Jump to content

Cryptocurrency as the next significant stage for computing technology, not just an investment


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, chim said:

Setting stop losses on this level of volatility is licking the tip with money you shouldn't have sunk into it. Half of the ladder short strategy is to trigger stop losses (the other half is panic selling). Banking on a $1000/share pipe dream is one thing but a long tactic based on the continued short interest and tens of millions of ITM calls expiring has a certain logic (and a ton of risk). The red squiggly line is part of the fun. 

I shouldn't have put any money into this in the first place as a smart trader, but its riled up my innate love of mild chaos and revolution, and I'd prefer to lose a few hundred bucks than sit on the sidelines. I have set a stop loss for 120 though, all well and good having some fun but mayaswell be prudent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 748
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

ok consider this: digital currencies, racing through "the web." i say racing bc they are absolutely going fast, sonic levels of speed. if you think about it, sonic is the symbol of crypto par excellen

this attitude is in direct contravention of WATMM's core principles.

Posted Images

7 hours ago, chenGOD said:

You should see WallStreetBets!

but I agree with you. It’s like how in the 90’s for a brief period, white people started listening to Wu-tang and suddenly thought it was ok to use the n word, with or without the “hard r”. 

he was trolling though. you got trolled by a troll, chen. he's not the promoter of respect and tolerance you believe he is. if it's any consolation i too fell for it

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brian trageskin said:

he was trolling though. you got trolled by a troll, chen. he's not the promoter of respect and tolerance you believe he is. if it's any consolation i too fell for it

Are you daft? It seems you are incapable of any nuance. One can be serious about a thing but at the same time exaggerate the intensity of one's statement about said thing to add ambiguity (I don't insult my fellow WATMMers by assuming they wouldn't understand that). Whether you want to call that trolling or not is your choice. I know you are the type that constantly complains about "pc" (though thanks to your incoherence I'm still not sure whether you mean "Piña Colada" or "political correctness") and that is probably a result of you longing for the tender touch of a woman, but please be a bit more considerate towards the rest of us and spare us your unhelpful comments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brian trageskin said:

he was trolling though. you got trolled by a troll, chen. he's not the promoter of respect and tolerance you believe he is. if it's any consolation i too fell for it

Lol what? He’s not trolling. He’s using a bit of humour to prove a point. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

New digital currencies like bitcoin are neither a threat or an opportunity. They do not raise any interesting economic questions and do not pose any significant policy problems. They do not represent any kind of technological advance on existing payment systems, which are of course already digital. They are just another asset bubble, based on the usual mix of fraud and fantasy. By historical standards, they are not a very large or threatening bubble. There is nothing important about them at all.

Money and Cryptocurrencies (J.W.Mason)

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, dcom said:

this article is a lot of words to deny the fact that you can rent apartments and buy houses and cars with bitcoin, you just have to search a bit more for specific dealers.  claims that its not interacting with existing financial systems in the way you'd expect money to do if it spawned from that system doesnt mean its not money, and the fact that it doesnt is its main good aspect.  it allows you to do things you couldnt do before, thats all you need, even if it's as seemingly trivial as buying drugs

Edited by cyanobacteria
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dcom said:
Quote

And yet here we are talking about cryptocurrencies. Why?

Partly it’s just hard money crankery and libertarianism, which have a outsized voice in economics discussions. And partly it’s testimony to the success of their marketing machine. One might say that the only thing that stands behind that $200 billion value, is the existence of conversations like this one.

 

2 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

this article is a lot of words to deny the fact that you can rent apartments and buy houses and cars with bitcoin, you just have to search a bit more for specific dealers.  claims that its not interacting with existing financial systems in the way you'd expect money to do if it spawned from that system doesnt mean its not money, and the fact that it doesnt is its main good aspect.  it allows you to do things you couldnt do before, thats all you need, even if it's as seemingly trivial as buying drugs

i mean this sincerely, no harshness or unkindness at all. i sincerely think you missed the point of the article. you're not entirely wrong in what you're saying but also you didn't do yourself any service by ignoring the point(s) in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, auxien said:

 

i mean this sincerely, no harshness or unkindness at all. i sincerely think you missed the point of the article. you're not entirely wrong in what you're saying but also you didn't do yourself any service by ignoring the point(s) in it.

money under capitalism is not just some liquid being added to markets to make them produce commodities and services.  it gives people direct access as individuals.  these abstract models are so divorced from reality its hard to imagine justifying it

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

this article is a lot of words to deny the fact that you can rent apartments and buy houses and cars with bitcoin, you just have to search a bit more for specific dealers.

lol

Good luck finding a landlord that accepts Bitcoin

Even if you do, they will almost certainly require that the BTC be denominated in currency that has value in parity with whatever obligations they have to meet. At the least that would be property taxes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, chenGOD said:

You should see WallStreetBets!

but I agree with you. It’s like how in the 90’s for a brief period, white people started listening to Wu-tang and suddenly thought it was ok to use the n word, with or without the “hard r”. 

Anyone can say any word they like, pronounced however they wish.

https://techcrunch.com/2021/01/30/india-plans-to-introduce-law-to-ban-bitcoin-other-private-cryptocurrencies/?guccounter=1

 

Blockchain has utilitarian value. Bitcoin is as worthless at Dogecoin at the end of the day.

Edited by JS20
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, JS20 said:

Anyone can say any word they like, pronounced however they wish.

https://techcrunch.com/2021/01/30/india-plans-to-introduce-law-to-ban-bitcoin-other-private-cryptocurrencies/?guccounter=1

 

Blockchain has utilitarian value. Bitcoin is as worthless at Dogecoin at the end of the day.

Not on here mate. 
 

lol banning Bitcoin is like trying to squeeze air with your bare hands. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JS20 said:

Anyone can say any word they like, pronounced however they wish.

https://techcrunch.com/2021/01/30/india-plans-to-introduce-law-to-ban-bitcoin-other-private-cryptocurrencies/?guccounter=1

 

Blockchain has utilitarian value. Bitcoin is as worthless at Dogecoin at the end of the day.

thats clearly not the case if you look even at trivial metrics like at market cap

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd encourage anyone interested to read "Cryptocommunism" by Mark Alizart

https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Cryptocommunism-p-9781509538584

It combines various economic ideas into making the case that Bitcoin is the most revolutionary technology invented and unbeknownst to Marx reformulates money in a way that allows it to be the very social technology necessary to implement communism rather than being equivalent to previous monetary technologies which he wished to abolish.  It's a left wing oriented book but it isn't hardline communist and takes ideas from various capitalist ideas like MMT

There were quite a few of what I would call factual errors, it could have used a few more editors, but they can be overlooked

Edited by cyanobacteria
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

There were quite a few of what I would call factual errors

Such as the one where it calls Bitcoin the most revolutionary technology ever invented. :facepalm:

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"hey uh Jimmie, when, uh, yuh do yuh show tonite, see if yuh can hit those fuckin invesss-tuhs, maybe ruffim up witchuh jokes a bit"

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

I'd encourage anyone interested to read "Cryptocommunism" by Mark Alizart

https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Cryptocommunism-p-9781509538584

It combines various economic ideas into making the case that Bitcoin is the most revolutionary technology invented and unbeknownst to Marx reformulates money in a way that allows it to be the very social technology necessary to implement communism rather than being equivalent to previous monetary technologies which he wished to abolish.  It's a left wing oriented book but it isn't hardline communist and takes ideas from various capitalist ideas like MMT

There were quite a few of what I would call factual errors, it could have used a few more editors, but they can be overlooked

Weird usage of the prefix "crypto-", imo. Usually when in combination with a political ideology it means that this ideology is hidden, e.g. crypto-facism, crypto-stalinism, etc, not that it has to do with cryptocurrency (or is it meant as a play on words?). The description of the book reads pretty biased and it seems like they quoted Marx and Engels only for the sake of quoting Marx and Engels, not because it helps making a point. Did you read it? What strategy to use Bitcoin as a means to install communism is laid out in the book, in short words?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, dingformung said:

Weird usage of the prefix "crypto-", imo.

If you think about it, cryptocurrency is a misnomer, too: as you wrote, the crypto- prefix means secret, hidden; e.g. cryptography, secret writing - cryptocurrencies by default are not secret, as the ledger is designed to be very public indeed, touted as one of the selling points. One could also argue that the standard definition of currency doesn't apply to them either, making cryptocurrency a misnomer twice over. Colloquially referring to them as "crypto" is also misleading. Sure, they use cryptographical technologies, but it's still a misnomer to me.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, dcom said:

If you think about it, cryptocurrency is a misnomer, too: as you wrote, the crypto- prefix means secret, hidden; e.g. cryptography, secret writing - cryptocurrencies by default are not secret, as the ledger is designed to be very public indeed, touted as one of the selling points. One could also argue that the standard definition of currency doesn't apply to them either, making cryptocurrency a misnomer twice over. Colloquially referring to them as "crypto" is also misleading. Sure, they use cryptographical technologies, but it's still a misnomer to me.

There are some where the crypto prefix is applicable, (Monero, Zcash, and Dash are the three biggest "privacy coins" I believe), but yes on the whole the better description is "virtual assets".

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, dcom said:

One could also argue that the standard definition of currency doesn't apply to them either, making cryptocurrency a misnomer twice over.

I'd say it's a currency so long as it is used as one. Cigarettes can be a currency, too, if they are used as that.

Edited by dingformung
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, dcom said:

If you think about it, cryptocurrency is a misnomer, too: as you wrote, the crypto- prefix means secret, hidden; e.g. cryptography, secret writing - cryptocurrencies by default are not secret, as the ledger is designed to be very public indeed, touted as one of the selling points. One could also argue that the standard definition of currency doesn't apply to them either, making cryptocurrency a misnomer twice over. Colloquially referring to them as "crypto" is also misleading. Sure, they use cryptographical technologies, but it's still a misnomer to me.

(from the article you posted earlier)

On 1/30/2021 at 7:49 AM, auxien said:
Quote

And yet here we are talking about cryptocurrencies. Why?

Partly it’s just hard money crankery and libertarianism, which have a outsized voice in economics discussions. And partly it’s testimony to the success of their marketing machine. One might say that the only thing that stands behind that $200 billion value, is the existence of conversations like this one.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, dingformung said:

I'd say it's a currency so long as it is used as one. Cigarettes can be a currency, too, if they are used as that.

Cigarettes can be used as a medium of exchange, but in the US and Canada at least, it is illegal for private citizens or corporations to make currencies that compete with the official currency of the country (I imagine it is the same for most countries). Pedantic maybe, but an important distinction I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dingformung said:

Weird usage of the prefix "crypto-", imo. Usually when in combination with a political ideology it means that this ideology is hidden, e.g. crypto-facism, crypto-stalinism, etc, not that it has to do with cryptocurrency (or is it meant as a play on words?). The description of the book reads pretty biased and it seems like they quoted Marx and Engels only for the sake of quoting Marx and Engels, not because it helps making a point. Did you read it? What strategy to use Bitcoin as a means to install communism is laid out in the book, in short words?

In summary the book's main claims were that Marx claimed the state must be abolished to achieve communism as it's an outcropping of capitalist violence which allows the contradictions of capitalism to be forcibly rectified by exploitation and suppression of the proletariat.  Crytocurrency allows the state to be made obsolete to the proletariat by allowing democracy itself to be implemented on the blockchain in a way that allows the people to control the printing if money, as well as the flow of money, and to not just vote through the blockchain as a method of vote submissions which are collected, interpreted, and carried out by people, but in a way where the votes are carried out by smart contracts on the blockchain themselves, carried out by the people who collectively agreed, and by the literal objects, parts of the Internet Of Things, which are controlled by the blockchain.  It brings about serious issues involving liberation of humans from the machine nanny we've created, but this greater voluntary servitude, just as democracy itself in its present form is voluntarily served, allows greater freedom in other ways as a tradeoff.  It also relates to the removal of the dichotomy between technology in nature, claiming that the blockchain is the next iteration of life, silicon life in this case, for various thermodynamic reasons.  Some of it seemed wishy washy, but the overall ideas seemed like a good linkage to other peoples' thoughts on cybersocialism

As for word etymology, language is made up and it's the term people know, it's too late to change it.  It's currency using cryptography, the name is fine.  The currency is primarily defined by the private keys which are private

Edited by cyanobacteria
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

Cigarettes can be used as a medium of exchange, but in the US and Canada at least, it is illegal for private citizens or corporations to make currencies that compete with the official currency of the country (I imagine it is the same for most countries). Pedantic maybe, but an important distinction I think.

Is legality really a criterium for a medium of exchange to be considered a currency, though? As you said, it is illegal to make parallel currencies but that doesn't automatically make them non-currencies. You wouldn't call them illegal currencies if they weren't currencies. But maybe there are other criteria that I'm not aware of that distinguish the thing that cryptocurrencies are from what we traditionally refer to when saying "currency", the same goes for cigarettes. I guess we shouldn't call them cigocurrency only because they can be used as a currency.

27 minutes ago, cyanobacteria said:

In summary the book's main claims were that Marx claimed the state must be abolished to achieve communism as it's an outcropping of capitalist violence which allows the contradictions of capitalism to be forcibly rectified by exploitation and suppression of the proletariat.  Crytocurrency allows the state to be made obsolete to the proletariat by allowing democracy itself to be implemented on the blockchain in a way that allows the people to control the printing if money, as well as the flow of money, and to not just vote through the blockchain as a method of vote submissions which are collected, interpreted, and carried out by people, but in a way where the votes are carried out by smart contracts on the blockchain themselves, carried out by the people who collectively agreed, and by the literal objects, parts of the Internet Of Things, which are controlled by the blockchain.  It brings about serious issues involving liberation of humans from the machine nanny we've created, but this greater voluntary servitude, just as democracy itself in its present form is voluntarily served, allows greater freedom in other ways as a tradeoff.  It also relates to the removal of the dichotomy between technology in nature, claiming that the blockchain is the next iteration of life, silicon life in this case, for various thermodynamic reasons.  Some of it seemed wishy washy, but the overall ideas seemed like a good linkage to other peoples' thoughts on cybersocialism

As for word etymology, language is made up and it's the term people know, it's too late to change it.  It's currency using cryptography, the name is fine.  The currency is primarily defined by the private keys which are private

Hmmm, not really sure if I understand. I'm generally sceptical of using complex automated technology for decision making in political processes, but I'm not sure in how far that relates to what you were saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...