Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

IGNORED

The Same Mistakes - Reflation Thread Addendum


Noallegiance

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Talking Monkey said:

Agree but there's the physicality of gold

Gold physicality is only important for one thing which is to ensure scarcity, bitcoin achieves the same thing using distributed consensus rules on a network. In all other respects gold physicality is a disadvantage: hard to store large amounts securely, hard to transport and transact over large distances especially when crossing borders, hard to track precise global supply etc etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Networks require energy, energy which will become more expensive.  Not to mention networks run on infrastructure which can be controlled.  Networks can also be compromised.

All the energy my gold and silver coins will ever require to exist has already been used.

I don't understand the large amounts argument.  I could fit a years wages (in gold, silver not so easy!) in the soles of some craftily modified boots. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bobthebuilder

Gold is formed under intense heat and gravity in the heart of dying suns, then drifts about a bit, before ending up on some random planet and dug out the ground by some carbon based life forms a few billion years later. It cannot be destroyed apart from certain acids in a high vacuum apparently. Of course none of this matters in our time frame, but i, for one, find it hard to compare it to bitcoin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chewing Grass
7 minutes ago, Bobthebuilder said:

Gold is formed under intense heat and gravity in the heart of dying suns, then drifts about a bit, before ending up on some random planet and dug out the ground by some carbon based life forms a few billion years later. It cannot be destroyed apart from certain acids in a high vacuum apparently. Of course none of this matters in our time frame, but i, for one, find it hard to compare it to bitcoin.

Its more fun mining gold - proper man stuff, no soy-lattes and server farms involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

leonardratso
15 minutes ago, Chewing Grass said:

Its more fun mining gold - proper man stuff, no soy-lattes and server farms involved.

which ironically the server farms use the gold to operate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Loki said:

Networks require energy, energy which will become more expensive. 

The bitcoin difficulty adjustment algorithm means that it costs as much as a little to mine as the highest bidder is willing to pay, the actual cost of energy is immaterial. 

 

Quote

Not to mention networks run on infrastructure which can be controlled. 

You would have to control a majority of all the participating hardware, including but not limited to processing power equating to about 500 times that available in the google server farms. 
 

Quote

Networks can also be compromised.

Not this one, thanks to having solved the byzantine generals problem.

To be honest this is starting to get tedious, you guys are just spouting platitudes and noone seems to be bothered actually learning the subject matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, goldbug9999 said:

To be honest this is starting to get tedious

Almost as tedious as yet another thread turning into a crypto thread. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, goldbug9999 said:

Gold physicality is only important for one thing which is to ensure scarcity

Don't particularly wish to enter into a debate on the wider points, but gold has a number of unique physical properties which make it different from other scarce things. More importantly, these properties make it the most suitable substance for use as money.

I could quite easily see bitcoin being the ultimate digital asset. But there is an opposite to everything. We are physical creatures who live in the physical world, not in computers. Gold will remain the ultimate form of physical money. Analogue money, if you will.

And unlike bitcoin, it is truly anonymous. It is not tracked or recorded on a ledger. You can trade or spend it freely and without any record of the transaction. All in the real world.

There are plenty of benefits to this. It's why lots of people refuse to carry mobile phones and try to live without computers. It's why things like vinyl and even tape cassettes are big sellers again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Noallegiance

Clearly a good day for hodlers today. But fuck that for a currency. It dropped about £2k in an hour.

"I'd like this loaf of bread, please"

"Sure. That'll be 0.00004. wait.....0.000043........0.000051......hang on a mo......0.000049......fuck it"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Loki said:

Almost as tedious as yet another thread turning into a crypto thread. 

This is a thread about macro economic trends, bitcoin is a massively significant macro trend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 31/12/2020 at 09:04, Noallegiance said:

I wanted it as a reminder to settle myself (and maybe others) when considering buying crazy modern shit over actual real shit hence making the same historic mistakes as others.

It spoke to me as a 'despite numerous previous times when people think they've found the next guaranteed pay-off that puts old-school investments in the tomb they haven't' experience. I was thinking of all the modern, fashionable, expensive but nearly profit-less companies and crypto. This was prompted by recent comments on the other thread.

I didn't want to potentially derail the other thread because crypto especially stinks like previous tech booms, to me. People appear to be as convinced by it and heavily sold on it as previous new stuff that turned out to be shit.

Having said that, sure people will make some money from it and I think the tech is useful. I won't be sad that I'm sitting it out, though. Only time I start to strain the brain over investing is when I start looking at what I consider to be crazy modern shit like the BTC graph. Investing in real stuff settles me. So did this article.

 

2 minutes ago, goldbug9999 said:

This is a thread about macro economic trends, bitcoin is a massively significant macro trend.

No it isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I’m has pissed has fuck but look at it like this is it a west vs east thing east goes for gold the west backs crypto. It’s well know Russia and China  are backing gold .if they have more of it than the west well lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amazon is the test subject for me. Spread over borders in an age of globalism not seen to any equivalent extent before. Scaled with ground-breaking technology advancement and date mining barely conceivable to a start-up yet with the ability to wipe out or buy out any competition. Do policy makers intend to level the playing field that currently tilts toward these behemoths from their first mover advantage? I think technology has made business very much more difficult to enter from a SME point of view (the basis of capitalism) so now more than ever it favours the biggest of the big boys, already ahead. You can't be a "X" type of company anymore, in future all companies are tech companies, only with a specialism of tech in their sector (be it mining, retail or whatever). I think therefore the tech companies have lots of potential to capture other industries purely because their AI/tech knowledge/competency has already had £Xbn sunk into it and only a case of changing the application. How does a one man band compete with this? I do think this latest tech age is a game changer as before there was tech and every other industry, in future mostly tech...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, SillyBilly said:

Amazon is the test subject for me. Spread over borders in an age of globalism not seen to any equivalent extent before. Scaled with ground-breaking technology advancement and date mining barely conceivable to a start-up yet with the ability to wipe out or buy out any competition. Do policy makers intend to level the playing field that currently tilts toward these behemoths from their first mover advantage? I think technology has made business very much more difficult to enter from a SME point of view (the basis of capitalism) so now more than ever it favours the biggest of the big boys, already ahead. You can't be a "X" type of company anymore, in future all companies are tech companies, only with a specialism of tech in their sector (be it mining, retail or whatever). I think therefore the tech companies have lots of potential to capture other industries purely because their AI/tech knowledge/competency has already had £Xbn sunk into it and only a case of changing the application. How does a one man band compete with this? I do think this latest tech age is a game changer as before there was tech and every other industry, in future mostly tech...

Amazon is interesting because it is the fusion of a tech (i.e. information-processing) company with a retail company, and that fusion turns out to trump traditional retail. I can see the logic of extrapolating that beyond the (admittedly huge) changes we have seen so far, into a dystopian future.

However, I'm thinking that the actual outcome may not be so drastic, and in fact thinking that "tech will become everything" may be exactly the kind of late-stage mania logic that @Noallegiance referred to at the start of the thread, and which can be so bewitching. I'm not saying you're wrong, or that legislation won't be needed to preserve a free market (just as it was needed for Standard Oil, which used revolutionary business practices). Just to be contrarian, here is an alternative scenario, where we end up with three classes of company:

  1. Some traditional sector(s) gets rolled up and consolidated into a single tech company. This might be Amazonbay for retail, Instwitterface for all news & social media, etc. These are the sectors where information-processing is almost their raison d'etre.
  2. A lot of companies have information-processing as a substantial part of their business, but simply outsource this to tech companies, rather than being subsumed. I am thinking of health-care, or large manufacturers of various kinds. This would play out analogously to the familiar practice in which companies outsource ERP to SAP. You might argue that Tesla is an example where a large manufacturer is essentially a tech company, and perhaps Tesla will ultimately consume all other car companies ... however, I think this is far from guaranteed.
  3. There are many companies for whom large-scale data processing is a relatively minor part of their expertise and operations. Again, that part may be out-sourced, but there is no danger that a tech company would want to actually own the business. I am thinking particularly of the sector highlighted in the deflation thread: miners, oil and other commodity producers.

The other thing to bear in mind is that this is not the first information-processing revolution. Back in the 60's, IBM was the darling of the new computer age, and (if I remember Ben Graham's account correctly), looking forward, it turned out to have three interesting properties. It really was a big winner in the computing races; it didn't take over all other businesses; and it was so richly valued that it turned out to have been a pretty poor investment for the next decade at least.

Given Amazon has a P/E of nearly 100, there is a danger of history more than rhyming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talking Monkey
49 minutes ago, BurntBread said:

Amazon is interesting because it is the fusion of a tech (i.e. information-processing) company with a retail company, and that fusion turns out to trump traditional retail. I can see the logic of extrapolating that beyond the (admittedly huge) changes we have seen so far, into a dystopian future.

However, I'm thinking that the actual outcome may not be so drastic, and in fact thinking that "tech will become everything" may be exactly the kind of late-stage mania logic that @Noallegiance referred to at the start of the thread, and which can be so bewitching. I'm not saying you're wrong, or that legislation won't be needed to preserve a free market (just as it was needed for Standard Oil, which used revolutionary business practices). Just to be contrarian, here is an alternative scenario, where we end up with three classes of company:

  1. Some traditional sector(s) gets rolled up and consolidated into a single tech company. This might be Amazonbay for retail, Instwitterface for all news & social media, etc. These are the sectors where information-processing is almost their raison d'etre.
  2. A lot of companies have information-processing as a substantial part of their business, but simply outsource this to tech companies, rather than being subsumed. I am thinking of health-care, or large manufacturers of various kinds. This would play out analogously to the familiar practice in which companies outsource ERP to SAP. You might argue that Tesla is an example where a large manufacturer is essentially a tech company, and perhaps Tesla will ultimately consume all other car companies ... however, I think this is far from guaranteed.
  3. There are many companies for whom large-scale data processing is a relatively minor part of their expertise and operations. Again, that part may be out-sourced, but there is no danger that a tech company would want to actually own the business. I am thinking particularly of the sector highlighted in the deflation thread: miners, oil and other commodity producers.

The other thing to bear in mind is that this is not the first information-processing revolution. Back in the 60's, IBM was the darling of the new computer age, and (if I remember Ben Graham's account correctly), looking forward, it turned out to have three interesting properties. It really was a big winner in the computing races; it didn't take over all other businesses; and it was so richly valued that it turned out to have been a pretty poor investment for the next decade at least.

Given Amazon has a P/E of nearly 100, there is a danger of history more than rhyming.

On Tesla I just don't see it as a tech company its a car company. How does Tesla differ from the EV division of Ford or Toyota

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Talking Monkey said:

On Tesla I just don't see it as a tech company its a car company. How does Tesla differ from the EV division of Ford or Toyota

Toyota doesnt sell flamethrowers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/01/2021 at 21:39, Talking Monkey said:

How does Tesla differ from the EV division of Ford or Toyota

Noone cares about Tesla fundamentals P/E and all that bollocks, the upcoming generation are investing in stuff thats cool. Tesla is cool, Ford and Toyota are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don Coglione

Most here would agree that the ocean of cash flooding into Tesla is a massive mis-allocation; many (including me), but not all, would agree the same of BTC and its ilk.

Given that much of this ocean of cash has been provided by the US government, supposedly as stimulus funding, do the punters really care if/when the bubble bursts? After all, it's the Government's cash that they have spunked, not their own (in many, if not, most cases)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Knickerless Turgid said:

Most here would agree that the ocean of cash flooding into Tesla is a massive mis-allocation; many (including me), but not all, would agree the same of BTC and its ilk.

People holding out for these supposed bubbles to burst - for a reversion to some sort of "norm" based on yields and PE are in for a disappointment. Investing sentiment has changed permanently (well as permanently as money-printer-goes-brrr and 0 or -ve interest rates).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don Coglione
9 minutes ago, goldbug9999 said:

People holding out for these supposed bubbles to burst - for a reversion to some sort of "norm" based on yields and PE are in for a disappointment. Investing sentiment has changed permanently (well as permanently as money-printer-goes-brrr and 0 or -ve interest rates).

Can't agree with that, at least in its entirety. Sentiment has undoubtedly changed at present, the herd is running in a new direction, but the market always reverts to type eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Knickerless Turgid said:

Can't agree with that, at least in its entirety. Sentiment has undoubtedly changed at present, the herd is running in a new direction, but the market always reverts to type eventually.

The scale of money printing and low/-ve rates is unprecedented, until that reverts, the other stuff will not (IMO).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don Coglione
16 minutes ago, goldbug9999 said:

The scale of money printing and low/-ve rates is unprecedented, until that reverts, the other stuff will not (IMO).

I think we are agreeing with each other! The above cannot and will not continue indefinitely, or even for much longer, which is the thrust of the parent thread. If it does, then I suggest "they" will have made monkeys of us all...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question is, how far does the fiat->BTC rotation run before we see the return of secular yield? (which is the one thing I can see slowing the flow)

The default physical metaphor is "bubble", but BTC never quite seems to "pop". Instead, it goes quiet for long periods, before inflating itself some more in another episodic feeding frenzy.

More black hole than bubble. In which case, best keep an eye on the event horizon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jamtomorrow said:

Question is, how far does the fiat->BTC rotation run before we see the return of secular yield? (which is the one thing I can see slowing the flow)

The default physical metaphor is "bubble", but BTC never quite seems to "pop". Instead, it goes quiet for long periods, before inflating itself some more in another episodic feeding frenzy.

More black hole than bubble. In which case, best keep an eye on the event horizon.

I think "never" in the phrase "never quite seems to pop" may be a bit misleading. The entire history of BTC is confined inside one bull-market, after the financial crash.

Even if BTC acquires a permanent place as an electronic store of value, then it's worth contemplating that it has also been bubbling repeatedly in that context of a long-running bull market. It may therefore still have a big crash, of long duration, during the epic bear-market to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...