You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Charts don't lie: Bitcoin is in a bubble.
and all of those markets "bubbles" have surpassed their values prior to the bursting of the so called bubbles, which means they were not bubbles at all... (Though there are whole towns in the US that have been abandoned. )
you can say that to you is a bubble, but that doesn't make you correct.
The fact that you include 2014 bitcoin when it peaked at $1000.. 3 years years later it's appreciated 2500% before correcting again....
If history repeats itself, we'll get to $125k within another 3 years..
As I posted way back then - a "bubble" has a very specific definition - and it's often misused.
Just think about the term.. "Bubble". By it's very definition, when you a bubble bursts, there's nothing left...
We might have to agree to disagree then @farq, the way I see it is that Bitcoin has had several bubbles along the way, the primary long-term trend is certainly bullish but it's been overvalued a few times and each time was a bubble.
I don't think either of us is "correct" per se, we just have different criteria to evaluate what is a bubble and what is not.
Cheers
well I believe my criteria is more closely aligned to what the word is actually supposed to mean.
good for you @farq. This is your definition:
So I guess your mental image is that of a soap bubble, it inflates, bursts and it's gone forever.
This is the definition of a bubble on Investopedia:
You'll notice there is no mention of the asset becoming "worthless". Bubble=irrational overvaluation of an asset.
The mental image this definition conjures is that of boiling water, it boils and expands, gets agitated then calms... but the underlying asset (water) doesn't get destroyed.
So it's down to definition and again I don't think any of us is "closer to the truth" than the other or "more closely aligned to what the word is supposed to mean". So let's just leave it at that.