Member Info for BouncyDeadCat

Alas_Smith

At what point would you deem Bitcoin to be a a safe store of value if it were to continue its rise in value over time? 5 more years? 7 more years? 10 more?

If you answer 'Never' then that's just belligerence on your part.

At some point, those who in 1995, pontificated that “the internet’s impact on the world economy would be no greater than the fax machine” had to concede they were wrong eventually.

Another fact for you – Anyone & everyone who has held Bitcoin for a period of 4 years or more is up on their investment (most substantially so). I'd say that qualifies as a good store of value but some may need more time to judge.

Enjoy the port!

"you can't travel with it, or use it for some other utility"

er.. yes you can. You can travel anywhere in the world with it and you can trade it for goods and services and fiat. It is even legal tender in some countries and nobody can stop you at the airport and take it from you as it's non physical. The biggest utility of all is that it stores value over long periods of time.

And when you say people need to be a bit stupid to invest in bitcoin, I would suggest it is you who's maybe the stupid one.

Bitcoin was $400 in 2016 when I first started buying it. Your investment in Rio Tinto would need to reach £3,800 per share within the next 7 years for you to get that kind of return.

So maybe before calling people stupid, check the long term chart.

Let's check again in another 7 years. I bet you the fiat price of Bitcoin will be 5-10x what it is now.

.....continue

So if Bitcoin is truly unique (scarce), why not combat that by creating exact copies of the Bitcoin blockchain and increase the supply beyond 21 million by creating multiple chains?

Well, that's already been tried hundreds of times. As the code won't allow more Bitcoin to be issued than the code permits (issued on a schedule that halves every 4 years until all 21 million Bitcoin have been mined), in order to create another copy of Bitcoin you have to fork it, which creates a new copy of the blockchain. Some famous examples of these forks are; Bitcoin BSV, Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Diamond, Bitcoin Cash etc. All copies of Bitcoin and all failures.

The important concept to understand here is: Bitcoin is a network (with network effects), all 'copies' of the Bitcoin blockchain ultimately wither and die on the vine because no miner is going to allocate huge amounts of cost (energy) to start mining a fake copy of Bitcoin when they can mine real Bitcoin which has tremendous value.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xs2MkvnFDE

LoggyLogbot,

Why Bitcoin and not 'crypto'.

That was an aspect I struggled with when I first began studying it and it all boils down to how it came into being, its immutable rule set and the network effects it's created since inception.

Bitcoin began as an internet monetary network with an immutable set of mathematical rules at its core which is protected behind a wall of energy and a decentralised protocol structure. It was and always will be governed by these mathematical rules rather than 'rulers' (people). Even those who helped bootstrap the Bitcoin network back in 2009, they all had to conform to the rule set from the very beginning. i.e. if they wanted to acquire any Bitcoin, then they either had to mine it or buy it off someone who had already mined it and was willing to sell to them. There was no other way of acquiring Bitcoin other than mining it or buying previously mined Bitcoin. The same is true today and the same will be true 100 years from now. 14 years of CIA, Chinese and Russian hackers trying to attack it can attest to that.

Now compare that to 'crypto' which are tokens governed by groups of people (who control the code) and the incentives behind the creation of these 'me too' Bitcoin copies become quite evident.

With 'crypto' it is people rather than energy & mathematics who 'control' the code, so the incentive is for these people to issue themselves with lots of free tokens to try and enrich themselves and their backers. They can also increase the supply of coins and change the underlining code whenever they want which effectively undermines the entire value proposition and why crypto and not Bitcoin are being classified as securities by the SEC (because people incentivized by making profit is what is behind all of them). I'd go as far to say that all 'crypto' is a scam.

Bitcoin on the other hand was not created for personal gain, it's creator Satoshi Nakamoto has never sold a single coin (the coins he mined have never moved – this can be verified on the Bitcoin blockchain). Bitcoin was created to usher in a fairer and more stable monetary system post the banking bailout era (which we're still unfortunately in).

Bitcoin has value because nobody can take control of it. It's a pure digital bearer asset. That allows it to be a trusted medium of exchange. 'Crypto' on the other-hand is controlled by people, it therefore has counter-party risk and its value is much less and mostly worthless....

continue....

Alas Smith,

The pomposity of your declaration that Bitcoin has no value, when the market clearly values it highly (see its 14 year historical price chart) shows how wrong you are.

When I suggested you buy it a couple of weeks ago, the price was at $27,000, it's now over $30,000 (which is still cheap for what it is). Had you taken my advice you'd be up over 10% already.

It's funny when, as soon as the intrinsic value argument is lost, the unresearched suddenly switch to tangibility as their next argument for why they won't study it

'it has value because I can physically hang it on my wall and the artist is dead'

and they say such things without a hint of irony.

What's actually being valued in such cases, more so than the quality of the art itself, is the scarcity of that art - because the artist is dead and can no longer produce any more of it. Bitcoin is a digital version of that same scarcity. A decentralised, purely mathematical network backed by energy, ensures that no more than 21 million Bitcoin can ever be produced. The invention results in digital scarcity and an immutable ledger (digital scarcity was impossible prior to the invention of Bitcoin). That's why it's often referred to as digital gold.

Before espousing on a subject you clearly know nothing about, may I suggest you at least go and educate yourself on the subject matter.

https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/training/annual-national-training-seminar/2018/Emerging_Tech_Bitcoin_Crypto.pdf

https://www.hope.com/

Eccles cake,

Bitcoin was first priced in 2010 at $0.10.

$0.10 + 20,000,000% = $20,000. You can't argue with the facts.

There's no such thing as 'intrinsic value'. Value is always subjective, i.e. it's in the eyes of the valuer and what value that something brings to them. A glass of water's value to me right now: Low. A glass of water's value to a man dying of thirst in the desert: High.

In respect to their failing currency, the people of Argentina (who are currently experiencing 100% annual inflation) place a very high value on Bitcoin. Same in Venezuela, Turkey, Nigeria, Lebanon and China (because of capital controls).

Bitcoin has value because it's a decentralised hard money with a scarce supply that anyone can own, transfer & transact in, without permission from a 3rd party (such as a bank, institution or a government). It's also an insurance policy on too much government debt and too much money-printing.

It's only those who haven't done the required amount of research that don't like Bitcoin. Essentially, people like yourself (who admittedly, are the majority).

However, once you learn the significance of the invention that is Bitcoin (and how it solved the Byzantine generals problem) you will then begin to understand the power of it and why so many people around the world keep placing a higher & higher value on it. Until then, you won't, you'll just parrot sound bites uttered by others (who also haven't done the research).

And the reason Bitcoin keeps going up in value is for a similar yet opposing reason; more people are studying/understanding it. And once you understand it – you buy it. It sort of happens in waves and that's why it's volatile. People confuse this volatility with risk. Amazon stock was volatile between 1995 and 2005, but if you had really taken the time to understand what the internet was, then you'd know where it was heading, you wouldn't have confused Amazon's business model with risk.

I don't care if you buy Bitcoin or not. To me, you're just like one of those people who, in 1995, claimed they would NEVER use the internet (because they didn't yet understand its importance & the impact it would have on humanity). Ultimately, you'll end up using Bitcoin, whether you know it or not.

N.B. Unless you're over 300 years old, there's no way you could possibly 'remember' the South sea bubble of 1720.

Alas Smith,

I don't view a hard digital money that's backed by energy and ruled my mathematics (rather than humans) as gambling, I view it as the next evolution in hard money, but each to their own.

Bitcoin has gone up 20,000,000% since it's inception. Annualised, that's 1429% growth per year over the last 14 years.

When AI begins trading with other bots, it won't use fiat, it'll use Bitcoin as the digitally native internet currency.

The future is upon us.

Anyway, I'll leave it there. Good luck with your other investments 🙏

Fromage,

The energy it consumes is what makes it unhackable. Energy is the security budget.

Bitcoin miners also seek out stranded energy as it's the cheapest kind. It doesn't compete with household energy users.

https://www.coindesk.com/layer2/2022/08/23/the-more-energy-bitcoin-uses-the-better/

Alas_Smith,

Maybe consider allocating 3-5% to Bitcoin and distribute the private key amongst family members under a multi-signature set up. No fees and it can all be done without wills, trusts, probates etc and just kept within the family.

It's also a type of wealth that can be taken anywhere in the world without seeking permission from any central authority, bank or institution. Easy to set up too.

Bitcoin is a volatile asset, but the increase in value over the last 14 years (since its inception) has been up. Best performing asset over the last decade & the next evolution of the internet. Surely worth a 2% allocation.

Post got cut.

Continue...

I think Morocco are more likely to take a sensible approach in securing gas from within their own borders (for which they will still pay a comparatively low price for) than to gamble with European spot pricing and hope Spain has enough processing ability to feed them some of their re-gassed LNG, as well as having enough capacity to feed Europe too.

Realistically, I think the way Morocco sees it, without having their own in-country supply, they are vulnerable to future high prices and rug-pulls (and why they were forced into paying $35.55/mcf for gas this time last year). The reason they had to go begging to Spain for this expensive LNG converted gas, was because they fell out with Algeria who promptly cut them off from the only pipeline that feeds the country.

The bigger picture goes way beyond the current spot price.

Dgdg1,

Lots of if/whats/maybes to digest in your posts but also some legitimate concerns too. Glad to see some constructive opposition.

I think if there was ever a possibility of Nord Stream 2 coming back online in the future to supply Europe with gas – they probably wouldn't have blown the thing up.

Regardless of what the west thinks about Putin, the majority of Russian people seem to support him and his invasion of Ukraine. He's been in power for 23 years, That will change at some point in the future, but even when it eventually does, I don't think Europe will go back to relying on a country that's now clearly its enemy, to supply it with gas. Putin could go on for another 8-10 years and even when he does eventually step down, how do you know his replacement will be any more friendly to the west?

After Europe banned Russian gas last year (once they had filled up their strategic reserves) they resorted to buying LNG from America at $3 above spot + de-liquefaction costs (I posted an article on this if you care to go back and look). In combination with full reserves and a mild winter, the European LNG re-gassing processing plants were able to cope with relatively small volumes of LNG processing, but if the European winter had been a cold one, the scenario would have been very different. Either way, Europe wasn't paying spot price for its gas then and won't be in the future. Contractual rates are usually priced off the futures market rather than the spot price (which changes daily).

Anyhow, even during last year's mild European winter, what was Morocco paying Spain for its gas (who in turn were buying it from the US in LNG form)? They were paying €113.53 per Mwh which equates to €32.92/mcf or $35.55/mcf.

See here: https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/natural-gas/062922-spain-begins-gas-re-exports-to-morocco-via-gme-pipeline-enagas

Currently, as it's summer and power usage is low, the spot price is also very low. Spot wholesale pricing is around €30 per Mwh which works out to be around $9.40/mcf.

If you read through Chariot's presentation and annual report, they have worked out the viability of the Anchois project at $8/mcf. One presumes they have communicated this as a key principle with ONHYM whom they are in discussions with over a long term gas sales agreement.

Morocco could try and gamble with buying nat gas from the European spot market and hope that this current period of high inflation is over (I don't think inflation is over, I think it will stop and start in waves over the next decade), but I suppose that could be a tactic they decide to gamble on.

But I think they're more likely to take a sensible approach in securing gas from within their own boarders (for which they'll still pay a comparatively low price for) than to gamble with European spot pricing and hope Spain has enough processing ability to feed them some of their re-gassed LNG (as well as supply Europe too

Dgdg1,

Be careful trying to assume margins based on current spot prices.

Europe, particularly the industrious North, doesn't use much in the way of air-conditioning, even in the summer, but it uses massive amounts of gas for heating during most winters. The winter just gone was a bit of an anomaly as it was quite mild across most of Europe.

The reason GSA's are signed is because it gives reassurance and stability of price to both buyer and seller. It doesn't matter if the spot price of gas goes back up to $48 mcf next winter or if it drops to $6.50 for a few months during summer, if you've signed a GSA for $14 or $12 or whatever, that's what you'll pay for the gas.

I would understand if (on release of the GSA) you felt the price agreed (under the GSA) was poor based on your projections of future profits. But to sell out based on the current spot price during a spell of mild weather, post a mild winter, is, in my opinion, a rather hasty move (you did ask for opinions).

To your other fear; even if there was a ceasefire in Ukraine, I can't see Europe buying Russian gas again as Putin would use the money to re-arm. The Nord Stream 2 pipeline is no more because someone (cough, America, cough) blew it up.

A GSA of $6/mcf would equal a SP greater than 13p (not sure how you arrived at that figure), even so, I don't think Chariot would sign for that. Let's not forget, Morocco was buying LNG from Spain less than 11 months ago for Euro 113.53/MWh after Algeria cut it off from its Nat Gas supply after a territorial dispute over the Western Sahara region.

The GSA is not just going to be based solely on price (although, of course price is an important factor). The GSA needs to be a win-win for both Morocco AND Chariot.

Morocco needs sovereignty of supply to come from within its own boarders. Chariot needs to make a ROI in order to make the extraction and delivery of all this gas possible.

Dawg,

Good to know you're still at it ;)

Nope, not invested in Blinkx/Tremor, haven't been for years. Just saw the article on Lynch and thought I'd post it here for old time's sake :)

Good luck to you and I hope Tremor comes good for you very soon.

Hey dawg,

All good thanks. Hope you're well and enjoying life in beautiful Oregon.

You still canning like a good un?

Https://www.wsj.com/articles/british-entrepreneur-mike-lynch-extradited-to-u-s-over-hewlett-packard-case-6c0826dc?

You can compare them in the sense that they’re both O&G companies who’s share price is influenced by the price of the underlying commodity they have to sell.

It goes without saying that, due to its size, scale & cash balance, BP has less downside risk than Chariot (unless another of its well caps were to blow), it also has less upside potential too.

It would take BP two decades to double its O&G reserves. Chariot could easily quadruple or 7x its reserves within 2 years.

You pays yer money you takes yer chance.
I hold both companies.

End of April BP was at £5.35. It closed today at £4.92 (-8%)
End of April CHAR was at 17.80p. It closed today at 16.40p (-8%)

Whimax,

The partnership is with a midstream/downstream operator, so in theory, anyone connected or within close proximity to the maghreb pipeline could be a potential customer.

I think this partnership particularly helps ONEE too, as I suspect they would like to secure more gas than they currently need (as they have plans to replace their coal power stations with gas in the near future), but the problem for them would be; what would they do with the over-capacity of gas that they've paid for on a take or pay contract that they don't currently have a need for? The partnership with Vivo would negate this issue as any excess gas from the ONEE take or pay contract could be sold back into the commercial market.

Also, regardless of whether ONEE has excess capacity to sell into this downstream market or not, Chariot can use this same distribution channel to sell its gas directly from Anchois.

I also think it's part of their larger commitment to ONHYM & The Kingdom of Morocco in general, in that, before Chariot starts thinking about selling this gas to European customers, they will provide Morocco with the opportunity to acquire all that it needs first.

"This agreement confirms the priority given by Chariot to the Moroccan energy market, expands upon our other existing sales negotiations around future offtakes..."

On a technicals, it looks like it's going to test the October lows around £45.