Easier to read format: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1470792736626331659.html

This quote from the thread is not accurate:

> "I own #Bitcoin because it's the one thing they can't manipulate or control."

Manipulating Bitcoin is certainly possible, even by non-state actors, e.g.,

How Much Would it Cost to 51% Attack Bitcoin? https://braiins.com/blog/how-much-would-it-cost-to-51-attack...

PoW 51% Attack Cost https://www.crypto51.app

Two words “wash trading”. It doesn’t even have to be a 51% attack to manipulate a cryptocurrency.

two more words: front running.

exchanges know everything about the short term moves its users can and cannot make, as well as a significant partial signal of their total market position based on where all their orders are, the amount of actual fiat money parked in their account, where their stop losses and other triggers are set and what exposures to different coins they have on the platform

one more word:

Tether.

This is super misleading, from the linked website:

> Nicehash does not have enough hashing power for most larger coins, so we also calculated what percentage of the needed hashing power is available from Nicehash.

For Bitcoin, that percentage is zero which renders the dollar cost 100% meaningless.

For Ethereum, it's 7% so it's also nowhere near vulnerable from the attack vector this website is calculating a price for.

Even forgetting about that glaring issue, purchasing hashing power on NH would..drive the price of hashing power up. You would not be able to buy all the hashing power at the price that it currently trades, just like you wouldn't be able to buy all BTC or GOOG shares at the price they currently trade. This should be obvious.

Why does everyone think Wallstreet are amateurs? This is hilarious.

> "I own #Bitcoin because it's the one thing they can't manipulate or control."

And lo, the plot was lost.

Funding secured.

I'm not saying if makes a difference to his point, but when you pick 2009 at the starting, which was the bottom of the Great Recession, your graph has a much different slope than a 10, 15, or 20 year chart. Also his first chart is QQQ, not really a proxy for the entire US economy.

It’s because people are investing the Government’s cash into the assets, such as stocks, instead of buying the products as they were “supposed” to do. Instead of buying a new iPhone, they buy Apple stock directly. This will cause stocks to do well, while underlying companies are not reporting good profits.

Is it fair to normalize stock market growth against M2 supply? If companies and individuals have created wealth and value, that would result naturally in more M2. To discount growth by saying that M2 has grown is not right IMO. M2 has grown because we have created value.

> companies and individuals have created wealth and value, that would result naturally in more M2.

Correct.

> M2 has grown because we have created value.

Incorrect. When the M2 grows, but the M2V(Velocity) falls, you created no value.

> "I own #Bitcoin because it's the one thing they can't manipulate or control."

Also incorrect. Unfortunately, TINA.

i remain really confused about this notion of 'creating value'. i mean I know the little microeconomic stories...but in the real world how do measure 'value' without recursively describing it in terms of dollars?

Productivity? Literally the amount of stuff produced per unit population (or normalized for working time).

You do need a common measurement to be able to aggregate items together (a tractor and a sandwich, for example), and we generally use dollars for that, but I wouldn’t call that recursive.

You could also measure it in labor time, percentage of life people need to spend working, sea shells, or a variety of other measures depending on your aim.

right. but when we use dollars we use 'this company made X dollars by making these kinds of goods more available in this area and providing technical support' as 'hah, I tricked this person into buying an NFT of a scribble'. if the NFT was sold for the yearly revenue of the distributor, do we really think they created the same amount of 'value', or are you saying 'yes, by defintion'.

if its the latter its somewhat disingenuous to use that word with its broader connotation instead of just 'sale amount'

Sure, a straight GDP measure would have the methodological problem you point out

One reply to that is to use different methodologies

The canonical reply is probably something on the order of “people can’t sustainably engage in practices where they exchange $1 of value for $0.50 of value, as they still need to exchange labor for food and other real goods.”

You normally see the latter play out through credit crises, where the benefits of some activity fail to materialize and therefore loans can’t be repaid, and a lot of pain follows.

Under that view instantaneous measures of GDP don’t mean much, but measurements averaged over longer periods, credit crises, etc. take on some meaning.

ok. so that's kind of what I thought. instantaneously we can't actually ascribe comparative accurate value because ... weird stuff might be going on (a scam, a temporary change in shipping costs, etc)

but we can assume that over time, and more importantly over many transactions, the 'true' value will surface (wash out all the weird signal).

I was following and accepting the summaries until the Bitcoin pitch.

Notice he doesn’t “account for dollar debasement” in the rest of the economy but only for the stock market. This is just nonsense.

his argument went out the window when he started shilling bitcoin

Not very good, this article? Will I ever get a downvote button for articles or does HN not have that at all?

Bad articles just get forgotten at the bottom after few hours.

the flag button can be very effective

Bitcoin fans need to believe the world is falling apart in order to have something to save.

Because people are shortsighted in both directions of time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania