In your opinion, what does this blog need more of?

Wednesday, September 6, 2017

And two articles on Bitcoin


Qz - Robert Shiller says bitcoin is a bubble. Well, we knew that. What happens when everyone is buying a currency, and nobody is selling it, while its amount is restricted? The currency goes up in relative price to the goods it was supposed to be buying, but isn't. Problem is, eventually buying and selling equalize. Then, if things go badly, selling increases and buying stops. Wonder what happens then?

Thing is, in monetary economics, "currency" is nothing special. It's really just a storable commodity, except it's never consumed.

And, even more fun:

FT Alphaville, and not even Izzy Kamizzy this time - Bitcoin is a super circle jerk by 40-something sociopathic autistic virgins. And they really mean it:
Women made up only 8 per cent of California’s population in 1850, after the gold rush brought a flood of men seeking fortune.

The gender imbalance in today’s ICO mania is reportedly worse. While there’s no reliable census for crypto users, one recent estimate says women are just 3 per cent of the Bitcoin community, even though there’s no shortage of women who live in California. Crypto-bachelors appear to be aware of this gender imbalance, but they don’t sound all that unhappy about it.
I dunno, if something is being bought 97% by men, then ipso facto it's not a currency, is it? It's probably something you ejaculate into, instead, right?

And next Alexandra really beats the bitcoin community like a mixed-race stepchild, then stomps a fuckhole in their ass and fucks it dry with this passage:
Of course, it only caught our eye because some techbros seem like they’d rather pay for a fake female team member than hire a real one. And while they often carry on about digital frontiers, it’s highly unlikely they actually want to be in the American West, with its vigilante mobs, willful women and rivals with guns.

No, some of them want to be in Westworld, the fictional Wild West theme park where ticketholders can do whatever they want to realistic humanoid robots, which inevitably leads to all the horrors you’d imagine that scenario would entail when broadcast by HBO. The urge to objectify and dehumanise other people — often women — is both thoroughly human and scary as hell. And a strip club called Legends Room basically asks crypto-bachelors to indulge that impulse to its extreme:

“Someone can go into the Legends Room and pay the young ladies by waving their phone over the QR code on her shoulder. It’s the gamification of the club environment,” Peter Klamka told the Daily Beast.

Gamification? A game where they… they… wave a phone over a glorified barcode, to buy attention from a living, breathing human woman? They wave their phones? Over a barcode? On a person?

Forget old-fashioned stuff like “making eye contact” and “rote niceties”, that’s all history now that we’ve got the blockchain!
Oh man. Alexandra just did this to bitcoin:



"Bah gaw Jim! He's broken in half!"

5 comments:

  1. I've been mulling over bitcoin and those who are nearly vitriolic in their stance against it. While I'm sure rothbard would have secretly jerked off to it, I'm skeptical about the way it is commonly spoken of on both sides. Alexandras comments, scathing as they may be, don't really offer me much unless I'm looking for someone to pontificate about something I already agree with.

    Like any other commodity it apparently has value, And I think alot of pundits don't realize that as long the markets on the dark web exist it will continue to hold value. Give a good study at the exchanges it is being used in and it gets a bit(lol) more interesting.

    That aside, rallying against it as just another fiat currency is interesting in the sense that it (pretty much) isn't until someone can break the algorithm that guarantees it's value.

    I feel that is a point that many anti bitcoin pundits overlook.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ya but, IS it being used to buy and sell things, or is it rather just being bought?

      Though that right there raises interesting questions about the value of $USD (2/3 of which is held outside the US).

      Or even about gold.

      Delete
    2. And obviously your comment "it apparently has value" is correct and nontrivial, because people are paying for it.

      I guess bitcoin is built to appreciate, if its supply is increasing slower than its demand. But then the minute marginal supply exceeds marginal demand, it'll puke, so it's also built to be a bubble.

      Delete
  2. Good point about 2/3 being held outside us. Hadn't really considered that in this context.

    In regards to your last point, I think that is the appeal of. They don't create more, and like I said previously, so long as someone can't create more out of nothing this will be it's appeal.

    Also, I find it interesting to think about the conditions of its creation. The fact it was created out if nothing should not concern anyone, unless "what has the government done to our money" is your bible, but it wasn't created as debt In the same sense that other currencies are.

    I think you would be surprised at the amount of commerce online that is conducted in bitcoin, and either way does it really matter in the end.

    If I buy CAD or euros on speculation, to eventually convert back to USD, what's the difference?

    Any skepticism I would have towards bitcoin personally is only the vary same I would have to any commodity, fiat, or security I'm speculating on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you can find me reliable data on Bitcoin velocity of money, btw, I'd love to see it. Apparently there's about $71B worth of bitcoins out there, so for its demand to be trade-supported at the level of USD (with a velocity 5.5x M1) you'd need $393B in annualized bitcoin trade. I doubt that is happening. And then there's all the other coins, are they counted in Bitcoin stock of money?

      So it's more of a storeable asset, and then yup sure you can trade it just like you trade gold. But gold has an intrinsic value, you can sell it to Indians.

      I guess the central takeaway of the FT Alphaville article is that we'll be able to predict the imminent pop of the Bitcoin bubble by looking at the participation of females and non-fruitcakes: once the non-fruitcake ratio begins to rise above 3%, the pop is imminent. As long as only nutbars are participating, though, that means you can still ride the uptrend.

      God damn, I wonder how many of these wackaloons have put their entire life savings into bitcoin? I mean, Ritholtz and Josh Brown used to talk about getting investors coming in the door who'd had every penny in junior golds. So the all-in-one-basket approach must be pretty big in the bitcoin world.

      Delete