But not all gambling is "gambling": Insurance is gambling, for example. Picking mutual funds and ETFs for your retirement plan is gambling.
"Gambling" has connotations of immoral behaviour, especially in zero-sum or always-lose scenarios like poker and casinos. I don't think it's fair to describe educated and informed investment or buy-ins with words like that. I think "risky venture" is a less loaded, more neutral, term to describe it instead.
As it is, I don't see Bitcoin and other currencies as true investments - just yet - I see the surge in Bitcoin mainly as a "distributed Ponzi-scheme" instead: those who are cashing-out now are those who bought-in early and being paid by the people buying it now - and the people buying it now expect more other people to buy into it later, pushing the price higher while supply and availability dwindle (owing to BTC's 28M cap). However, unlike a Ponzi-scheme, Bitcoin, Ethereum and others do have utility as a means of moving money around independently of existing, often state-controlled, bank networks or remittance services - and eventually Bitcoin will be the tool of choice for that - and when the tens of millions of people wanting to move money around do so is when we will know the real, unhyped, value of Bitcoin - until then, the question is if $7,000 USD/BTC is an obscene over-valuation, or is still comically low - and I don't know which side to believe.
We'll get a better idea when, or if, legacy companies like Western Union and SWIFT get involved - or when real-time BTC transactions cost less than a VISA or Mastercard transaction (say ~3%). Right now a 250 byte transaction will cost 54,240 satoshi ($3.83) and take 30 minutes to get the first confirmation - making it totally unacceptable for retail purchases, for example. Hopefully when the Lightning Network or other solutions get finalized we'll start to see some real traction, but how many bubbles will burst before then?
>"Gambling" has connotations of immoral behaviour, especially in zero-sum or always-lose scenarios like poker and casinos. I don't think it's fair to describe educated and informed investment or buy-ins with words like that. I think "risky venture" is a less loaded, more neutral, term to describe it instead.
This is not a repeat from every bubble ever. This time it's different!
All GP is saying is that some gambling, such as on casino slot machines has a mathematically defined (and legally regulated) payout of less than 100%. Same for state lotteries.
Bitcoin may well be in a bubble, but it isnt mathematically and legally guaranteed to decrease in value overall as compared to what most people consider traditional forms of "gambling".
