No, neither. My point was that BTC users are gambling. And most of them don't even realize it.
There is no "there" there. Nothing stands behind BTC to back it.
The best thing that can happen is for a widespread public awareness of where BTC falls on the continuum from "highly risky and speculative" to "safe" investments.
I've got an MBA from UC Berkeley's Haas school. My peers know where BTC is on that continuum of "absurdly speculative and risky" to "safe and secure."
My post was to say that it's not appropriate content for HN to hold up such a risky gambling vehicle that BTC is as somehow viable as an investment. An article, which I have flagged, about an ETF based on this dangerously speculative, easily-manipulated modern-day Dutch Tulips, is just not appropriate for HN without massive disclaimers citing
1) its failure to attain acceptance as a medium of exchange
2) the government's effort to shut it down
3) the massive number of scams that have duped people like you who aren't aware of the extremely speculative and risky nature of BTC.
You have a degree relevant to every conversation, apparently. You are in love with the 'appeal to authority' fallacy. So, whatever. Arguing about what BTC is or isn't seems like a tremendous waste of time, does it not? No matter what you or I think, the market will decide, will it not? It's been kind to me, so take it as you will. Historically, the market has strongly disagreed with your subjective assessment. Your dumb argument amounts to assessing the value of gold by the value of the container in which it is stored. You clearly have an agenda, I can't be bothered.
No agenda. As I stated originally, it's not appropriate to hold up BTC as anything other than an extremely speculative gamble. I simply disagreed with the top post which offered up an "appeal to authority" -- an SEC-sanctioned ETF based on BTC -- that shrouded BTC in an air of 'investability' that is 100% not true. BTC is a horrifically dangerous placement of money. And the problem is, BTC fans -- most of them -- act like they don't know just how risky and speculative BTC is, and its near-zero utility as a medium of exchange.
I'm telling you, get hyper-objective about the danger of converting highly-accepted stores of value into BTC.
For example, most gamblers say to themselves:
"I know I can/will lose money gambling. But my purpose for gambling is not to invest and get a good risk-adjusted return. My objective for gambling is to enjoy the thrill of the process -- and the thrill of gambling is worth more to me than money I can lose."
And many gamblers would add to that by saying "I'm only taking $5000 to Vegas this weekend -- when that's gone, I'm done."
Gamblers view a super-high-risk of loss as paying for a day at DisneyWorld. They lose their money on the day. But the thrill of the rides makes up for it.
My only 'agenda' is BTC users need to understand the risks they're taking. And far too many do not know.
Don't lose money on BTC unless you know you're in it for entertainment -- like going to Vegas or Disneyland -- and that you're fully expecting to lose a lot or all your money.
Just ask this guy -- Kolin Burges, who traveled from England to Japan to confront Mark Karpeles about his missing 200,000 pounds (about $300,000 roughly):
