NWR Selling bitcoin

its bonkers Gareth, some people are sitting on a lot of crypto and are willing to spend it like this, you should look at the NBA topshots service, video clips highlights of basketball matches that people are spending so much on, it’s a video clip, just tell people its official and limited...
 
I can't get on board with criticising the creators of Blockchain technology for not being smart enough. That's a mind boggling statement to throw down. These individuals solved some extremely challenging computer science problems that had been recorded but unsolved for many years.
Sure enough, there is technology there. Smart people, yes, delivering value to society? No, just transferring money form pocket to pocket... and destroying a lot of value in ll aspects of the definition of the word...
For me, it has all the dimensions of a Ponzi scheme.
Some smart people started it.
Early entrants make a lot of money (if they get out in time).
While the Ponzi scheme is growing, there are many winners...
It is worse than a Ponzi scheme in that it does not create value at all, it helps fraud and protects crime, it consumes a lot of energy and smartness, it is extremely bad for society as a whole, it is driven by greed and will be destroyed by fear... but I know someone who bought a little and is making money. He has now decided to take 12000£ a year not to pay tax on profit...(I suppose he has not many other assets)... and, worst of all, it is not as good as wine while, of course, prices have gone up much more...there is a trade there...
 
Sure enough, there is technology there. Smart people, yes, delivering value to society? No, just transferring money form pocket to pocket... and destroying a lot of value in ll aspects of the definition of the word...
For me, it has all the dimensions of a Ponzi scheme.
Some smart people started it.
Early entrants make a lot of money (if they get out in time).
While the Ponzi scheme is growing, there are many winners...
It is worse than a Ponzi scheme in that it does not create value at all, it helps fraud and protects crime, it consumes a lot of energy and smartness, it is extremely bad for society as a whole, it is driven by greed and will be destroyed by fear... but I know someone who bought a little and is making money. He has now decided to take 12000£ a year not to pay tax on profit...(I suppose he has not many other assets)... and, worst of all, it is not as good as wine while, of course, prices have gone up much more...there is a trade there...
No offense but all this comment really demonstrates is that you don't know what either bitcoin or a ponzi scheme is.
 
Starting to get seller's remorse... The price has gone above $61,000 before dipping back down a little.
Profit is profit, at the end of the day. Trying to jump back on board now will rapidly turn into catching a falling knife. A 30-40% drop is pretty likely within the next week or month, is history is anything to go by (which it isn't). My point being - if you've done well out of your holdings, it's best to just accept it. The current rise is majority driven by people wanting to not miss out. FOMO is a dangerous thing with volatile instruments like BTC.
 
No offense but all this comment really demonstrates is that you don't know what either bitcoin or a ponzi scheme is.
It is not an offense, so far it is an unsubstantiated assertion that reverts badly on its author (you may change this with supporting your assertion, I will be happy to acknowledge any meaningful and rationale input)... probably by an early entrant who made a lot of money from it (good for you)
- It is not the only tool for money launderer, but it is one tool
- It is a way for leaders to make money on their name (E Musk). "I invest 1.5 billion was the driver for the last increase...typical of Ponzi scheme
- It is costly as "investors" get diluted as IT and electricity costs are covered by service providers getting free bitcoins
- It is an unwelcomed contribution to destroying humankind on earth and, given the lack of contribution to society has a dreadful cost/benefit balance to society if you include the dereliction of values
- There is no backing asset and, while state currencies have some assets to back them (not satisfactory indeed), the only "guarantee" bitcoin/cryptocurrencies may survive is that crime will continue and an agreement between nations to impose transparency is unlikely as a lot of countries are corrupt or corrupted

The argument that other activities are no better is not really convincing really...
It is clear there is a wonderful opportunity for Mr E Musk to next announce he has dropped Bitcoin and moved to cryptocurrency B because is so much better... sure enough, the price may explode...
 
It is not an offense, so far it is an unsubstantiated assertion that reverts badly on its author (you may change this with supporting your assertion, I will be happy to acknowledge any meaningful and rationale input)... probably by an early entrant who made a lot of money from it (good for you)
- It is not the only tool for money launderer, but it is one tool
- It is a way for leaders to make money on their name (E Musk). "I invest 1.5 billion was the driver for the last increase...typical of Ponzi scheme
- It is costly as "investors" get diluted as IT and electricity costs are covered by service providers getting free bitcoins
- It is an unwelcomed contribution to destroying humankind on earth and, given the lack of contribution to society has a dreadful cost/benefit balance to society if you include the dereliction of values
- There is no backing asset and, while state currencies have some assets to back them (not satisfactory indeed), the only "guarantee" bitcoin/cryptocurrencies may survive is that crime will continue and an agreement between nations to impose transparency is unlikely as a lot of countries are corrupt or corrupted

The argument that other activities are no better is not really convincing really...
It is clear there is a wonderful opportunity for Mr E Musk to next announce he has dropped Bitcoin and moved to cryptocurrency B because is so much better... sure enough, the price may explode...

To address your points, Antoine...

1. Yes, that's just a consequence of privacy. Properly implemented security generally results in privacy, which is emphasised in a deliberately deregulated and decentralised platform. This usage is not an unintended side effect, it's more than crime tends to adopt transformative things quite quickly.
2. This is not unique to BTC, cryptocurrency or blockchain technology. Suggesting this as a disreputable component of BTC is disingenous.
3. I can't wrap my head around what you're saying here - gaining bitcoin is never "free", as evidenced by the IT and electricity costs you quote in the same sentence. The "dilution" is well documented - it's upto the BTC user if they're okay with that. In other words...who cares? It is what it is. If you don't like it, don't buy BTC...
4. Flat out hyperbole I'm afraid. Happy to debate the ethics of BTC and cryptocurrencies in general but I can't begin to assume the basis of your point.
5. BTC or otherwise never claims to have a backing asset - it's basically the point of them. This is an unfair criticism founded in your expectations of a traditional currency instrument. An "agreement between nations to impose transparency" is antithetical to how cryptocurrencies work - this means they would be regulated, which by virtue of the underlying technology (that is open sourced, so there is no debate over this point), their decentralised status means they cannot be.

Once again, for the avoidance of doubt, I am not an acolyte of BTC, crypto etc, just someone with what I hope is an objective interest in the technology.
 
Thanks Julian! At least, we can have a debate and we certainly have different ideas
- The argument that some other activities are no better is not convincing really... just confirmation that this product is a child of our era
- If BTC leads to crime getting facilitated, then it is a disreputable component of BTC and BTC must be held responsible. It is part of the BTC picture irrespective of whether there are other means to facilitate crime, but sure, BTC is not responsible for all ills
- Society works better when interests of society and of its stakeholders/actors are aligned. This is a strength of a well regulated market economy. Not to be confused with getting away with anything...
- BTC are not in the interest of society, they are detrimental to it (facilitates crime, degrades the environment, destroy value, incur operating costs ). The overall balance is negative so any profit is made at the expense of others
- I don't buy BTC.
- Profit for activities that don't bring any value to society also lead to misallocation of resources (human and capital) and cause overall prejudice to society). Contrast this with a restaurant or a wine producer bringing pleasure to amateurs making a deserved profit (even if sometimes disproportionate either way)


But I fully agree it is clever, requires smart cookies, lots of hard work, etc...
 
Thanks Julian! At least, we can have a debate and we certainly have different ideas
- The argument that some other activities are no better is not convincing really... just confirmation that this product is a child of our era
- If BTC leads to crime getting facilitated, then it is a disreputable component of BTC and BTC must be held responsible. It is part of the BTC picture irrespective of whether there are other means to facilitate crime, but sure, BTC is not responsible for all ills
- Society works better when interests of society and of its stakeholders/actors are aligned. This is a strength of a well regulated market economy. Not to be confused with getting away with anything...
- BTC are not in the interest of society, they are detrimental to it (facilitates crime, degrades the environment, destroy value, incur operating costs ). The overall balance is negative so any profit is made at the expense of others
- I don't buy BTC.
- Profit for activities that don't bring any value to society also lead to misallocation of resources (human and capital) and cause overall prejudice to society). Contrast this with a restaurant or a wine producer bringing pleasure to amateurs making a deserved profit (even if sometimes disproportionate either way)


But I fully agree it is clever, requires smart cookies, lots of hard work, etc...

1. I'm not making an argument that other activites are no better.
2. The very point of most implementations of crytpocurrency is that they cannot be held responsible for what users do with them - they are deregulated by virtue of being decentralised. You must understand this critical fact of BTC et al to get a grasp of how society interacts with them. Cash as a physical object has similar challenges - you wouldn't criticise a £10 note for being involved in a drug sale though, would you? You'd criticise the people exchanging that note.
3. This is a political point in my opinion so I won't comment on it, observing forum rules.
4. In your opinion.
5. OK, nor do I.
6. This argument could be made for many things that society as a whole tolerates - Amazon, Shell, even Planned Parenthood if I wanted to illustrate this in a very obtuse way....! This is your opinion. Which is fine, but I caution you on how you think about cryptocurrencies - these things you claim are not necessarily baked into their existence, function or purpose. I think it would be difficult to argue this stance for ETH 2.0, digital contracts and proof of stake, for example.
 
Profit is profit, at the end of the day. Trying to jump back on board now will rapidly turn into catching a falling knife. A 30-40% drop is pretty likely within the next week or month, is history is anything to go by (which it isn't). My point being - if you've done well out of your holdings, it's best to just accept it. The current rise is majority driven by people wanting to not miss out. FOMO is a dangerous thing with volatile instruments like BTC.

Oh, don't worry, I'm definitely not going to jump back in now - that was just a frivolous comment about the fact that I got out a bit early. I'm very happy with the profit I made and happier still that I hedged my bets by holding back about a third of what I had in case a situation such as this came to pass.
 
Could one of those who've referred to BTC as a Ponzi scheme please explain that position.

This is what a Ponzi scheme is - the simple 'borrow from Peter to pay Paul' setup:

https://www.moaf.org/publications-c..._res/id=Attachments/index=0/Ponzi article.pdf

BTC is not a Ponzi scheme, it's an asset bubble:

Protect Yourself From Today's Hidden Asset Bubbles

Interestingly, although BTC functions as a currency, in that you can use it to purchase goods and services, it's traded more like a physical object (an artwork, a baseball card, etc) that's valuable simply because people say it's valuable.
 
Definitely not a Ponzi scheme. looking at its characteristics (at least the few that I understand) I can see the following:
1. Costs a lot to mine;
2. Finite supply;
3. Cannot be used to produce value through manufacturing or other process without being converted;
4. Not interest-bearing;
5. Needs to be converted to a real currency at a "prevailing" rate before any value can be extracted.

The other long-existing commodity that shares these characteristics is gold bullion, which was un-successfully used as an economc "standard" for a number of years, but which is really just a hedge and a source of speculation. Or not? I can't see that BTC is any different.
 
BTC is not a Ponzi scheme, it's an asset bubble:
I can agree with this, although I struggle to see how it meets the definition of asset.

Interestingly, although BTC functions as a currency, in that you can use it to purchase goods and services, it's traded more like a physical object (an artwork, a baseball card, etc) that's valuable simply because people say it's valuable.
Needs to be converted to a real currency at a "prevailing" rate before any value can be extracted.
"Valuable simply because people say it's valuable... " I Fully agree and the reason why I wrongly used the term Ponzi scheme which has a narrower definition .

An "asset" with high operating costs... looks a bit like in bond wine which you need to drink before it becomes worthless... except bitcoins cannot be drunk.
 
5. Needs to be converted to a real currency at a "prevailing" rate before any value can be extracted.

Not sure that this is true. There are plenty of ways that you can use BTC to purchase goods and services (and not necessarily illegal ones) directly, without converting it to a real currency. At one point there were cafes in which you could buy a coffee using BTC.
 
Not sure that this is true. There are plenty of ways that you can use BTC to purchase goods and services (and not necessarily illegal ones) directly, without converting it to a real currency. At one point there were cafes in which you could buy a coffee using BTC.
Indeed.

Sure for the moment this is limited, at least in the UK, but theres nothing inherently stopping this. The increasing availability of things like dollar-pegged stablecoins will in my opinion make this a lot easier.

Its perhaps easier to see the utility here if you imagine living in a Latin American country with a depreciating currency for example. If I was Venezuelan I'd probably rather keep my cash in BTC over Bolivars. An easy to access on mobile, bankless, decentralised, secure, transferable store of value would sound relatively useful.
 
Well, Looking at it on a BTC black box basis, tells me the following:
- Liquidation value of the underlying "asset" is 0
- A lot of energy, people capital, IT hardware, ....get consumed
with no goods nor services of value provided to society. These enormous resources could be allocated to other activities benefiting humankind
- The energy consumption (equivalent to Argentina whole annual consumption) is accelerating
- It contributes a lot to Global warming which is a major threat to humankind without providing society with anything in return (energy consumed by car takes you from a point to another, Central heating keeps you warm (or cold)...). Here, energy only allows you to transfer wealth from a pocket to another pocket (inside the black box)
- The world is now taking action to limit energy consumption... this is clearly an area where global warming could be curtailed without much prejudice to humankind on a global basis...

While BTC destroy value on a blackbox basis (mining is expensivve as reported above), there are indeed winners and losers (profit and losses can be incurred at different moments in time).
Of course, I do not blame people for making money when they can but it is better if they provide something in return.
It certainly is an asset as long as people continue to believe it is one, as in gold (plenty of believers) unlike the large Polo mint stones (rai stones) formerly used in Micronesia (zero believers).
Well, with gold you can make jewels and please your wife (couple harmony is high value) or many other things.

Of course, it would not be right to only hold BTC to account
 
Last edited:
Well, with gold you can make jewels and please your wife (couple harmony is high value) or many other things.
But in many countries the role of the jewelry is to act as an asset and a store of wealth Antoine (India, China etc.). It is still the belief in gold that is the critical issue and it shares rarity value with BTC - i.e. it is difficult to increase the supply unlike fiat currency. I'd rather be in gold than BTC despite the potential for short-term gain with the latter, since all other similar stores of value have come and gone through history. Gold has a serious track record.
 
I'm not an accountant, so I'm not sure what the strict definition of an asset is, but as I understand it, cash counts as an asset, so why wouldn't BTC?
I am, BTC are assets and would be classified either as inventory (stock) in current assets if the company is an active trader and ends up long at the balance sheet date; or otherwise as an intangible asset; or as an investment where appropriate (no idea what that means). Valuation and impairments are other problems, and my Institute at least has some recommendations on potential money-laundering implications to consider as well.

FRS102 gives more information but this accounting standard predates the cryptocurrency era and is likely to be superceded at some point.

It definitely isn't ever classed as cash BTW!
 
Top