Search results for:

I had a my bike stolen from inside a nursery last month

Kids are such twats

If there is no way forward; Velocio, whose baby it is, wants to close then everything has a lifespan and this is it, then that's their call and I very very sadly understand, your personal safety and life must come first. No matter how sad bad this is, I'm not wrecking the life of another.Thak you Velocio for all you have done and to all of those who have helped, taught me, made me laugh and been on the odd ride with.

This was basically what I came here to write.... Whatever else, thanks @Velocio for doing this all in the first place

Whilst that might technically be true doesn't moving into 80s / 90s mean the bigger speakers tend to be towers not boxes?

My biggest issue with modern speakers is that drivers tend to be smaller and I prefer the sound of a bigger driver.

Plus towers look shit

Thanks - have signed up for some watching over the break!

Id try something like a nobsound amp just to see if it works as presume you want to spend as little as possible?

I hope you're right but how many have they actually contested?

But the market doesn't have perfect info on what coins have been lost. Eg there is a chance that poor fucker can get his coins out of the rubbish tip, satoshi might not be dead but biding his time, etc, etc

Yeah this is kind of my point - I don't think "coins going out of circulation" that weren't being traded before is likely to ever really have a measurable impact on cost. Even if buyers knew it had happened, no part of buying / pricing bitcoin is based on any real metrics (e.g. what a sensible market cap would be Vs earnings or assets) that would mean a restriction on available coins should directly impact price.

So although I get that theoretically it should have an impact on price, I don't really believe it is that likely to, which is my point

I do get that technically there is a chance they can be sold if held by someone unless destroyed, but this sort of assumes that investors are pricing in some sensible fashion based on a knowledge of the total number of coins in existence - but I don't think any real element of bitcoin pricing is based on that kind of technical analysis. Most buyers will have no idea when this person dies + whether his coins are destroyed so I don't really believe that the knowledge it has happened will feed into pricing in any way which is close enough to ascertain...

I can see there might be a different position if the counterfactual was that they were all sold immediately (and that might depress prices)

No agreed, but if someone has always held and boarded lots so they've never been in circulation and they're then cancelled / lost, the number in active circulation is the same isn't it?

Think of it the other way round. If it was suddenly announced that there were going to be 42m bitcoins made, what would happen to the price?

Depends whether they are going to be made and held, or made and released, which was part of my point!

I guess it would have an impact relative to them being sold - but otherwise one person dying and their coins disappearing makes no actual difference right? Those coins wouldn't have been circulating to buy before and won't be after

increasing the value of their coins proportionately

Would it really do that?

This. It's ridiculous that presidential pardons exist in an unfettered way.

Unlikely to make them ill I'd say but it just might not taste great, which undermines the present angle a bit...

Thanks both - have dropped him a message.

Anyone have a SE London recommendation for a new boiler?

Rokas doesn't do installs at present and not much else suggested recently or for this side of the river...

A crossover hit that one (see golf club!)

Not really

I have one and it is great, but I spent the money so long ago now I've forgotten that part. Not sure if that helps....

Yes at least I'm not alone in that view...

Who knows. Don't know why I'm so bothered either, I'm not invested in it!

Sorry - just trying to understand and latched on to you saying you agreed with one reason (as your logic didn't make sense to me).

I'm still searching for the reason as none of those quoted seem to make sense. So at the moment it does seem irrational, but I could change that view if a logical explanation was provided

The only way that helps is if you're saying it is expressly a Ponzi scheme - i.e. you think the company's value will go up in the future as it will keep getting more money than it needs to buy BTC and therefore it's value increases on subsequent transactions? Is that your point?

It doesn't justify why an investor now would pay the premium for shares Vs BTC unless you think some others will keep paying in after you (by some multiple, as you've bought in well down on actual assets).

You're basically saying that the company is worth more than NAV because the share price is higher, so that justifies the higher share price. It's circular

So what though? It's still the same transaction - it takes its £100 of cash (sure, it's newly raised cash, but don't see what difference that makes) and gets BTC of £100 at that time.

Nothing in that suggests we should value it as if it already owns more BTC than it does now.

Yes and this is the bit that makes no sense.

Also what was wrong in what I said above? You said "no"

"its own equity" is just cash it holds after issuing shares.