Bitcoin and other crypto-The CR thread

[GRHorn 105]

We already have a thread in the markets forum, but it’s mostly a handful of enthusiasts going back and forth with new info. That, and new posters asking how they can buy some etc. I’m curious what thoughts all the serious people on this forum have on Bitcoin. 

Before its recent pullback the value of the Bitcoin network crossed over $1 Trillion dollars. Although still relatively small in terms of market size it seems to be reaching a size of geopolitical significance. Large money managers, high net worth individuals, pension funds, insurance companies, publicly traded corporations are all getting exposure to the asset. One Senator, a small caucus in the House, and the richest man on Earth are advocates for it. 

Bitcoin is both complex and simple at the same time, but there’s two main aspects that fascinate me and imo give it massive tailwinds. 
 

1) It’s the first asset in history whose supply cannot be increased in response to an increase in demand. There’s a set emission schedule that cannot be changed. 
 

This has massive implications as whatever value you have stored in it cannot be arbitrarily diluted by outside forces or any centralized entity. As MMTers gain more influence and stimulus continues indefinitely inflation potential will rise, but now people are more easily able to protect their savings. Given that inflation is most harmful to people on the lower ends of the economic spectrum, bitcoin has the potential to actually help combat inequality. 
 

2) Decentralization- The trend towards more centralization of money and power has been accelerating. Bitcoin’s network is decentralized. No one entity controls it. Anyone can use it, or not, as they please. Transactions cannot be censored. As politicians and big tech continue to censor people’s speech or their ability to earn a living, more and more people will look to a system that is open like Bitcoin. 

Of course governments don’t like losing any control, but especially over people’s money. Many governments have already attempted to “ban bitcoin” with poor results. Soon the US Govt will likely take their shot and try to squash it out. I think that’s misguided and ultimately futile. 

As a footnote, the price as of this post is $46,494. 

[ndawg 1242]

Google BTC’s energy consumption and its transactional throughput.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Oh fuck not this shit again

[Dahobbs 17534]

16 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

2) Decentralization- The trend towards more centralization of money and power has been accelerating. Bitcoin’s network is decentralized. No one entity controls it. Anyone can use it, or not, as they please. Transactions cannot be censored. As politicians and big tech continue to censor people’s speech or their ability to earn a living, more and more people will look to a system that is open like Bitcoin. 

What? How are these things even connected in your mind? No one's speech is being "censor[ed]" because of their currency. This is a really odd thing to shoehorn into a bitcoin conversation. It is also nonsense, but I guess I'll leave that for another thread. 

Anywho, @ndawg is right. Bitcoin (and cryptocurrency in general) is a plague due to the amount of energy it wastes. 

Also, other assets that can't have their supply increased in response to demand: sunlight and time. 

[GRHorn 105]

31 minutes ago, ndawg said:

Google BTC’s energy consumption and its transactional throughput.

Thanks for the tip. Despite starting this thread, I have an extremely limited knowledge of this topic. 
 

23 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Oh fuck not this shit again

Has there been a bitcoin thread before?

19 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

What? How are these things even connected in your mind? No one's speech is being "censor[ed]" because of their currency. This is a really odd thing to shoehorn into a bitcoin conversation. It is also nonsense, but I guess I'll leave that for another thread. 

Anywho, @ndawg is right. Bitcoin (and cryptocurrency in general) is a plague due to the amount of energy it wastes. 

Also, other assets that can't have their supply increased in response to demand: sunlight and time. 

I didn’t say speech was censored because of their currency. Not sure how you got that.
 

I do think as there’s more and more instances of people in power gaming the system to their advantage or censoring others, that a system without one entity in charge becomes more attractive.
 

Re bitcoin energy consumption and it being a “waste”:  a large amount of energy consumed for bitcoin mining is excess energy supplied by things like hydroelectric dams. 
 

Whether one considers the energy consumption used to maintain a non-sovereign monetary network a waste, is totally subjective. 

[Dahobbs 17534]

10 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

I didn’t say speech was censored because of their currency. Not sure how you got that.
 

I do think as there’s more and more instances of people in power gaming the system to their advantage or censoring others, that a system without one entity in charge becomes more attractive.
 

Re bitcoin energy consumption and it being a “waste”:  a large amount of energy consumed for bitcoin mining is excess energy supplied by things like hydroelectric dams. 
 

Whether one considers the energy consumption used to maintain a non-sovereign monetary network a waste, is totally subjective. 

You implied that conducting transactions with bitcoin would somehow alleviate the problem of big tech censorship. Of course they have nothing to do with each other. Big tech can censor people using bitcoins just as easily as people using dollars (actually, probably easier since theoretically big tech could disrupt the public ledger and break bitcoin entirely if it truly desired). 

What do you mean by excess energy? It isn't like it is thermal waste being used. It is actual electricity that could have gone to a trillion more useful things, including powering your computer while you create this thread. 

Edited March 1, 2021 by Dahobbs

[Bullneck 19090]

Hmm.  Buffett doesn't like Bitcoin but the Winkelvi do.  

Quote

The Times reports Cameron and Tyler did sell a portion of their coins to launch Gemini, a cryptocurrency exchange on which people can buy and sell bitcoin, but they have no other plans to sell their stake. A representative for Winklevoss Capital, the brothers investment firm, declined to comment.

Whether or not you’re getting rich off of crypto, there is a good lesson you can take away from the Winklevoss twins: Money you don’t spend on luxuries like fancy cars can be invested, and that lets it keep growing over time.

As ‘Shark Tank’ investor Kevin O’Leary puts it in a conversation with CNBC Make It, “The truth is, there is a lot of crap you don’t need.”

“Anytime I pick up something I’m going to buy, I say to myself, ‘Do I really need this?’” O’Leary explains. “Because if I don’t buy it, the money is going to be invested and make money every year for me while I’m sleeping.”

Bitcoin skeptics like Warren Buffett, who tells CNBC “almost with certainty” that cryptocurrencies “will come to a bad ending,” recommend investing in low-cost index funds, a way to cheaply hold diverse positions in the largest companies in the stock market.

 

[Dahobbs 17534]

1 minute ago, Bullneck said:

Hmm.  Buffett doesn't like Bitcoin but the Winkelvi do.  

 

To be clear, I don't think bitcoin is a bad investment. I just think it is bad for the world. 

[GRHorn 105]

50 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You implied that conducting transactions with bitcoin would somehow alleviate the problem of big tech censorship. Of course they have nothing to do with each other. Big tech can censor people using bitcoins just as easily as people using dollars (actually, probably easier since theoretically big tech could disrupt the public ledger and break bitcoin entirely if it truly desired). 

What do you mean by excess energy? It isn't like it is thermal waste being used. It is actual electricity that could have gone to a trillion more useful things, including powering your computer while you create this thread. 

Specifically in China due to poor central planning, they have overbuilt hydroelectric capacity. The grid literally can’t handle it so it’s wasted. 

[Bullneck 19090]

8 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Specifically in China due to poor central planning, they have overbuilt hydroelectric capacity. The grid literally can’t handle it so it’s wasted. 

I would totally trust the Chinese government with my Bitcoin retirement money.  

[washparkhorn 9939]

3 hours ago, GRHorn said:

I’m curious what thoughts all the serious people on this forum have on Bitcoin. 

For the OP. A few questions come up automatically and need to be considered, if we want to understand and solve the issue. With genuine curiosity. 

Spoiler

 

• betting on bitcoin = are you in an economic sense rooting for the demise of the Dollar?
• The Dollar props up the world economy - until someone else comes along.
• What current economic systems will replace the libertarian economic system we have now.
• Who or what will replace the US?
• Hedging your bet? . Or rooting for something other than the Dollar in this Dollar economy. 

?

• Is Bit coins a movement or just anarchy?
• There is room in a mixed-market economy, like ours.  Bit coiners should read up on mixed market economies when in investing in any market.  
• Conservatives bet on the status quo - by ideology, which is not economics.
• Economics during the Washington Consensus period (what we are in now) is built on the ideals of mixed markets with public/private partnerships. We don't call that socialism. That is a mixed market. Capitalists like these markets. 
• So - it can be squashed.  Watch your ass and none of the frontier logic up yonder is nuttin but gibberish.  It is a stylish investment though, and that has value in a brand conscious world (also a libertarian creation).  How does it earn power in a mixed market economy like ours? 
• Our economy socializes the cost of negative externalities for private investment and has used austerity programs for 30 years to pay for it. That is unstable. But the argument against letting it topple, is this is but a small adjustment necessary. We are few percentage points lean for 30+ years, and that damage adds up.  There is risk in the dollar, not because of bit coins of course - they reflect the uncertainty. 

Or is this a bug out strategy. 

 

TLDR: bit coins need trusted bean counters to make sure we aren't financing the world's end. That's doable in a mixed market economy. Just don't kill the golden goose.

Good luck with them bits.

What could go wrong. 

Edited March 1, 2021 by washparkhorn

[David Dennison 18860]

3 hours ago, GRHorn said:

We already have a thread in the markets forum, but it’s mostly a handful of enthusiasts going back and forth with new info. That, and new posters asking how they can buy some etc. I’m curious what thoughts all the serious people on this forum have on Bitcoin. 

Before its recent pullback the value of the Bitcoin network crossed over $1 Trillion dollars. Although still relatively small in terms of market size it seems to be reaching a size of geopolitical significance. Large money managers, high net worth individuals, pension funds, insurance companies, publicly traded corporations are all getting exposure to the asset. One Senator, a small caucus in the House, and the richest man on Earth are advocates for it. 

Bitcoin is both complex and simple at the same time, but there’s two main aspects that fascinate me and imo give it massive tailwinds. 
 

1) It’s the first asset in history whose supply cannot be increased in response to an increase in demand. There’s a set emission schedule that cannot be changed. 
 

This has massive implications as whatever value you have stored in it cannot be arbitrarily diluted by outside forces or any centralized entity. As MMTers gain more influence and stimulus continues indefinitely inflation potential will rise, but now people are more easily able to protect their savings. Given that inflation is most harmful to people on the lower ends of the economic spectrum, bitcoin has the potential to actually help combat inequality. 
 

2) Decentralization- The trend towards more centralization of money and power has been accelerating. Bitcoin’s network is decentralized. No one entity controls it. Anyone can use it, or not, as they please. Transactions cannot be censored. As politicians and big tech continue to censor people’s speech or their ability to earn a living, more and more people will look to a system that is open like Bitcoin. 

Of course governments don’t like losing any control, but especially over people’s money. Many governments have already attempted to “ban bitcoin” with poor results. Soon the US Govt will likely take their shot and try to squash it out. I think that’s misguided and ultimately futile. 

As a footnote, the price as of this post is $46,494. 

You should look into tulips.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

Why is this a CR thread again? Are we talking about crypto taxes or something? 

[henrygandorf 29191]

57 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Why is this a CR thread again? Are we talking about crypto taxes or something? 

crypto tax breaks but only for the crypto wealthy. 

[Tom 2959]

I like crypto as an investment and a good way to make money, but I don't see it ever going completely mainstream and replacing the American dollar in this country. 

I think the US government has the ability to hurt Bitcoin more than you'd think.  Look at XRP.  Jay Clayton, Trump's head of the SEC, filed a lawsuit on his last day in office claiming XRP was an unregistered security.  That is still pending a final outcome, but the announcement of the lawsuit alone erased about 50% of its value and kept the price down while BTC and altcoins went on a record setting run.  For the first time in the better part of a decade, XRP is no longer a top 5 coin.  It would probably be sitting at $3 to $5 without the interference of the SEC.

If the government says "Bitcoin is used by many for nefarious reasons and is now illegal", the same thing could happen to it.  Never underestimate people in power to mess up a good thing.

Edited March 1, 2021 by Tom

[956 Worldwide 34715]

Whatever Bitcoin is, it isn't money.  And part of that is because the supply cannot be expanded in response to expanded needs. 
 

Think about how you use money in the real world.  Would you ever agree to a mortgage denominated in Bitcoins? Would you ever agree to pay a contractor in  Bitcoins for a job that was going to take six months?  Would you agree to receive Bitcoin denominated cell phone bills?  In each of those transactions one of the parties involved is almost guaranteed to take a complete bath and thus, would only conclude the deal if they were completely irrational or if they thought they could seriously pull one over on a stupid counter-party. 

What you MIGHT do is agree to pay use Bitcoin at the current exchange rate to pay dollar-denominated bills or loans.  (I will send you $1500 worth of Bitcoins each month for my mortgage payment).  And that should be a clue to you that Bitcoin isn't money.  Another clue that it isn't actually money is that everyone in the game spends so much time thinking and talking about its value relative to the dollar, or Euro, or yen, or whatever.  In other words, we measure its value in actual money.

To be useful as money, it would need to have a relatively stable value over time; even if Bitcoin proves to endlessly and rapidly appreciate, that makes it useless as money because no one would ever agree to exchange it for goods or services unless it changed hands immediately, in the moment. It is the opposite problem of what you saw with Weimar currency and it's wild, usual downward depreciation in the 1920s.....but no less of a problem when it comes to using the stuff as money. 

It is an interesting investment vehicle. It's an indicator that lots of people are concerned about monetary policy. But as a medium of exchange, it's far closer in practice to parking your money in classic cars or artwork than it is to thinking about it as a substitute for money.  And it is I guess theoretically possible to use blockchain tech to design a cryptocurrency that could function as actual money, but Bitcoin's design rules that out.  It's basically a cool collectible that everyone has agreed they want. 

[GRHorn 105]

7 hours ago, David Dennison said:

You should look into tulips.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/there-never-was-real-tulip-fever-180964915/
 

[GRHorn 105]

7 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

For the OP. A few questions come up automatically and need to be considered, if we want to understand and solve the issue. With genuine curiosity. 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

• betting on bitcoin = are you in an economic sense rooting for the demise of the Dollar?
• The Dollar props up the world economy - until someone else comes along.
• What current economic systems will replace the libertarian economic system we have now.
• Who or what will replace the US?
• Hedging your bet? . Or rooting for something other than the Dollar in this Dollar economy. 

?

• Is Bit coins a movement or just anarchy?
• There is room in a mixed-market economy, like ours.  Bit coiners should read up on mixed market economies when in investing in any market.  
• Conservatives bet on the status quo - by ideology, which is not economics.
• Economics during the Washington Consensus period (what we are in now) is built on the ideals of mixed markets with public/private partnerships. We don't call that socialism. That is a mixed market. Capitalists like these markets. 
• So - it can be squashed.  Watch your ass and none of the frontier logic up yonder is nuttin but gibberish.  It is a stylish investment though, and that has value in a brand conscious world (also a libertarian creation).  How does it earn power in a mixed market economy like ours? 
• Our economy socializes the cost of negative externalities for private investment and has used austerity programs for 30 years to pay for it. That is unstable. But the argument against letting it topple, is this is but a small adjustment necessary. We are few percentage points lean for 30+ years, and that damage adds up.  There is risk in the dollar, not because of bit coins of course - they reflect the uncertainty. 

Or is this a bug out strategy. 

 

TLDR: bit coins need trusted bean counters to make sure we aren't financing the world's end. That's doable in a mixed market economy. Just don't kill the golden goose.

Good luck with them bits.

What could go wrong. 

I'm not rooting for the demise of the dollar, but its fate is out of the everyday person's hands. As you say, bitcoin's rise is in part a reflection of the uncertainty around the future of the dollar. I'm just protecting myself and I think it behooves others to do the same.

There is a lot to be decided as far as how this plays out. You can't just look at this from the standpoint of USD vs BTC. China is actively working on their own central bank digital currency (CBDC) and is in fact well ahead of us. They of course love what it could provide in terms of complete surveillance and capital controls. What happens when they build a substantial digital network to handle payments globally? How much of the world falls under that regime? Do we continue to try to defend and utilize/weaponize the Swift network that will soon become obsolete? That's a dead end road imo.

The infrastructure is already there with the bitcoin network globally to be an international payment/settlement structure. It is a better option for what is inevitably coming, but I'm not sure how to best maintain the USD's position.

Can it be squashed? The most likely way that the government will attempt to attack bitcoin is via the fiat on and off ramps. Close those to US investors. Other countries have tried the same, but it only increases the interest and popularity of it in those jurisdictions. If someone tells you don't need something and then bans it, that's a good sign that you probably need to look into it. In the end, I think that Bitcoin has achieved critical mass here in the US. Too many large institutions own it. Too many rich people and politicians own it. Too many average people are starting to own it now via Cash App and PayPal. The younger generations are digital. And this isn't the 1930s with the omnipotent FDR banning and confiscating gold. There's not enough political will to do that.

[GRHorn 105]

6 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Why is this a CR thread again? Are we talking about crypto taxes or something? 

Because it's reaching a tipping point in political significance imo.

It's also more interesting to follow than whether or not we get stimmys before the next bombing, or how I can be less white.

 

[Bullneck 19090]

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Whatever Bitcoin is, it isn't money.  And part of that is because the supply cannot be expanded in response to expanded needs. 
 

Think about how you use money in the real world.  Would you ever agree to a mortgage denominated in Bitcoins? Would you ever agree to pay a contractor in  Bitcoins for a job that was going to take six months?  Would you agree to receive Bitcoin denominated cell phone bills?  In each of those transactions one of the parties involved is almost guaranteed to take a complete bath and thus, would only conclude the deal if they were completely irrational or if they thought they could seriously pull one over on a stupid counter-party. 

What you MIGHT do is agree to pay use Bitcoin at the current exchange rate to pay dollar-denominated bills or loans.  (I will send you $1500 worth of Bitcoins each month for my mortgage payment).  And that should be a clue to you that Bitcoin isn't money.  Another clue that it isn't actually money is that everyone in the game spends so much time thinking and talking about its value relative to the dollar, or Euro, or yen, or whatever.  In other words, we measure its value in actual money.

To be useful as money, it would need to have a relatively stable value over time; even if Bitcoin proves to endlessly and rapidly appreciate, that makes it useless as money because no one would ever agree to exchange it for goods or services unless it changed hands immediately, in the moment. It is the opposite problem of what you saw with Weimar currency and it's wild, usual downward depreciation in the 1920s.....but no less of a problem when it comes to using the stuff as money. 

It is an interesting investment vehicle. It's an indicator that lots of people are concerned about monetary policy. But as a medium of exchange, it's far closer in practice to parking your money in classic cars or artwork than it is to thinking about it as a substitute for money.  And it is I guess theoretically possible to use blockchain tech to design a cryptocurrency that could function as actual money, but Bitcoin's design rules that out.  It's basically a cool collectible that everyone has agreed they want. 

This is a really good post.

[956 Worldwide 34715]

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

 

There is a lot to be decided as far as how this plays out. You can't just look at this from the standpoint of USD vs BTC. China is actively working on their own central bank digital currency (CBDC) and is in fact well ahead of us. They of course love what it could provide in terms of complete surveillance and capital controls. What happens when they build a substantial digital network to handle payments globally? How much of the world falls under that regime? Do we continue to try to defend and utilize/weaponize the Swift network that will soon become obsolete? That's a dead end road imo.

 

 

I think you've just laid out a pretty compelling case for why most of the world would do their best to stay away from a digital currency built and controlled by an authoritarian, opaque regime that does not make decisions based primarily on economic interests. 

Like I said, unless/until Bitcoin finally stabilizes it's not really useful as money.  And even then, you need some mechanism to expand its supply to make it truly useful. You could use it as an international payment system-- but it's still going to be tracked by its value in dollars or some other currencty.

Remember, no one really speculates on money.  No one buys dollars, Swiss francs, pounds, RMB, or Yen and holds onto them as a form of investment.  You put money into currency when you are looking to be conservative and hold value.  No one is doing that with Bitcoin. 

[GRHorn 105]

7 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I think you've just laid out a pretty compelling case for why most of the world would do their best to stay away from a digital currency built and controlled by an authoritarian, opaque regime that does not make decisions based primarily on economic interests. 

Like I said, unless/until Bitcoin finally stabilizes it's not really useful as money.  And even then, you need some mechanism to expand its supply to make it truly useful. You could use it as an international payment system-- but it's still going to be tracked by its value in dollars or some other currencty.

Remember, no one really speculates on money.  No one buys dollars, Swiss francs, pounds, RMB, or Yen and holds onto them as a form of investment.  You put money into currency when you are looking to be conservative and hold value.  No one is doing that with Bitcoin. 

Your point is valid, but over time its volatility is decreasing and should continue to do so.

As to your first point a digital, fast, cross border payments network is going to be built that makes the one we currently use and weaponize against other countries obsolete. I believe our country would be best served utilizing and building on the open source, permissionless network that is already available. 

[956 Worldwide 34715]

58 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Your point is valid, but over time its volatility is decreasing and should continue to do so.

 

I am not sure how you can say that while looking at this graph (which looks to me like ongoing speculation). 

 

https://www.coindesk.com/price/bitcoin

But when it doe stabilize...OK, it might be worth talking about.  At this point it's just an article of faith that it will; and I'd also point that there are lots of really, really major investors in this thing who have every reason to keep hyping it's future positions. You think these sophisticated investors are buying this thing and hoping prices stabilize so they can use it like they currently do dollars? 

s

 

Edited March 1, 2021 by 956 Worldwide

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 hours ago, GRHorn said:

Your point is valid, but over time its volatility is decreasing and should continue to do so.

As to your first point a digital, fast, cross border payments network is going to be built that makes the one we currently use and weaponize against other countries obsolete. I believe our country would be best served utilizing and building on the open source, permissionless network that is already available. 

You're missing a few things.  Nation backed currencies always work within a nation because nations can force people to accept it as legal tender.  You can hate the dollar all you want, but if you have a store in the USA, you are required to accept it.  Bitcoin has no such backstop and instead relies entirely on consumer perception.  There is nothing that prevents other coins from entering the market, or from becoming more popular than bitcoin.  In fact, someone like Elon Musk could already tweet that he's dumping all his bitcoin and moving over to a new Teslacoin, and bitcoin value would instantly plummet.  And even without it, there is always the potential for something like Ethereum to push bitcoin out.

I'm pro crypto, but I don't find bitcoin itself or any other coin themselves to be essential to their usefulness.  And bitcoin, being the oldest, is actually worse for anonymity, resiliency, and smart contracts.   I've been in and out of bitcoin several times.  But this has only been for one of two reasons.  To make money, ultimately in dollars, by playing the exchange rates.  Or to use it to send someone money, while that person also ultimately uses it to buy the currency of their choice.  I certainly don't see it as a long term store of value.  Where bitcoin and other crypto really fit in are as an anonymous and deregulated means of transfer.  And when another coin takes bitcoin's place as the most trusted coin, those using it primarily for transfer aren't gonna be the bagholders.

That's not to say there isn't still money to be made in bitcoin.  It will still go up further before it declines, but inevitably, it will also eventually be worth almost 0.  And nearly all the boom we see is from people investing in its movement, and not from people that want to keep their money as bitcoin long term.

I do also find it interesting that bitcoin bugs and goldbugs are often the same people.  Bitcoin requires both the global internet and the global power grid to work in a post "nation" environment.  Gold being physical provides more benefit than simple scarcity.  Any crypto coin can be scarce.  If I need to move east quickly to avoid the prevailing winds and the power is out, a stack of 1's, 5's, and 10's is going to be my best friend.  Gold less so, and crypto not at all.

[gsoda3 3262]

8 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

What you MIGHT do is agree to pay use Bitcoin at the current exchange rate to pay dollar-denominated bills or loans.  (I will send you $1500 worth of Bitcoins each month for my mortgage payment).  And that should be a clue to you that Bitcoin isn't money.  Another clue that it isn't actually money is that everyone in the game spends so much time thinking and talking about its value relative to the dollar, or Euro, or yen, or whatever.  In other words, we measure its value in actual money.

 

playing devil's advocate, the same could be said of the euro at many points of its life.  

5 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Remember, no one really speculates on money.  No one buys dollars, Swiss francs, pounds, RMB, or Yen and holds onto them as a form of investment.  You put money into currency when you are looking to be conservative and hold value. 

actually i know lots of professionals who do this. 

[956 Worldwide 34715]

47 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

playing devil's advocate, the same could be said of the euro at many points of its life.  

actually i know lots of professionals who do this. 

I mean, yes, obviously currency speculation is a thing. But that’s not what we’re talking about with Bitcoin. If Elon Musk had bought 1.5 billion in euro out of his dollar reserves and tweeted about it he’d have.....whatever the current exchange rate is worth of euro the next day. If he sold it the day after, the value of the euro against the dollar would be.....whatever the current exchange rate was that day. He for sure might have made some money, even small fluctuations across that much cash adds up quickly.  It would be barely a blip for regular people holding euro denominated savings accounts.  Now, what happens to the value of your Bitcoin fraction if Musk dumps all of his tomorrow? 
 

The value of the euro would not rise by 15 percent on the strength of any tweet.  That’s not how a real currency functions, it doesn’t work as a currency if it does. 
 

I am not saying there aren’t uses for it, I’m not saying it doesn’t make sense to look at it as part of an investment strategy. I’m just saying that right now, it’s not money.

Edited March 1, 2021 by 956 Worldwide

[GRHorn 105]

7 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

You're missing a few things.  Nation backed currencies always work within a nation because nations can force people to accept it as legal tender.  You can hate the dollar all you want, but if you have a store in the USA, you are required to accept it.  Bitcoin has no such backstop and instead relies entirely on consumer perception.  There is nothing that prevents other coins from entering the market, or from becoming more popular than bitcoin.  In fact, someone like Elon Musk could already tweet that he's dumping all his bitcoin and moving over to a new Teslacoin, and bitcoin value would instantly plummet.  And even without it, there is always the potential for something like Ethereum to push bitcoin out.

 

This is correct and there have been hundreds of cryptocurrencies created. There have also been some contentious hard forks created that sought to improve on some perceived faults of Bitcoin. The market determined that they were all trash. Bitcoin has a massive headstart. It is extremely unlikely, although not impossible, for Bitcoin to be unseated.

Regarding your first point, yes the USD is essentially backed by the US military, so its use can be enforced. But I'm reminded of this good line, central banks can control the supply of money, but they can't control how people value it.

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

 

I'm pro crypto, but I don't find bitcoin itself or any other coin themselves to be essential to their usefulness.  And bitcoin, being the oldest, is actually worse for anonymity, resiliency, and smart contracts.   I've been in and out of bitcoin several times.  But this has only been for one of two reasons.  To make money, ultimately in dollars, by playing the exchange rates.  Or to use it to send someone money, while that person also ultimately uses it to buy the currency of their choice.  I certainly don't see it as a long term store of value.  Where bitcoin and other crypto really fit in are as an anonymous and deregulated means of transfer.  And when another coin takes bitcoin's place as the most trusted coin, those using it primarily for transfer aren't gonna be the bagholders.

That's not to say there isn't still money to be made in bitcoin.  It will still go up further before it declines, but inevitably, it will also eventually be worth almost 0. 

These are two things I've never seen uttered by the same person.

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

 

I do also find it interesting that bitcoin bugs and goldbugs are often the same people.  Bitcoin requires both the global internet and the global power grid to work in a post "nation" environment.  Gold being physical provides more benefit than simple scarcity.  Any crypto coin can be scarce.  If I need to move east quickly to avoid the prevailing winds and the power is out, a stack of 1's, 5's, and 10's is going to be my best friend.  Gold less so, and crypto not at all.

Bitcoiners and gold bugs are cousins I would say. Gold bugs are typically older and don't fully grasp the improvements Bitcoin has made over gold or that there is technological upside that is unknown at this point. There is strong chance that BTC eats gold's lunch over the next decade plus.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

21 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

playing devil's advocate, the same could be said of the euro at many points of its life.  

At what point in the euro's life were people's bills within the eurozone denominated in something other than the euro (or their legacy currency while the euro was being phased in)?  

And even if they could, neither party in a mortgage agreement is going to want it denominated in bitcoin because both will expect to get fucked on the deal at some point.  Only one will get fucked in the end, but neither is going to take that chance.

Even with exchange rate fluctuations, the cost of things in-country for residents of advanced industrialized nations remain largely stable in that country's currency.  In Japan, someone gets paid a million yen a month, a coke costs 100 yen, and their rent costs 150,000 yen.  In the short term, the yen tanking against the dollar just makes things cheaper for American tourists visiting Japan.  In comparison, bitcoin is a yo-yo.  If enough people got paid only in bitcoin and bought everything priced only in bitcoin, it might stabilize.  Then it wouldn't matter if they paid the equivalent of $1000 in rent in May and $20000 in rent in June because their rent would always just be .03 bitcoin, and their income .5 bitcoin.  But its unlikely that things will ever be denominated in bitcoin for the very same reason that folks like GRHorn love bitcoin.  There is no government to make that happen. 

And when things really fall apart for government currencies versus other government currencies, they are unable to convert out of their currency to maintain purchasing power.  None of those currency trading professionals you know are lining up to play in the dollar-bolivares exchange market.  Nothing in bitcoin's historical charts look like actual currency.  Its almost entirely a speculative tool other than its usefulness in converting between 2 other currencies.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

39 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

These are two things I've never seen uttered by the same person.

Sure you have.  The disconnect you are having is that all bitcoin is cryptocurrency, but not all cryptocurrency is bitcoin.  Bitcoin eventually being worthless doesn't mean that some other cryptocurrency won't still have value when that happens.  For transfers, I'll use whatever is acceptable and transactionally affordable, and I'll speculate too, but I'm not going to hold long term in any of them.  That's because I know that government backing will continue to be a more stable proposition than the whims of the people. 

A lot of people thought they'd still be posting on myspace now.  People that loved vine thought it would be around forever too.  And do facebook, instagram, or tik tok really offer anything different?  In 30 years, the chance of a dollar still being spendable is pretty close to 100%.  Now maybe you feel the same about bitcoin, and it may still be spendable then, but the chances are closer to 50% than 100%.  But nobody is required to keep propping it up, and that's another value that a government adds that you are missing. 

And I really see no post-apocalyptic use for any cryptocurrency either.  I just can't count on computers to be running in China and my having unrestricted broadband access so that I can buy water as I cross the barren wasteland.  Not to mention the fact that ISPs have no interest in allowing you to have unrestricted internet access when they could charge you for every transaction you make in a government free world.  "Eating gold's lunch over the next decade" implies a speculative play rather than a store of value as well.  So even you aren't convinced completely.  You mostly just seem to want it to equal more dollars over time, which is great, but its still showing deference to the dollar as your core way of valuing anything, including bitcoin and gold.  

Edited March 1, 2021 by FondrenRoad

[GRHorn 105]

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

Sure you have.  The disconnect you are having is that all bitcoin is cryptocurrency, but not all cryptocurrency is bitcoin.  Bitcoin eventually being worthless doesn't mean that some other cryptocurrency won't still have value when that happens.  For transfers, I'll use whatever is acceptable and transactionally affordable, and I'll speculate too, but I'm not going to hold long term in any of them.  That's because I know that government backing will continue to be a more stable proposition than the whims of the people. 

What specifically makes you think BTC  going to zero is an inevitability? 

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

 

A lot of people thought they'd still be posting on myspace now.  People that loved vine thought it would be around forever too.  And do facebook, instagram, or tik tok really offer anything different?  In 30 years, the chance of a dollar still being spendable is pretty close to 100%.  Now maybe you feel the same about bitcoin, and it may still be spendable then, but the chances are closer to 50% than 100%.  But nobody is required to keep propping it up, and that's another value that a government adds that you are missing. 

 

MySpace never reached nearly the market size or dominance of BTC today.
 

Large scale individual and institutional involvement in BTC is due in large part to 12 years of running reliably and demonstrating anti-fragility in the face of repeated attacks by belligerents and skeptics. These qualities are not easily reproduced at the scale that leads to a $1T network. The only one that is even close to the same stratosphere is Ethereum, but that is <20% of the size and is trying to achieve something different, and honestly less important geopolitically. 
 

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

. 

And I really see no post-apocalyptic use for any cryptocurrency either.  I just can't count on computers to be running in China and my having unrestricted broadband access so that I can buy water as I cross the barren wasteland.  Not to mention the fact that ISPs have no interest in allowing you to have unrestricted internet access when they could charge you for every transaction you make in a government free world.  "Eating gold's lunch over the next decade" implies a speculative play rather than a store of value as well.  So even you aren't convinced completely.  You mostly just seem to want it to equal more dollars over time, which is great, but its still showing deference to the dollar as your core way of valuing anything, including bitcoin and gold.  

By saying, “Eating gold’s lunch” I meant that BTC will vastly outperform gold in the coming years. Those goldbugs (like Peter Schiff) will wish they had bought BTC for inflation protection. It’s just superior to gold in almost every way. 

[Bullneck 19090]

8 hours ago, GRHorn said:

Your point is valid, but over time its volatility is decreasing and should continue to do so.

As to your first point a digital, fast, cross border payments network is going to be built that makes the one we currently use and weaponize against other countries obsolete. I believe our country would be best served utilizing and building on the open source, permissionless network that is already available. 

Why should it be less volatile in the future?

How is currency weaponized now?  Can you cite two examples?

[Bullneck 19090]

2 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Sure you have.  The disconnect you are having is that all bitcoin is cryptocurrency, but not all cryptocurrency is bitcoin.  Bitcoin eventually being worthless doesn't mean that some other cryptocurrency won't still have value when that happens.  For transfers, I'll use whatever is acceptable and transactionally affordable, and I'll speculate too, but I'm not going to hold long term in any of them.  That's because I know that government backing will continue to be a more stable proposition than the whims of the people. 

A lot of people thought they'd still be posting on myspace now.  People that loved vine thought it would be around forever too.  And do facebook, instagram, or tik tok really offer anything different?  In 30 years, the chance of a dollar still being spendable is pretty close to 100%.  Now maybe you feel the same about bitcoin, and it may still be spendable then, but the chances are closer to 50% than 100%.  But nobody is required to keep propping it up, and that's another value that a government adds that you are missing. 

And I really see no post-apocalyptic use for any cryptocurrency either.  I just can't count on computers to be running in China and my having unrestricted broadband access so that I can buy water as I cross the barren wasteland.  Not to mention the fact that ISPs have no interest in allowing you to have unrestricted internet access when they could charge you for every transaction you make in a government free world.  "Eating gold's lunch over the next decade" implies a speculative play rather than a store of value as well.  So even you aren't convinced completely.  You mostly just seem to want it to equal more dollars over time, which is great, but its still showing deference to the dollar as your core way of valuing anything, including bitcoin and gold.  

I find it odd that the When the Shit Hits the Fan crowd loves Bitcoin.  

"I would like to buy some gazoline.  I have Bitcoin."

[FondrenRoad 4378]

51 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

What specifically makes you think BTC  going to zero is an inevitability? 

MySpace never reached nearly the market size or dominance of BTC today.
 

Large scale individual and institutional involvement in BTC is due in large part to 12 years of running reliably and demonstrating anti-fragility in the face of repeated attacks by belligerents and skeptics. These qualities are not easily reproduced at the scale that leads to a $1T network. The only one that is even close to the same stratosphere is Ethereum, but that is <20% of the size and is trying to achieve something different, and honestly less important geopolitically. 
 

By saying, “Eating gold’s lunch” I meant that BTC will vastly outperform gold in the coming years. Those goldbugs (like Peter Schiff) will wish they had bought BTC for inflation protection. It’s just superior to gold in almost every way. 

Again, you are showing deference to the dollar and valuing bitcoin as a dollar denominated asset rather than a currency.  Tell me, how much does it cost to buy a McDonald's happy meal today in bitcoin?  How much will it cost tomorrow in bitcoin?  If you are bitcoin centric, it really shouldn't matter what that happy meal equates to in dollars, and over a 2 day period, the price should be almost identical so that your local drive through can list the price in bitcoins without changing it every day, and so that you are able to live in a world where you are able to plan ahead.  But you don't live in a bitcoin world.  And to be frank, you don't want to.  What you want is to have something that is worth more dollars tomorrow than it was worth today. 

And bitcoin's "network" has already been reproduced and improved upon by other coins.  Why is anything "less important geopolitically."  Decentralization is the main "geopolitical" thing.  Like any potential store of value, its only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.  But what you keep missing, is that there is nobody forcing anyone to use or accept bitcoins.  And when the last bitcoin is mined, the last miners are only going to prop it up until they get out.  Mining already offers diminishing returns.  But those same people are going to get on the ground floor of the "next big thing", mine that, and pump that up.  Meanwhile, big banks and governments may decide to run nodes so folks like you don't go broke.  Or maybe not if there is more money to make in the "next big thing" for them as well.

What you're really doing here is pumping it.  And that's okay.  A lot of people do that when they are holding a volatile asset and they want it to increase its dollar denominated value.  Be smart though.  Don't be driven entirely by greed.  I know you picture yourself grabbing a substantial portion of a thing with finite supply, and the whole world is forced to be stuck with what's left, and prices are going to be based on that forever.  This time I own the gold mine!  But not everything with a finite supply is going to maintain value.  Especially something that isn't guaranteed by a nation state, isn't material, isn't unique, and isn't particularly necessary for financial transactions.  People simply don't have to use bitcoin for anything and never will have to.  Which means its use is entirely driven by fanfare and always will be.  You need to pump infinitely, and you need whoever the influencers of the day are to pump infinitely as well.  But that won't happen because what you and the rest of the pumpers love is not the finite supply or the network of loving nodes and miners.  You love the growth.  And once the growth stops.  Once it "stabilizes," everyone is going to jump ship to something that can still grow, especially if there is still plenty to mine and you're able to skip the investment part and run a bot farm.  And that's when the crash happens because nobody ever needed bitcoin to pay rent.  They need dollars, euros, yen, or whatever else.

Again though, I'm a fan of it.  I just see it for what it is.  And maybe after the speculators jump ship to the new growth coin, bitcoin will stick around as a medium of transfer.  But it won't do that at $50k.

[GRHorn 105]

41 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

Why should it be less volatile in the future?

How is currency weaponized now?  Can you cite two examples?

Larger amounts of capital tied up in BTC means it takes bigger amounts to move the price around.

Anyway, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/business/dealbook/swift-iran-sanctions.html

https://money.cnn.com/2017/03/08/investing/north-korea-banks-swift-ban/index.html

https://www.bloombergquint.com/global-economics/how-the-u-s-has-made-a-weapon-of-the-dollar

47 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

I find it odd that the When the Shit Hits the Fan crowd loves Bitcoin.  

"I would like to buy some gazoline.  I have Bitcoin."

Bitcoin would be useless in Mad Max world. I'm not predicting that as an outcome.

16 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Again, you are showing deference to the dollar and valuing bitcoin as a dollar denominated asset rather than a currency.  Tell me, how much does it cost to buy a McDonald's happy meal today in bitcoin?  How much will it cost tomorrow in bitcoin?  If you are bitcoin centric, it really shouldn't matter what that happy meal equates to in dollars, and over a 2 day period, the price should be almost identical so that your local drive through can list the price in bitcoins without changing it every day, and so that you are able to live in a world where you are able to plan ahead.  But you don't live in a bitcoin world.  And to be frank, you don't want to.  What you want is to have something that is worth more dollars tomorrow than it was worth today. 

And bitcoin's "network" has already been reproduced and improved upon by other coins.  Why is anything "less important geopolitically."  Decentralization is the main "geopolitical" thing.  Like any potential store of value, its only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.  But what you keep missing, is that there is nobody forcing anyone to use or accept bitcoins.  And when the last bitcoin is mined, the last miners are only going to prop it up until they get out.  Mining already offers diminishing returns.  But those same people are going to get on the ground floor of the "next big thing", mine that, and pump that up.  Meanwhile, big banks and governments may decide to run nodes so folks like you don't go broke.  Or maybe not if there is more money to make in the "next big thing" for them as well.

What you're really doing here is pumping it.  And that's okay.  A lot of people do that when they are holding a volatile asset and they want it to increase its dollar denominated value.  Be smart though.  Don't be driven entirely by greed.  I know you picture yourself grabbing a substantial portion of a thing with finite supply, and the whole world is forced to be stuck with what's left, and prices are going to be based on that forever.  This time I own the gold mine!  But not everything with a finite supply is going to maintain value.  Especially something that isn't guaranteed by a nation state, isn't material, isn't unique, and isn't particularly necessary for financial transactions.  People simply don't have to use bitcoin for anything and never will have to.  Which means its use is entirely driven by fanfare and always will be.  You need to pump infinitely, and you need whoever the influencers of the day are to pump infinitely as well.  But that won't happen because what you and the rest of the pumpers love is not the finite supply or the network of loving nodes and miners.  You love the growth.  And once the growth stops.  Once it "stabilizes," everyone is going to jump ship to something that can still grow, especially if there is still plenty to mine and you're able to skip the investment part and run a bot farm.  And that's when the crash happens because nobody ever needed bitcoin to pay rent.  They need dollars, euros, yen, or whatever else.

Again though, I'm a fan of it.  I just see it for what it is.  And maybe after the speculators jump ship to the new growth coin, bitcoin will stick around as a medium of transfer.  But it won't do that at $50k.

I'm quoting the market size in dollars because that is how we measure things now. You keep getting hung up on that.

The fact that you keep talking about how other coins have reproduced and improved upon BTC while BTC should go to zero tells me you're a disgruntled shitcoiner. The global market tells you otherwise. Your understanding of the topic seems to be very limited and superficial.

I'm not here to pump it, at least that wasn't my initial intention. I guess it comes across as pumping if I debunk misconceptions.

"People simply don't have to use bitcoin for anything and never will have to." I'd say that's a very western, 1st world attitude to have towards the technology. In any event, even if people don't have to, they may choose to utilize it. Again, because you don't understand or care for the value proposition of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The global market is telling you otherwise.

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

48 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Larger amounts of capital tied up in BTC means it takes bigger amounts to move the price around.

Anyway, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/business/dealbook/swift-iran-sanctions.html

https://money.cnn.com/2017/03/08/investing/north-korea-banks-swift-ban/index.html

https://www.bloombergquint.com/global-economics/how-the-u-s-has-made-a-weapon-of-the-dollar

Bitcoin would be useless in Mad Max world. I'm not predicting that as an outcome.

I'm quoting the market size in dollars because that is how we measure things now. You keep getting hung up on that.

The fact that you keep talking about how other coins have reproduced and improved upon BTC while BTC should go to zero tells me you're a disgruntled shitcoiner. The global market tells you otherwise. Your understanding of the topic seems to be very limited and superficial.

I'm not here to pump it, at least that wasn't my initial intention. I guess it comes across as pumping if I debunk misconceptions.

"People simply don't have to use bitcoin for anything and never will have to." I'd say that's a very western, 1st world attitude to have towards the technology. In any event, even if people don't have to, they may choose to utilize it. Again, because you don't understand or care for the value proposition of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The global market is telling you otherwise.

 

Lol.  I made plenty of dollars in bitcoin and plan to make more, and that should cause you concern if you really want it to be a long term hold.  What occurs with bitcoin trading is not simple forex trading.  While it would be nice for a "global market" to actually tell us the long term value of something, the gamestop out front should have told you that market speculation doesn't always value an asset properly in the short term, but it does offer opportunity to obtain more dollars from someone who thinks the party will never end.

And I'd say my understanding is pretty good.  You weren't even aware of the power consumption issue until this thread.   You bought some and its worth more now.  Congrats.  Will it be worth even more next month or year?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  But I do know you also want it to be something it isn't.  Could it be?  Sure, if the US, China, and Europe said they were putting their currencies on the BTC standard.  But the Mad Max world is infinitely more probable than that occurring.  The only reason we aren't in a great depression right this moment is because of available monetary policy. 

And I have a 1st world attitude?  Oh yeah, currency that requires internet access and reliable power is the best bet for the impoverished 3rd world.  Plus, I'm sure when they convert their local currency into bitcoin, they're also loving not knowing whether that weekly paycheck is going to buy the customary 10 pound bag of rice, a 5 pound bag of rice, no rice at all, or the whole rice farm next month.  If there's anything that someone living in a place with an inflating currency really wants, its an unstable alternative that not everyone will accept, and which they can't even use at all without a smart phone/pc, an internet connection, and power. And if you really gave a shit about this, you'd quit speculating in it.  Stability is the single most important thing for a 3rd world situation.

We're never going to measure prices in bitcoin.  The things you want bitcoin to do require a government.  Like making someone accept it for payment who doesn't want to.  But you are correct, people can choose to utilize it.  They can also choose not to.  The second part is what you keep missing.  

Edited March 2, 2021 by FondrenRoad

[Biff Tannen 45687]

Hodl!

[GRHorn 105]

29 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

And I'd say my understanding is pretty good.  You weren't even aware of the power consumption issue until this thread.   You bought some and its worth more now.  Congrats.  Will it be worth even more next month or year?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  But I do know you also want it to be something it isn't.  Could it be?  Sure, if the US, China, and Europe said they were putting their currencies on the BTC standard.  But the Mad Max world is infinitely more probable than that occurring.  The only reason we aren't in a great depression right this moment is because of available monetary policy. 

And I have a 1st world attitude?  Oh yeah, currency that requires internet access and reliable power is the best bet for the impoverished 3rd world.  Plus, I'm sure when they convert their local currency into bitcoin, they're also loving not knowing whether that weekly paycheck is going to buy the customary 10 pound bag of rice, a 5 pound bag of rice, no rice at all, or the whole rice farm next month.  If there's anything that someone living in a place with an inflating currency really wants, its an unstable alternative that not everyone will accept, and which they can't even use at all without a smart phone/pc, an internet connection, and power. And if you really gave a shit about this, you'd quit speculating in it.  Stability is the single most important thing for a 3rd world situation.

WTF are you even talking about? I follow this shit closely. Of course, I know about the energy consumption. 

You don't have to go in depth explaining the value proposition to people in Latin America or Africa. They've experienced high inflation and asset forfeiture first hand.

The first world attitude is saying, oh there's no use for something like this. Our system works perfectly.

35 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

We're never going to measure prices in bitcoin.  The things you want bitcoin to do require a government.  Like making someone accept it for payment who doesn't want to.  But you are correct, people can choose to utilize it.  They can also choose not to.  The second part is what you keep missing.  

Yes, it will be a while before mass amounts of people price in bitcoin, if that happens. 

Yes, it is an opt in system, which is one of its strengths. You say people can choose not to do it, but adoption by multiple metrics is steadily increasing.

It's reaching critical mass because people want to use it and that will continue.

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

23 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Oh fuck not this shit again

This is the only post anyone needs to read on this thread. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 hours ago, GRHorn said:

WTF are you even talking about? I follow this shit closely. Of course, I know about the energy consumption. 

You don't have to go in depth explaining the value proposition to people in Latin America or Africa. They've experienced high inflation and asset forfeiture first hand.

The first world attitude is saying, oh there's no use for something like this. Our system works perfectly.

Yes, it will be a while before mass amounts of people price in bitcoin, if that happens. 

Yes, it is an opt in system, which is one of its strengths. You say people can choose not to do it, but adoption by multiple metrics is steadily increasing.

It's reaching critical mass because people want to use it and that will continue.

Who said there is no use for it?  I've already said what its useful for.

You know, you could actually be the savior of Latin America.  Right now, there are a bunch of people in Venezuela just waiting to change their bolivares into bitcoin or anything else.  They'd actually rather have dollars though.  Physical dollars.  The only person missing from the equation is you, or anyone else willing to buy bolivares.  But you don't really give a fuck about all that because you value your bitcoins in dollars, and it was never about poor people anyway, was it?

Also, read up on the negative effects of deflation.  Its worse than inflation.  Mostly because everyone wants to hoard currency once prices drop.  This is the key problem with a finite money supply and the reason why fiat currency is better than the gold standard, and why, if it was really about getting off the government for you, crypto with the potential for constant slow expansion is better than a completely finite system like bitcoin.  That type of coin would also maintain the incentive for mining and nodes.  I'm not sure any coin like that exists yet, however.  And still fiat currency that can be expanded on demand if needed would be better because humans are greedy.  If you tell them exactly how big the money supply is going to grow, they are still going to hoard accordingly.  He who accumulates the most purchasing power wins, but for that to mean anything to the economy, you actually have to spend it.  

But I'm willing to believe you're sincere, even though the problems with bitcoin have been well hashed out.  Post receipts where you bought something, either a good or service, using bitcoin when you were also able to choose to pay in dollars.  In the end, this is what currency is for.  It isn't to hold because its dollar denominated value may increase.  And as a believer, you should be using bitcoin for purchase transactions every single time the other side is willing to accept it.  Otherwise, you're just a hoarder or a speculator of an asset.

[atomheartbevo 89670]

I can think of 2060 reasons to fucking loathe bitcoin.  Or 2070.  Or 2080, 3060, 3070, 3080.

[956 Worldwide 34715]

6 hours ago, GRHorn said:

Larger amounts of capital tied up in BTC means it takes bigger amounts to move the price around.

Anyway, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/business/dealbook/swift-iran-sanctions.html

https://money.cnn.com/2017/03/08/investing/north-korea-banks-swift-ban/index.html

https://www.bloombergquint.com/global-economics/how-the-u-s-has-made-a-weapon-of-the-dollar

Bitcoin would be useless in Mad Max world. I'm not predicting that as an outcome.

I'm quoting the market size in dollars because that is how we measure things now. You keep getting hung up on that.

The fact that you keep talking about how other coins have reproduced and improved upon BTC while BTC should go to zero tells me you're a disgruntled shitcoiner. The global market tells you otherwise. Your understanding of the topic seems to be very limited and superficial.

I'm not here to pump it, at least that wasn't my initial intention. I guess it comes across as pumping if I debunk misconceptions.

"People simply don't have to use bitcoin for anything and never will have to." I'd say that's a very western, 1st world attitude to have towards the technology. In any event, even if people don't have to, they may choose to utilize it. Again, because you don't understand or care for the value proposition of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The global market is telling you otherwise.

 

The global market is telling me that institutional investors right now smell an opportunity to make money in BTC.  They are behaving how one would expect with a speculative asset-- not a currency.  Of course Elon Musk thinks its a cool idea to accept BTC right now.  He can get people to give him some, then tweet about it and watch the value rise. And-- this is key-- at any moment he can stop accepting BTC and tell you to give him dollars for his car instead. 

Once Tesla not only offers to take BTC from you right now in exchange for a car that's priced in dollars, but also signs BTC-denominated contracts to pay global suppliers of aluminum, steel, suspension components, etc., then we can start talking about BTC as something approximating a currency.  Once Tesla's finance department starts signing BTC denominated new car loans, we can maybe think about BTC as a currency.  

[Bullneck 19090]

Serious question: what happens if a huge swath of computers gets a Texas-style power outage?

The new "trolley problem" will be the plant operator deciding to keep the power on for the billionaire's Bitcoin servers or poor, old people.

[GRHorn 105]

10 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Who said there is no use for it?  I've already said what its useful for.

You know, you could actually be the savior of Latin America.  Right now, there are a bunch of people in Venezuela just waiting to change their bolivares into bitcoin or anything else.  They'd actually rather have dollars though.  Physical dollars.  The only person missing from the equation is you, or anyone else willing to buy bolivares.  But you don't really give a fuck about all that because you value your bitcoins in dollars, and it was never about poor people anyway, was it?

 

I believe that a decentralized, non sovereign money has the potential to improve the station of people around the world. If people in Nigeria or Venezuela adopt Bitcoin and protect their savings it will improve their lives and perhaps eventually help hold some of these corrupt governments to account.
 

As for your contention that these people just want dollars, there actually is a crypto use case that has exploded over the last year addressing that. Stablecoins like USDC and tether have exploded. I think over time you could see ecosystems where people in developing countries utilize stablecoins for day to day while holding savings more in bitcoin. 
 

10 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

.  

But I'm willing to believe you're sincere, even though the problems with bitcoin have been well hashed out.  Post receipts where you bought something, either a good or service, using bitcoin when you were also able to choose to pay in dollars.  In the end, this is what currency is for.  It isn't to hold because its dollar denominated value may increase.  And as a believer, you should be using bitcoin for purchase transactions every single time the other side is willing to accept it.  Otherwise, you're just a hoarder or a speculator of an asset.

I believe in bitcoin as a protector of wealth. If enough adoption occurs price should stabilize and its value as medium of exchange should improve. It’s clear we aren’t going to agree yet and thats ok. 
 

On another note a shift over the next several years should be emphasis on the power of the network. With the lightning network now people and companies can use bitcoin to send forex remittances instantly between fiat currencies. You can literally stream money around the globe. This is groundbreaking technology and some of the implications are obvious, but who knows what can evolve from it?

 

3 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Serious question: what happens if a huge swath of computers gets a Texas-style power outage?

The new "trolley problem" will be the plant operator deciding to keep the power on for the billionaire's Bitcoin servers or poor, old people.

As long as some electricity is on globally there will be nodes and miners somewhere maintaining the network and producing blocks. 

[956 Worldwide 34715]

LOL, BTC has far more potential to be a great way for the henchmen and toadies who run places like Venezuela to get their gains out of Venezuela and bypass sanctions and investigations that it is some sort of haven for regular people.

Advising what remains of the middle class in Venezuela, or the growing entrepreneur class in places like Nigeria to move hard currency into BTC is malpractice bordering on maliciousness. 

[gsoda3 3262]

19 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

At what point in the euro's life were people's bills within the eurozone denominated in something other than the euro (or their legacy currency while the euro was being phased in)?  

 

 

i'm not sure what you're getting at?  

 

19 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I mean, yes, obviously currency speculation is a thing. But that’s not what we’re talking about with Bitcoin. If Elon Musk had bought 1.5 billion in euro out of his dollar reserves and tweeted about it he’d have.....whatever the current exchange rate is worth of euro the next day. If he sold it the day after, the value of the euro against the dollar would be.....whatever the current exchange rate was that day. He for sure might have made some money, even small fluctuations across that much cash adds up quickly.  It would be barely a blip for regular people holding euro denominated savings accounts.  Now, what happens to the value of your Bitcoin fraction if Musk dumps all of his tomorrow? 

 

confused as to why you previously so explicitly said no one speculates on currency.  

Quote

The value of the euro would not rise by 15 percent on the strength of any tweet.  That’s not how a real currency functions, it doesn’t work as a currency if it does. 
 

I am not saying there aren’t uses for it, I’m not saying it doesn’t make sense to look at it as part of an investment strategy. I’m just saying that right now, it’s not money.

the volatility of a currency's worth affects many things but it has no bearing on its existence.  it's either a currency or it's not.  

 

 

[gsoda3 3262]

20 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

This.  Plus, I’m not following how Bitcoin allows people to “literally stream money around the globe” in a way that PayPal doesn’t already.  Except PayPal is far more practical a d useful. 

one of the biggest allures to bitcoin is no one's currently regulating bitcoin transactions the same way your paypal transactions are being monitored.  

[GRHorn 105]

55 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

LOL, BTC has far more potential to be a great way for the henchmen and toadies who run places like Venezuela to get their gains out of Venezuela and bypass sanctions and investigations that it is some sort of haven for regular people.

Advising what remains of the middle class in Venezuela, or the growing entrepreneur class in places like Nigeria to move hard currency into BTC is malpractice bordering on maliciousness. 

So would you advise them to hold everything in a currency experiencing 2000% or 16% inflation respectively?

[Nice Guy Eddie 13512]

11 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

one of the biggest allures to bitcoin is no one's currently regulating bitcoin transactions the same way your paypal transactions are being monitored.  

exactly. PayPal can decide, or have it decided for them to stop a transaction or block a user. That doesn't work with bitcoin. A govt could make bitcoin illegal, create barriers to entry and barriers to create transactions, but it would seem to be impossible to stop bitcoin transactions outside of blocking the internet for every citizen.

It's also a poor idea that we should ban bitcoin because it can be used by criminals or terrorists. If that is the case, we should immediately eliminate paper currency along with internet and mobile communications. All 3 are frequently used by terrorists.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

23 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

I believe that a decentralized, non sovereign money has the potential to improve the station of people around the world. If people in Nigeria or Venezuela adopt Bitcoin and protect their savings it will improve their lives and perhaps eventually help hold some of these corrupt governments to account.

It won't.  Not with bitcoin at least.  Any primary currency needs to have safeguards against loss or hoarding.  Without a government, this would need to be built into a new coin.  The value of bitcoin right now is being set by hoarding (artificially reducing the amount of available currency), loss (permanently reducing the amount of available currency), and speculation (artificially increasing the demand).

It would be a terrible idea for them to adopt bitcoin because you would be actively working against them.  But I do know you actually mean well on this part.  These countries export very little.  Even if they managed to obtain a bitcoin starting point for everyone, they would use that to import things from other countries, and the pool of available bitcoin within their country would shrink.  And people like you would continue to hoard which would shrink the global pool.  So if they are getting paid in bitcoin, every day, everyone's paycheck is going to get lower and lower, nobody is going to lend anyone money, and eventually there is going to be no bitcoin left in country to pay anyone at all.  These countries do have a problem with corrupt governance.  They need to fix that, by whatever means necessary, and install a government that understands monetary policy and has a plan to fix their currency.  They don't need to put their faith in a bunch of people elsewhere who are interested only in accumulating a greater share of global wealth, and who don't really have their best interests in mind.

23 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

As for your contention that these people just want dollars, there actually is a crypto use case that has exploded over the last year addressing that. Stablecoins like USDC and tether have exploded. I think over time you could see ecosystems where people in developing countries utilize stablecoins for day to day while holding savings more in bitcoin. 

Right, there is crypto that can be more useful as currency.  And this is where you keep conflating crypto and bitcoin.  I've consistently told you that crypto can be useful.  Why would someone hold something in one crypto and spend in another?  But this also tells me that I have been exactly right about your true thoughts on bitcoin.   You want to hoard a large chunk of the supply and force others to exchange the dwindling supply.  You want to be the top 1%.  But what you keep missing is that they never have to do that.  They don't have to play with your football.  They can use a different one and still play the game.

 

36 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

I believe in bitcoin as a protector of wealth. If enough adoption occurs price should stabilize and its value as medium of exchange should improve. It’s clear we aren’t going to agree yet and thats ok. 

Okay, so this tells me that you don't use bitcoin as a currency.  You're hoarding because you want it to increase in value.  If you want it to work as a currency, and you believe in it as a currency, you need to use it to purchase goods and services rather than artificially decreasing the money supply.  It won't stabilize otherwise.  Be brave.  Pay for everything you can with bitcoin, and demand that others pay for your services only in bitcoin.  Because the hoarding end game will be that bitcoin becomes nominally expensive, but practically inconvertible, or worthless.  Hoarding discourages adoption.  There are potential wild cards though.  Maybe Satoshi's holdings get "found" somehow, and all the hoarders will flee freeing up nearly all of it.  Of course, even then, it will all start up again because hoarders are going to hoard.  Which brings up another potential idea if you truly want a finite currency that works.  Create a coin that unlocks idle coins where people would get a set amount of time to spend or transfer their coin or it would drop back into the pool to be mined again.

But either way, you're holding something that has no intrinsic value, so if you aren't going to get it moving as a true currency, you are going to have to constantly pump it.  And you know this.  Its why you're here.  But you still haven't made your case for bitcoin being the one other than it being first, you holding it, and it being the most popular to hoard at the moment.  I already know how to make dollars using bitcoin.  

 

38 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

On another note a shift over the next several years should be emphasis on the power of the network. With the lightning network now people and companies can use bitcoin to send forex remittances instantly between fiat currencies. You can literally stream money around the globe. This is groundbreaking technology and some of the implications are obvious, but who knows what can evolve from it?

So you're telling me that I can send dollars to someone in a different country using bitcoin as an intermediate, they can convert it to their local currency, and we can semi-avoid the prying eyes of each of our governments while also keeping fees out of paypal's grubby hands?  Yes!!  This is what I've been telling you all along.  This is the primary real use of bitcoin since none of you bitcoinbugs really want it to be a currency.  But again, really, any crypto can be in the middle.  

[956 Worldwide 34715]

8 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

So would you advise them to hold everything in a currency experiencing 2000% or 16% inflation respectively?

I’d advise them to buy hard currency. Not that any of the, need that advice.