Like what the hell man. Nobody is gonna take you seriously.

 

"To the moon, baby! Cum rocket told me so!"

It’s a stupid cryptocurrency. As good a name as any. 

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

It really doesn't help the credibility of crypto people when every time I see someone pushing it or defending it they have some stupid ass username like cum rocket. Like what the hell man. Nobody is gonna take you seriously.

 

"To the moon, baby! Cum rocket told me so!"

Nice username, both of you.

[jimmyjazz 45963]

1 hour ago, Cum Rocket said:

Again if you lower your time preference and hold it, you’ll benefit. Expect volatility though.  As explained below. Not by me. 
 

“Due to group psychology, these newcomers arrive in waves. The waves have a destabilizing effect on the exchange rate: speculators are unsure of the amplitude or wavelength of adoption, and amateurish punters let their excitement as well as subsequent fear overwhelm them. Regardless, once the tide has pulled back and the weak hands have folded, the price is a few times higher than before the wave.”

Gibberish.  In my opinion one needs some way to protect against massive losses.  It's not easy.  There is no reason to believe that crypto will trend up over "sufficiently long" timeframes.  It could just as easily tank and stay down.

Timing an individual instrument or even the market is difficult, and doesn't carry any particular guarantee of future success.  But, one can protect against massive drawdowns.  I calculated the return on bitcoin between May 15, 2017 and March 12 of this year (41.6X) and the return on trading the slope of the 126 day (6 month) simple moving average, which was considerably higher (70.3X).  Furthermore, the max drawdown was less that 15%, as opposed to at least 76% for the buy and hold "strategy".  The trading rule is this:  If the 126D slope is positive, you're in.  If it's negative, you're out.  As with all timing models, the strategy indicator lags price, and you'll see short term whipsaw losses, but those are more than compensated by avoiding massive drawdowns.  Of course, there are fees and taxes to consider, too.  Do what you want, but I think you're leaving money on the table AND exposing yourself to massive risk.

[BrickHorn 18237]

Crypto is worthless as a currency because of its volatility, transaction costs, and inability to scale. So it has become nothing more than an investment asset. But unlike other assets, crypto offers no dividends, rents, interest, or utilitarian value. Its only value is speculative: when you buy crypto, you’re gambling that someone else will buy it for more than you paid. It’s entirely a bet on a rise in the price of the asset itself, also know as a “greater fool” bet. 

Crypto enthusiasts will bounce back and forth between currency-type and asset-type arguments for it. But the former are completely irrelevant. Aside from stable coins (which have their own issues), crypto is not a form of currency and thus any attempt to justify crypto based on analogy to fiat is invalid. The relevant question at this point is whether crypto has sustainable value as an asset. 

[Cum Rocket 136]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Gibberish.  In my opinion one needs some way to protect against massive losses.  It's not easy.  There is no reason to believe that crypto will trend up over "sufficiently long" timeframes.  It could just as easily tank and stay down.

Timing an individual instrument or even the market is difficult, and doesn't carry any particular guarantee of future success.  But, one can protect against massive drawdowns.  I calculated the return on bitcoin between May 15, 2017 and March 12 of this year (41.6X) and the return on trading the slope of the 126 day (6 month) simple moving average, which was considerably higher (70.3X).  Furthermore, the max drawdown was less that 15%, as opposed to at least 76% for the buy and hold "strategy".  The trading rule is this:  If the 126D slope is positive, you're in.  If it's negative, you're out.  As with all timing models, the strategy indicator lags price, and you'll see short term whipsaw losses, but those are more than compensated by avoiding massive drawdowns.  Of course, there are fees and taxes to consider, too.  Do what you want, but I think you're leaving money on the table AND exposing yourself to massive risk.

If you're comfortable trading it, good for you. It's easier for most to just buy over time and hold an asset that appreciates with adoption over time. 

 

 

[Cum Rocket 136]

Disclaimer-some of the supporters of these pacs are definite scammers. There’s a big gulf between Bitcoin and the rest of crypto. I don't support much of the latter tbh. 

 

Just sharing as this appears to be a lobbying voice that will be heard going forward. 

 

 

 

[Biff Tannen 45691]

I threw $100 at Ethereum a few years back and as of right now it's at $1500.  Just wanted to see what would happen.  Maybe if it goes nuts in the next few years for some reason, I'll cash out.

[jimmyjazz 45963]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against gambling.  One just needs to know that it's gambling.

[Pam Cummings 9644]

6 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I threw $100 at Ethereum a few years back and as of right now it's at $1500.  Just wanted to see what would happen.  Maybe if it goes nuts in the next few years for some reason, I'll cash out.

This is where I am. Bought eth, bitcoin, cardano, a couple of others. Spent about $300. It was middle of the pandemic in 2020. Bitcoin was I think peaking at $60k and all the crypto bros were saying it's definitely getting to $100k by end of year. My shit went up and peaked at around $700 I think. Then everything declined and was stagnant for like 3 years. Every time I checked(maybe once a month) it would be between $300-$400. Now it is at $800 and still going up.

 

What I have learned here is that it takes about 3-4 years for the public to forget what happened last time and to start pumping it up again. Election year probably doesn't hurt.

Edited March 13 by Pam Cummings

[bernorange 8362]

~~~

Quote

...
For too long, the world has had to endure the fallout of subpar academic research on bitcoin mining’s energy use and environmental impact. The outcome of this bullshit research has been shocking news headlines that have turned some well-meaning people into angry politicians and deranged activists. So that you never have to endure the brutality of one of these sloppy papers, I’ve sacrificed my soul to the bitcoin mining gods and performed a full-scale analysis of a study from the United Nations University, published recently in the American Geophysical Union’s Earth’s Future. Only the bravest and hardest of all bitcoin autists may proceed to the following paragraphs, the rest of you can go back to watching the price chart.

Your soft baby ears might have screamed with shock at the strong proclamation in my lede that the biggest and squeakiest research on bitcoin mining is bullshit. If you’ve ever read Jonathan Koomey’s 2018 blog post on the Digiconomist–also known as Alex deVries, or his 2019 Coincenter report, or Lei et al. 2021, or Sai and Vranken 2023, or Masanet et al. 2021, or… Well, the point is that there’s thousands of words already written that have shown that bitcoin mining energy modeling is in a state of crisis and that this is not isolated to bitcoin! It’s a struggle that data center energy studies have faced for decades. People like Jonathan Koomey, Eric Masanet, Arman Shehabi, and those nice guys Sai and Vranken (sorry, we’re not yet on a first-name basis) have written enough pages that could probably cover the walls of at least one men’s bathroom at every bitcoin conference that’s happened last year, that show this to be true.

My holy altar, which I keep in my bedroom closet, is a hand-carved, elegant yet ascetic shrine to Koomey, Masanet, and Shehabi for the decades of work they’ve done to improve data center energy modeling. These sifus of computing have made it all very clear to me: if you don’t have bottom-up data and you rely on historical trends while ignoring IT device energy efficiency trends and what drives demand, then your research is bullshit. And so, with one broad yet very surgical stroke, I swipe left on Mora et al. (2018), deVries (2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023), Stoll et al. (2019), Gallersdorfer et al. (2020), Chamanara et al. (2023), and all the others that are mentioned in Sai and Vranken’s comprehensive review of the literature. ...
...
On a somewhat bearish October afternoon, I got tagged on Twitter/X on a post about a new bitcoin energy use study from some authors affiliated with the United Nations University (Chamanara et al., 2023). Little did I know that this study would trigger my autism so hard that I would descend into my own kind of drug-induced-gonzo-fear-and-loathing-in-vegas state, and hyper-focus on this study for the next four weeks. While I am probably exaggerating about the heavy drug use, my recollection of this time is very much a techno-colored, toxic relationship-level fever dream. Do you remember Frank from the critically acclaimed 2001 film, Donnie Darko? Yeah, he was there, too.

As I started taking notes on the paper, I realized that Chamanara et al.’s study was really confusing. The paper was perplexing because it's a poorly designed study that bases its raison d’etre entirely on de Vries and Mora et al. It uses the Cambridge Center for Alternative Finance (CCAF) Cambridge Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index (CBECI) data without acknowledging the limitations of the model (see Lei et al. 2021 and Sai and Vranken 2023 for an in-depth analysis of the issues with CBECI’s modeling). It conflates its results from the 2020-2021 period with the state of bitcoin mining in 2022 and 2023. The authors also relied on some environmental footprint methodology that would make you think it was actually possible for you to shrink or grow a reservoir depending on how hard you Netflix and chill. Really, this is what Obringer et al. (2020) inferentially conclude is possible and the UN study cites Obringer as one of its methodological foundations. By the way, Koomey and Masanet did not like Obringer et al.’s methodology, either. I’ll light another soy-based candle at the altar in their honor.
...

More (very long w/link to even longer full report):

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/sponsored/mining-misinformation-how-the-united-nations-university-misrepresented-data-to-exaggerate-bitcoins-environmental-footprint

~~~

Quote

SEC’s Unlawful Targeting of Digital Asset Industry Challenged in New Lawsuit From Startup LEJILEX and Crypto Freedom Alliance of Texas

Texas lawsuit seeks confirmation that most digital asset sales are not subject to SEC enforcement

Lawsuit follows years of overreaching SEC enforcement actions that have undermined the digital asset industry and American technological innovation

LEJILEX’s proactive approach protects the company from erroneous SEC enforcement actions prior to initiation of operations

February 21, 2024 11:30 AM Eastern Standard Time

FORT WORTH, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--LEJILEX, an emerging digital asset company, and Crypto Freedom Alliance of Texas (“CFAT”), a nonprofit trade association that advocates for the responsible development of digital asset policies in Texas, filed a complaint today against the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), challenging the agency's unlawful assertion of regulatory authority over practically all digital asset transactions in Texas and the United States. This case, filed in anticipation of CFAT member company LEJILEX launching a new digital asset trading platform, seeks confirmation that transactions in digital assets on this platform are not sales of securities that are subject to SEC registration requirements. In doing so, they hope to end years of misguided SEC policy that is actively harming law-abiding American businesses.

In the complaint, filed today in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, LEJILEX and CFAT – represented by Clement & Murphy, PLLC and Duane Morris, LLP – outline how the SEC has usurped near-total jurisdiction over the digital asset industry, despite several SEC Commissioners themselves acknowledging that Congress has never granted their agency authority to do so.

The SEC not only lacks legal authority to regulate most digital asset transactions, but has proven it is unprepared to respect the limits Congress has put on its jurisdiction or even to develop and enforce common sense and consistent regulations for this emerging industry, relying instead on regulation via ad hoc enforcement actions. The SEC’s unlawful, unpredictable approach has created an environment in which companies like LEJILEX are unable to operate without fear of being subject to SEC enforcement actions – leaving a trillion-dollar industry and law-abiding individuals in a state of uncertainty while diminishing the United States’ leadership in this critical sector.

As the complaint explains, despite repeated pleas from industry participants, the SEC has refused to provide “any definitive regulation that would afford industry participants clear ex ante guidance” on what digital assets transactions fall within its scope. Instead, the SEC has used one-off enforcement actions to assert an “overly broad view of its own authority” – a view that “fails as a matter of statutory text, history, precedent, and common sense, and would allow the SEC to unilaterally seize control over a trillion-dollar industry without anything like the clear statutory mandate necessary to justify such a massive expansion of agency power.”

To justify their ad hoc enforcement actions, the SEC claims that practically all digital assets qualify as securities under the SEC’s purview because they represent “investment contracts,” a catch-all category within the definition of security. In this lawsuit, the plaintiffs seek a judicial declaration that sales of digital assets like the ones that would take place on LEJILEX’s platform are not securities transactions. As the plaintiffs’ complaint explains, these transactions do not fit the definition of "investment contracts"; if they did, the SEC’s authority would be virtually limitless, covering any purchase of an asset that might appreciate in value. For example, the SEC’s view of its own authority would apparently mean that buying a pair of limited-run Nike sneakers with the intention of reselling them, while expecting that Nike would continue working to increase demand for those coveted shoes, would be enough to turn those sneakers into securities, their resale into a securities transaction subject to regulation by the SEC, and any auction house or consignment store that helps resell them into an unregistered securities exchange.

“We wish we were launching our business instead of filing a lawsuit, but here we are,” said Mike Wawszczak, Co-Founder of LEJILEX. He continued, “The SEC’s rogue enforcement actions targeting our industry have paralyzed those of us who just want to build lawful businesses and technologies. Fear of rogue enforcement should not be a thing entrepreneurs are forced to experience. We hope our action encourages the SEC to reconsider its regulatory approach, and we welcome them to work with us and our industry to ensure the most important technologies of the future are built here in America, under American laws, consistent with American values.
...

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240220458690/en/SEC

 

 

[jimmyjazz 45963]

Well, that changes everything.  I'm convinced.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13515]

Is a bitcoin worth $0.01 or $100K? It's worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it. And today people are willing to pay $70K for one, mainly on the hope that someone will want to pay $80K for it tomorrow. Or whatever amount or timeframe. The person selling it thinks the other. There are plenty of financial products that also rely on the greater fool theory.

As for bitcoin supporting crime or terrorism activities. Yes, it 100% can be used for that. You know what also supports criminal activities: phones, internet, social media, mail, $100 bills, bank transfers, etc. I know it's tough for the govt. to prevent crime but it's also not innocent people's responsibility to suppress their freedoms to make the govt's job easier.

 

[Neonmoon 38129]

1 minute ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Is a bitcoin worth $0.01 or $100K? It's worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it. And today people are willing to pay $70K for one, mainly on the hope that someone will want to pay $80K for it tomorrow. Or whatever amount or timeframe. The person selling it thinks the other. There are plenty of financial products that also rely on the greater fool theory.

As for bitcoin supporting crime or terrorism activities. Yes, it 100% can be used for that. You know what also supports criminal activities: phones, internet, social media, mail, $100 bills, bank transfers, etc. I know it's tough for the govt. to prevent crime but it's also not innocent people's responsibility to suppress their freedoms to make the govt's job easier.

 

You don’t think the government can subpoena your phone records and social media accounts or freeze your bank accounts to stop crime? We absolutely give up a little bit of our freedoms to live in a safer society. We always have. And it absolutely is an innocent persons responsibility. It always has been.

I don’t launder money, but if I deposit over 10K in cash to my bank account. The bank tells the government.

I’m not a terrorist, but I’m not allowed to bring my licensed handgun on the plane. 

I’m not a reckless driver, but I will get a ticket for driving 150mph in a school zone.

The argument that we shouldn’t give up anything is an attractive one because of “my freedoms” but it always leads to everyone being less safe. 

[Captainant 27678]

54 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Is a bitcoin worth $0.01 or $100K? It's worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it. And today people are willing to pay $70K for one, mainly on the hope that someone will want to pay $80K for it tomorrow. Or whatever amount or timeframe. The person selling it thinks the other. There are plenty of financial products that also rely on the greater fool theory.

You're squinting REALLY hard to overlook the core matter of Bitcoin representing literally nothing except for the hope of selling it for more in the future. Other assets and commodities that are speculated on actually represent real goods. Bitcoin is just a number in a ledger that represents a number in a ledger. 

[wildcat09 29354]

3 hours ago, bernorange said:

~~~

More (very long w/link to even longer full report):

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/sponsored/mining-misinformation-how-the-united-nations-university-misrepresented-data-to-exaggerate-bitcoins-environmental-footprint

~~~

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240220458690/en/SEC

 

 

Bern, you fucking brilliant genius, linking to fucking sponsored content that is clearly labeled as such and has "sponsored" in the url, from fucking bitcoinmagazine.com to support your argument. This is some sort of avant garde performance, isn't it?

[Brisketexan 105151]

Bern, you fucking brilliant genius, linking to fucking sponsored content that is clearly labeled as such and has "sponsored" in the url, from fucking bitcoinmagazine.com to support your argument. This is some sort of avant garde performance, isn't it?

My main issue with the long cat text was….did it ever fucking say anything? Seriously…was there any point/conclusion to it, at all?

[Brisketexan 105151]

Also, this seems apropos.

[BrickHorn 18237]

19 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Is a bitcoin worth $0.01 or $100K? It's worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it.

This reflects a superficial model of economics. Sure, price represents subjective value. But, over the long term, humans value useful things. Occasionally markets go irrational based on a FOMO mentality, but people eventually recognize useless assets for what they are and prices and volume crash. Look at what happened with NFTs which are, ironically enough, essentially just crypto tokens that are nominally tethered to something tangible.

[Pescado_Rojo 19416]

16 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Also, this seems apropos.

when you're too lazy to become a real estate agent...

[RDCanecutter 26446]

26 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Look at what happened with NFTs which are, ironically enough, essentially just crypto tokens that are nominally tethered to something tangible.

I am so glad that NFTs crashed. For a couple of months, long-lost friends were contacting me with the same highly-original idea to get together to sell NFTs. Y'know, buy some damn Etherium that I don't want so I can "mint" an NFT that in theory can sell for a million dollars, eventually, and for sure I'll get my cut because people are honest.

Counterpoint: how bout I take a scrap of cardboard, do some squiggles on it with a marker, sell it for money in "fire and forget" mode, and then make 100 more squiggles on 100 more pieces of cardboard, sell them too, no code involved.

[Cum Rocket 136]

19 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

I don’t launder money, but if I deposit over 10K in cash to my bank account. The bank tells the government.

I’m not a terrorist, but I’m not allowed to bring my licensed handgun on the plane. 

I’m not a reckless driver, but I will get a ticket for driving 150mph in a school zone.

These 3 examples are not equivalent, at all.

If I deposit 10k cash it shouldn't be the government's business.

The Bank Secrecy Act is shit.

KYC/AML regs are shit. They don't stop any criminals. They only inconvenience and encroach on the privacy of average Americans. They actually harm average Americans by creating honeypots of data that get hacked.

It's all about control.

It's no surprise you support it, or that you tried to make that equivalency.

[wildcat09 29354]

30 minutes ago, Cum Rocket said:

They actually harm average Americans by creating honeypots of data that get hacked.

Lol, like you give a shit about people getting hacked.

[Neonmoon 38129]

38 minutes ago, Cum Rocket said:

These 3 examples are not equivalent, at all.

If I deposit 10k cash it shouldn't be the government's business.

The Bank Secrecy Act is shit.

KYC/AML regs are shit. They don't stop any criminals. They only inconvenience and encroach on the privacy of average Americans. They actually harm average Americans by creating honeypots of data that get hacked.

It's all about control.

It's no surprise you support it, or that you tried to make that equivalency.

Nice rebuttal. Were you on the debate team? 

[Captainant 27678]

4 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Nice rebuttal. Were you on the debate team? 

Debate pukes are the worst. They don't care about being correct, just being contrarian and "winning" the argument by "scoring" ownz

[Neonmoon 38129]

Check your sarcasm meter 

[bernorange 8362]

Quote

Key Findings

• Super PACs backed by the cryptocurrency sector have raised more than $102 million, the third-most of all super PACs engaged in the 2024 election, according data from Opensecrets.org. Only the super PAC backing Ron DeSantis’ failed presidential campaign and the super PAC backing Democratic Senate candidates have raised more money so far.
• ...
• Out of the six 2024 primary races where the crypto super PACs intervened and which are now over, only one crypto-backed candidate has lost. Eleven primary races that include crypto-backed candidates remain.
• The crypto super PACs have pledged to spend in general election Senate races in the battleground states of Ohio and Montana, which are seen as essential for securing a Senate majority. Democratic incumbents in both races have been critical of the crypto sector.

https://www.citizen.org/article/cryptobros-united-fairshake-super-pac-2024-elections/

[lucious leftfoot 126]

 

[Bullneck 19107]

On 3/13/2024 at 7:33 PM, Brisketexan said:

My main issue with the long cat text was….did it ever fucking say anything? Seriously…was there any point/conclusion to it, at all?

I thought it was just me.  I tried reading the purported facts and learned they were purported facts.  Hmmm . . . which seems suspiciously similar to bitcoing being purported money.

*********************************

Hi Lucious!  My name's Bullneck. You come here often?

Just for the record I think they'll be like sixteen people who will give a shit about crypto during the election.  You and cum rocket are two of them (wink, wink).

4 hours ago, lucious leftfoot said:

 

Edited May 13 by Bullneck

[Bullneck 19107]

On 3/14/2024 at 12:40 PM, Cum Rocket said:

These 3 examples are not equivalent, at all.

If I deposit 10k cash it shouldn't be the government's business.

The Bank Secrecy Act is shit.

KYC/AML regs are shit. They don't stop any criminals. They only inconvenience and encroach on the privacy of average Americans. They actually harm average Americans by creating honeypots of data that get hacked.

It's all about control.

It's no surprise you support it, or that you tried to make that equivalency.

O.M.G. you incels love to fantasize about "honeypots" more than Winnie the Pooh.

[HenryJames 66079]

8 hours ago, lucious leftfoot said:

 

“They are against it,” he said at an event promoting his own non-fungible token, or NFT.

[Neonmoon 38129]

GRHorn, the herpes of Surlyhorns 

[Fudge Nuggets 19195]

10 hours ago, lucious leftfoot said:

 

Well, if dotard is for crypto (I don't know, can't bother to read that article) then you are obviously on the wrong side of the issue.

[Captainant 27678]

On 5/13/2024 at 7:57 AM, Fudge Nuggets said:

Well, if dotard is for crypto (I don't know, can't bother to read that article) then you are obviously on the wrong side of the issue.

Idk, crypto scammers are increasingly targeting MAGATs so it's not all bad

https://www.wired.com/story/maga-crypto-scammers-donald-trump/

 

[pacman 7357]

Corsicana residents fighting planned bitcoin mining operation 

https://www.wired.com/story/the-worlds-biggest-bitcoin-mine-is-rattling-this-texas-oil-town/