Re: Bitcoin, crypto currencies, block chain

[Guest]

The CME, the Wall Street money machine, and the billionaire speculators have already targeted bitcoin and they will pulverize you to dust.

Not only is it dangerous when YOU use leverage, it is also dangerous when THEY use leverage, even if YOU don't.

[Guest]

** 24-Jan-2021 World View: Tulipomania versus Bitcoinomaina

This argument over whether Bitcoin is a bubble is very familiar to me,
because it's very similar to what I saw with the housing bubble in the
2000s decade.

I just don't understand why people couldn't see that there was a
housing bubble. It was obvious to Alan Greenspan, and I quoted
several speeches by Greenspan where he talked about it. It was
obvious to financial commentator Mish Shedlock, and I quoted some of
his sarcastic columns about people ignoring the housing bubbles. It
was obvious to me and I became so panicked about it that I sold my
condo -- at the height of the bubble, which was good for me.

But here's what the élite were saying at the time: "Housing prices
can't go down -- people have to live somewhere," and "Banks won't
foreclose -- it's not in their interest to do so" and "These housing
construction firms know what they're doing, and they wouldn't be
building houses if it were just a bubble."

These are the same kinds of reasons that are used today to justify the
bitcoin bubble.

In the 2007 time frame, I had a couple of friends who were buying
homes. I begged them not to do it. I told them they would lose a lot
of money. But they didn't believe me. One of them got very angry
with me, the same kind of anger that we're seeing in this forum over
bitcoin. Of course they both lost a great deal of money, which was
very sad for me because, as I said, they were my friends.

I was actually shocked in late 2008 or 2009, the FIRST TIME that I
heard an economist or "expert" on tv refer to the housing bubble. I
couldn't believe my ears that I was hearing about a housing bubble on
tv. Of course, that was in the PAST TENSE, as in "when the housing
bubble occurred, blah, blah." These so-called "experts" never said
anything like that during the ACTUAL housing bubble.

The comparison between Bitcoinomania and Tulipomania is very relevant,
though not for the obvious reason. It's not because of an equivalence
between bitcoins and tulips.

The tulip market began to take off in 1634 with rising prices for
tulips. It led to a tulip craze, as tulip prices began to soar.

However, the worst of the bubble did not occur because tulips
themselves were being traded at high prices. The worst occurred when
TULIP FUTURES were being traded.

Here's an excerpt that I've quoted in the past from the description
given in Edward Chancellor's 1999 book, Devil Take the Hindmost, a
history of financial speculation:

"No actual delivery of tulips took place during the
height of the boom in late 1636 and early 1637 as the bulbs
remained snug in the ground. A market in tulip futures appeared,
known as the windhandel (the wind trade): sellers promised
to deliver a bulb of a certain type and weight the following
spring, buyers took the right to delivery -- in the meantime, cash
settlement could be made for any difference in market price. Most
transactions were expedited with personal credit notes which also
fell due in the spring when the bulbs would be dug up and
delivered. Gaergoedt boasts of having made 60,000 guilders from
his tulip speculations but admits that he has only received "other
people's writing." By the later stages of the mania, the fusion
of the windhandel with paper credit created a perfect
symmetry of insubstantiality: most transactions were for tulip
bulbs that could never be delivered because they didn't exist and
were paid for with credit notes that could never be honoured
because the money wasn't there." (pp. 16-18)

So the explosive growth of the tulip market was not caused by trading
in tulips themselves, but in trading in the futures market for tulips
-- known as the Dutch word "windhandel," literally "trading in the
wind." Bitcoin trading today is exactly the same -- trading in the
wind.

At some point in the future, so-called "experts" will talk about the
"bitcoin bubble," but it will be in the past, after a lot of people
have lost a lot of money, and will be destitute because they went into
debt to invest in bitcoins, like the Dutch in 1636 went into debt to
invest in windhandel.

• Soooo pretty -- Tulips and Bitcoins

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Yes.

[Guest]

In October 2021, an exchange traded fund based on spot (cash) bitcoin was rejected by regulators, while two exchange traded funds based on bitcoin futures were approved by regulators.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has until Nov. 14 to give a thumbs up or thumbs down to the VanEck Bitcoin ETF, the first exchange-traded fund in a long line of “spot” bitcoin ETFs that have applications in front of the regulator.

The SEC has delayed a decision on the application twice before, but now that a maximum 240-day review period is over, they must decide.

The ETF and bitcoin community are not optimistic.

“I think there is literally zero chance of passage in the next three years,” Dave Nadig, director of research at ETF Trends, told me.

What happened to all the crypto optimism?
That pessimism is born out of two developments:

1) Key regulators, particularly SEC Chair Gary Gensler, have indicated they are reluctant to expand crypto offerings, particularly a “spot” bitcoin ETF, unless there is legislation clearly defining which regulatory agencies have control over the various crypto spaces, such as crypto exchanges; and

2) Legislation tucked into the recent infrastructure bill will place onerous reporting requirements on crypto.

Crypto investors got their first splash of cold water earlier this year when Gensler spoke at the Aspen Security Forum on Aug. 3, where he noted the need for more investor protection around the crypto space. He said, “Given these important protections, I look forward to the staff’s review of such filings, particularly if those are limited to these CME-traded bitcoin futures.”

Sure enough, Gensler soon approved the first bitcoin futures-based ETF, the ProShares Bitcoin Strategy ETF, which began trading on Oct.19. A second bitcoin futures ETF, the Valkyrie Bitcoin Strategy ETF, began trading on Oct. 22.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/10/decisio ... n-etf.html

[Cool Breeze]

"If you're smart you'll make your money being in league with politicians, like my father."
- Warren Buffett

[Cool Breeze]

No.

John doesn't know the history of tulipmania, and tulips were never needed by nearly the entire world, as BTC is now. Ask the truckers, if you are honest, and you'll instantly see. It's bizarre that this board can get a freedom topic this wrong.

Ask Nic Carter for even more explanations, if you don't believe me, or you are too dense to understand or even do your own research.

[Guest]

"If you're smart you'll make your money being in league with politicians, like my father."
- Warren Buffett

Bitcoin boosters Cynthia Lummis and Pat Toomey are the only two senators invested in crypto: report

Natasha Dailey Dec 20, 2021, 8:53 AM

https://markets.businessinsider.com/new ... to-2021-12

[Guest]

The fast-moving consumer goods company Proctor and Gamble states that it has over 75,000 suppliers. Retailing giant Walmart counts over 100,000 suppliers. French oil company Total buys from over 150,000.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jwebb/2018 ... b59d799bb7

It's doubtful that many of those 75,000-150,000 suppliers for the modern large business accept Bitcoin. With businesses this large, the hurdle to get over for a Bitcoin network to establish itself is very high. I don't think it would be efficient for businesses of this size to be transacting in dozens of currencies in every country they do business in. One per country is difficult enough with the foreign exchange fluctuations and hedging operations that are necessary.

“We’re generally interested in safety and liquidity to run our businesses. Bitcoin can be still too volatile and still too speculative, so I think it’ll be an awfully long time before Bitcoin becomes a functional currency for us,” PepsiCo CFO Hugh Johnston told CNBC SquawkBox last October.

In the 1840s and 1850s, the US had a lot of private currencies. It didn't work well then. There never was one private currency that became predominate. Private currencies on average, even in the most stable areas of the country, lasted about 8 years at best. I'm not sure why it would work better now. I'm not sure why Bitcoin would be it. Maybe I'm missing something.

[Cool Breeze]

It's not a currency.

Do your research.

[Guest]

It's not a currency.

Do your research.

Yes, it's useless as a currency. Thank you for the clarification.

[Guest]

Does anyone really believe that inflation isn't a minimum 15%? I think it's 20, easy.

The only deflation out there is in Bitcoin. Deflating at a minimum 15 percent per month past 3 months.