Who dismissed the value of studying history? I've read plenty of history - including books that specifically deal with bubbles and manias.
I never said bubbles are a thing of the past and that history won't repeat itself. I very much believe that plenty of the cryptocurrencies we have today will implode at some point. I don't think it will happen with BTC, but admittedly, I do not know and don't have a (very) strong opinion either way.
Actually you did say "Also, on a general note I think it's a mistake that we always look to the past and try to make sense of the present/future in light of that. The world today is different than the one in 2000 or other times in history." but I think we're in agreement now.
Actually, I never advocated that.
If there would be some kind of regulation that puts a lid on BTC mining it would only make BTC even more valuable.
Again, in response to me saying that BTC mining will skyrocket energy use and cause an increase in energy prices you replied "Maybe, but that actually already happened and it's not because of BTC mining that we're seeing inflation worldwide." Would you mind expanding a bit on that comment, because I think I missed what you were trying to convey?
I feel that your view of BTC is only taking into consideration the supply side of what is of course a supply and demand curve that determines price. BTC is only valuable to the extent it performs a function. It's value now is based on speculation that it will begin to be used for a good portion of the world's financial transaction. If all it ever ends up being used for in transactions is ransomware, money laundering, and drug buys plus the current user base using it where they can, it's worth a tiny fraction of what it is now. You can't just assume the demand side stays constant or growing when it's almost entirely based on speculation right now.
Anything with lasting value will have to move to a much wider transaction base or else the price will drop to reflect it's actual utility. And if you move to a much wider transaction base, your energy use skyrockets. The energy use is the achilles heel of BTC. If BTC use grows to the point it justifies its value, energy use becomes prohibitive. If it doesn't grow to the point of prohibitive energy use, it's current price makes no sense. You've got to address this energy use issue head on, otherwise you're ignoring an issue that's easily as big as the issue of the assets securing the so called "stablecoins".
Not really, although it's easy to get that impression. Just like one might think that it's only teenagers that trade stocks through Robin Hood.
I guarantee if you or I go anywhere in America outside of a couple tech centers and asked 100 people if they've actually bought or sold something using BTC you wouldn't get more than a handful who actually have. I've lived in Silicon Valley, I've gotten caught up in the bubble and began to thought that everyone must be as familiar with and using the tech I see everyone around me using. But that's not the real world and doesn't reflect the real world. In Topeka KS and Lafayette, LA, and Tucson, AZ and thousands of similar cities large and small no-one is using BTC for transactions. Even most of the fanbois are just speculating, actual transactions are limited to the true evangelists and criminals. You and I have done crypto transactions, but we're in a distinct minority and need to remember that.
BTW, although this conversation has nothing to do with Robinhood, according to Robinhood themselves, the average Robinhood user is 31 years old and has a median $240 account balance. That's exactly what I would have suspected given you need to be 18 to open an account, although I would have guessed around 27 as the age.
