| | | John has it wrong on several counts and on so many levels ...
<<Objects like tulip bulbs and Bitcoin differ from securities in that they do not deliver a stream of cash flows to the holder.>>
... who the phuck ever claimed BTC is akin to a security, other than perhaps the SEC w/r to other cryptos.
Gold, silver, European sovereign bonds, etc etc also do not deliver a net net stream of cash flows to any buy / hold holder.
Re <<Blockchain is a brilliant algorithm, and I expect that it will have a great number of uses for secure transactions and inventory management.>>
... I guess that "accounting ledger electrified is brilliant", per duh, as in not really, unless akin to what eventually what Amazon became relative to a Wanchai bookstore. Which flavour of blockchain is brilliant we wait to see.
Re <<Bitcoin isn't actually creating "wealth." It's only creating the opportunity for wealth transfer, primarily from those who will end up holding the bag.>>
... now, that is brilliant, or not, depending on who ends up w/ the sack. Similar situation to Pet.com etc per price of progress.
John has it upside down and backward.
Now, Casper, a utility token ... :0) |
|
