Dakardii's topic

[John]

** 22-Jan-2021 World View: Bitcoins and Tulips

> Bitcoin is backed by tulips.

Soooooooooooooooooo pretty!

[Higgenbotham]

** 22-Jan-2021 World View: Bitcoins and Tulips

> Bitcoin is backed by tulips.

Soooooooooooooooooo pretty!

It doesn't surprise me that I'm not the first person to have that thought.

The "hook" that is typically used to promote land bubbles is, "They're not making any more of it." But most land has some productive value for growing crops, etc., so there is a floor under the bubble price.

[Cool Breeze]

Bitcoin is backed by something very valuable? What is it?

I'll let you figure out why it is backed and what by, as I don't care to argue the point and don't need to convince anyone anymore, particularly skeptics who have another horse.

Bitcoin is backed by tulips.

This is a serious response.

What I mean by that is nearly the exact forces that took tulip prices to the moon 4 centuries ago are doing the same with bitcoin.

You don't understand bitcoin. At all.

[John]

** 22-Jan-2021 World View: Understanding Bitcoin

> Bitcoin is backed by tulips.

> You don't understand bitcoin. At all.

You're absolutely right! This time it's different!

[Cool Breeze]

** 21-Jan-2021 World View: Bitcoin Protocol

> I see what they creators of bitcoin are trying to do here, and I
> commend them for thinking outside the box. I'll admit that I
> underestimated them in that regard. But there's still a lingering
> issue: the "Bitcoin Protocol" is a man-made law. In theory, it
> could be changed at any time. The same cannot be said regarding
> gold, an element whose finite amount on Earth was determined eons
> ago by forces that mankind cannot change.

Actually, the mathematical algorithms behind Bitcoin do not permit an
expansion beyond the 21 million. In that sense, it's like gold, and
that was the specific intention of the original reclusive implementor
of Bitcoin. That's been one of the primary motivations for Bitcoin's
popularity, as compared to gold, and as contrasted to so-called "fiat"
currency.

Sure. But what happens if the algorithm is altered? Not in isolated instances (i.e. hackers), but in general?

Or am I overthinking things here?

DaKardii is at least trying to figure out potential problems, as all of us should - and yes I already did this and that's why I am a bitcoin bull - I have done my homework. So I will answer DaKardii: The consensus and network will not allow it meaning it would be an entirely new creation = not bitcoin = not happening.

And by the way, soon the stock to flow for BTC will be greater than gold. If you don't know what that is, look it up. Also note that however unlikely you think it is, gold can be in other parts of our solar system. Haha, bitcoin can't.

[Cool Breeze]

** 22-Jan-2021 World View: Understanding Bitcoin

> Bitcoin is backed by tulips.

> You don't understand bitcoin. At all.

You're absolutely right! This time it's different!

You are presuming they are the same paradigm with your joke, which is incorrect. You think they are the same scenario, so you apply tulips to BTC as tulips 2.0 = you don't understand what it is. Therefore, "this time" makes no sense.

Even DaKardii, a skeptic, likely knows better than comparing tulips to BTC. It's laughable.

[John]

** 22-Jan-2021 World View: Understanding Bitcoin

> Bitcoin is backed by tulips.

> You don't understand bitcoin. At all.

You're absolutely right! This time it's different!

You are presuming they are the same paradigm with your joke, which is incorrect. You think they are the same scenario, so you apply tulips to BTC as tulips 2.0 = you don't understand what it is. Therefore, "this time" makes no sense.

Even DaKardii, a skeptic, likely knows better than comparing tulips to BTC. It's laughable.

That's what I said. This time it's different. Nothing to worry
about.

[Higgenbotham]

** 22-Jan-2021 World View: Understanding Bitcoin

> Bitcoin is backed by tulips.

> You don't understand bitcoin. At all.

You're absolutely right! This time it's different!

You are presuming they are the same paradigm with your joke, which is incorrect. You think they are the same scenario, so you apply tulips to BTC as tulips 2.0 = you don't understand what it is. Therefore, "this time" makes no sense.

Even DaKardii, a skeptic, likely knows better than comparing tulips to BTC. It's laughable.

It's absolutely correct to compare bitcoin to tulips and It's no joke. I understand perfectly.

[John]

** 22-Jan-2021 World View: Global financial crises

> It's absolutely correct to compare bitcoin to tulips and It's no
> joke. I understand perfectly.

Global financial crises have their own repeating cycles. The bubble
grows through massive creation of money through securitization of
debt, and the bubble collapses when things like margin calls cause a
chain of bankruptcies. The major major debt bubbles are:

* How money is "created": Securitization of debt
* Tulipomania - 1637 - Tulip future shares
* South Sea Bubble - 1721 - South Sea shares
* Bankruptcy of French Monarchy - 1789 - 'assignats'
* Panic of 1857 - Railway Shares
* Panic of 1929 - Foreign bonds and stock shares
* Panic of 202? -

** The bubble that broke the world
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... 071009.htm

[Cool Breeze]

** 22-Jan-2021 World View: Understanding Bitcoin





You're absolutely right! This time it's different!

You are presuming they are the same paradigm with your joke, which is incorrect. You think they are the same scenario, so you apply tulips to BTC as tulips 2.0 = you don't understand what it is. Therefore, "this time" makes no sense.

Even DaKardii, a skeptic, likely knows better than comparing tulips to BTC. It's laughable.

It's absolutely correct to compare bitcoin to tulips and It's no joke. I understand perfectly.

Even a 3rd grader knows that a trustless payment system, semi anonymous, that has features of the hardest money ever created is not a plant in the ground that decays. So please tell me what a tulip shares with BTC, since I shouldn't have to oppose your ludicrous comment - on its face it is preposterous. Seriously, do you even know the characteristics of money? This is embarrassing.