Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (168086)	2/3/2021 12:26:13 PM
From: Roads End	Respond to of 219595

Listened to MacroVoices interview with Mike Green. One of the common threads pulled frequently these days is "threat to national security", especially in the most secure, larger than life, most exceptional USA. Mike Green pulled that thread wrt Bit Coin. Green might be right but fortunately our thread puller in chief's short attention span is focused other shining objects for now.

To: carranza2 who wrote (168086)	2/3/2021 7:24:45 PM
From: TobagoJack	Respond to of 219595

thank you c2 for the pointer, listening in background and captured a new videos & sounds bookmark Bloomberg is for me and Disney is for the kids, or something like that ...

To: carranza2 who wrote (168086)	2/3/2021 9:29:39 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 219595

A few items, that I ... (1) would not be surprised if it should turn out that Mike Green is 'ex-CIA' & part of deep-state apparatus of Team USA. I listen to his dialogues on RealVision (2) do not believe Green is wrong, that 2021 shall turn out to be the fight by and against the BTC (3) do believe that in order for BTC to get to 500K, it needs to win 2021, an outcome by no means assured In the meantime, certainly true that the BTC is of the insurrection, its origins unknown and seems unknowable, and should anything be able to win, BTC might, and not the ETHE and such. However, would it really surprise us that BTC is a creation not out of the viral lab of Team China, as Mike spouted, but a concoction of Team USA NSA kitchen and either deliberately or accidentally let loose, or released by a Edward Snowdon kind of character. If former, did not reckon that Team China took control, and if latter, counting on Team China taking control. Fog of war stuff. Investment? Not. Speculation? for sure, a 'lottery ticket'. Savings? surely a joke. Issue, is it a good speculation? depends on pricing and allocation. Mike summed up correctly, a small allocation for an infinite valuation. Gold Message 33180387 [phases of gold] is something quite different, and pure, of history, and to end of history. BTC might just turn out to be a footnote. Should BTC win, gold wins for sure. When gold wins, BTC might have perished already. At the same as meantime, all sorts of folks a benefiting from BTC including all sorts of state actors in all domains mining BTC using free electricity. Gold is my favoured go-to, because it is not BTC, even as BTC enabled as gold.

To: carranza2 who wrote (168086)	2/21/2021 5:48:50 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 219595

Re - listening

To: carranza2 who wrote (168086)	2/21/2021 9:21:49 PM
From: sense	Respond to of 219595

Thanks for that... enjoyed it. Agree its got a lot of useful information... and agree with most of what they say... A few notes as I'm listening... things overlooked, slid past, etc. They mention that element in bitcoin's role in advancing disintermediation... which I agree with, perhaps even with more than they know about that... that the origin of bitcoin is rooted in the banks resistance to the benefits of the technology that was revolutionizing every other sphere of human activity... but was being prevented from doing so in banking. They mostly skip over those elements about origins... but also only "mention" the elements about how it has varied from its purpose in origin... and the degree to which its reasons to be differ from reality in impacts. Bitcoin exists... because they prevented the success of Spring Street Brewing's internet IPO. Consider that history... in context of the recent Robinhood/Reddit traders participation in larger markets... as one of the cohort in the ideological/technological revolt against big bankers domination and suppression and control of the economy... in self interest, versus public interest. Printing fiat might be inflationary... but the broad suppression of all economic activity to channel all activity through one high cost toll booth... where only some are allowed to pass, and then with exorbitant takings... is the opposite. The balance in result is more deflationary than inflationary... more about control, to sustain existing balances... than about enabling innovation and economic expansion. Overly aggressive at the time... they killed innovation... and corrected for the worst in excess with later allowing some "crowd sourcing" in other less threatening ways. The impact: whether you get a crack-up boom... as a part of effort made in order to sustain institutional domination (control and suppression protecting monopolies) of the economy... or get a boom in which the banks and monopolies crack up... and their suppression is removed... is a CHOICE... with a parallel to 2008... when the wrong choices were made... with dire consequences now being made clearer. But, then... they proceed to wrongly ASSUME as most do... that bitcoin's clear attachment to the theory of how disintermediation should work... is being realized by bitcoin, with that leading to its market success. What I've been pointing out... is that the theory is great, and I support developing it... but bitcoin isn't close to succeeding in enabling a disintermediated exchange... its only creating a new crop of intermediaries. You might note that as "disintermediation" being the "tuna" in Bitcoin's version of a Subway sandwich... The host mentions his transfer of $1 million being "done, and in hand" via a disintermediated transaction... but that's not really happening. The "banks" are avoided... but intermediaries are not... Thus the claimed avoidance of intermediary risk is untrue... its actually amplified... as is proven by the number of people who've lost their bitcoin when intermediaries failed. And, when they fail... there is not any fallback, as there is neither regulatory oversight reducing risk of failure, or any government backed insurance, or a pooling of failed risks being assumed by other market participants... to make you whole... in order to (wrongly) sustain trust in the stability of the system. There's no back office in the bitcoin treasury that will try to make you whole if your dog chews up your bitcoin and makes it unusable ? "And its gone" ... is the operative mode... when a bitcoin intermediary fails... or some event imposes the loss of your record of ownership... that simply removes it, now owner-less, from circulation forever. The advantages are real... but the risks are real too... and for now the market is ignoring the risks... while assuming bitcoin will "replace other money" somehow... without anyone explaining how that's going to happen... or what it would mean if it did. Also, that again ignoring the apparent success of the alternative currency element being paired with the apparent failure of the disintermediation... obviating the primary utility. They get it right, again... that the institutions have no unique insight into what it all means... or where its going... but are in fact also participating as speculators... although they miss the element that some will be doing so only as a form of PR as economic or financial virtue signalling. Musk's decision... probably reduced Tesla's advertising costs while solidifying brand attachments... in a way that also might well succeed in its financial speculation and thus pay for itself ? A "first mover" PR win for Tesla... does nothing much to change the likely outcome for bitcoin as a "first mover" in the long run ? Will Tesla make a public announcement when they sell their holding ? Not a quibble from me... that the theory is not right ? And not a quibble from me... saying the theory can't be realized in practice. Just a warning that the theory IS NOT being realized in practice now... or is not being realized very well... even if "bank free" transactions are being enabled in a few demonstrations showing disintermediated exchange is possible. That Pay-Pal is now doing bitcoin... just makes them another one of the new bitcoin based banks working as an intermediary? If bitcoin were working as advertised... you'd have no need of anything like a Pay-Pal adopting it to legitimize it... as Pay-Pal itself is a thing which success in disintermediation should obviate existing. Bitcoin working as a replacement for or neutral intermediary between other forms of money... is not the same thing as bitcoin eliminating the need for intermediaries. That banks are embracing it... should be a hint that they see ways to embrace its efficiencies to lower their own costs... without disintermediation putting them at any greater risk of it lowering your costs. Hence, innovation still required... even more than they realize... while noting them also agreeing with what I've been saying about that... that the benefits of and future success of the idea of crypto... does not dictate that bitcoin is going to be the winner in the space... just because they are the first mover... Spot on again... about the bubble NOT being about investment... but speculation. You are not "invested" in bitcoin by holding it... any more than you are "invested" and made an owner of the Federal Reserve by owning a dollar. If you own bitcoin... you are speculating in the currency markets... not investing. There are, and will be, opportunities to invest in blockchain or crypto related tech... as innovation proceeds... after the bubble pops... But, in the degree that banks adopt it... and regulate it in their own interest rather than the public interest... as the preferred crypto currency suppliers to the sovereign powers... it is not certain that the crypto revolution will succeed in its primary goals... even if it matures into a viable business opportunity focused on matching the capabilities in the tech to appropriate uses... which I at first mis-typed as "appropriated"... and thought about leaving that way...