Bitcoin and other crypto-The CR thread

[956 Worldwide 34446]

31 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

 

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

 

 

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

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.  

 

 

It’s not a currency or money because no one uses it as a currency or money. Part of the reason is because it’s so volatile. It’s not a particularly good measure of value (no one can tell you how much a Bitcoin is worth except by comparing it to the dollar or another currency at the moment). And it’s absolutely not a standard of deferred payment— because of the volatility. 
 

[wildcat09 29264]

Every conservative should invest their entire SHTF budget into BTC. I enthusiastically support it.

[gsoda3 3237]

2 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

[b]It’s not a currency or money because no one uses it as a currency or money. [/b]Part of the reason is because it’s so volatile. It’s not a particularly good measure of value (no one can tell you how much a Bitcoin is worth except by comparing it to the dollar or another currency at the moment). And it’s absolutely not a standard of deferred payment— because of the volatility. 
 

that's one of the more intriguing things about bitcoin-  it has no backing entity.  it has no regulating entity.  it has no government supporting its use.  does that disqualify it from being a currency?  on the other hand bitcoin IS being accepted as payment.  i know which side of the argument you fall on.  i'm not so sure.  

we can talk for pages about why bitcoin is seeing both enthusiastic support and widespread rejection.  it'll make for a great case study one day. 

[956 Worldwide 34446]

Just now, gsoda3 said:

that's one of the more intriguing things about bitcoin-  it has no backing entity.  it has no regulating entity.  it has no government supporting its use.  does that disqualify it from being a currency?  on the other hand bitcoin IS being accepted as payment.  i know which side of the argument you fall on.  i'm not so sure.  

we can talk for pages about why bitcoin is seeing both enthusiastic support and widespread rejection.  it'll make for a great case study one day. 

Being accepted as payment somewhere, by someone, does not make something a currency. A medium of exchange is only part of what money/currency is.

[gsoda3 3237]

2 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Being accepted as payment somewhere, by someone, does not make something a currency. A medium of exchange is only part of what money/currency is.

well you're confusing the definition of money and currency.  

[workswithseed 2037]

6 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Being accepted as payment somewhere, by someone, does not make something a currency. A medium of exchange is only part of what money/currency is.

What the fuck? This might be the dumbest thing ever uttered.

[GRHorn 105]

@FondrenRoadi’m not going to quote your longcat post, but you’re misrepresenting some things I stated. I said the people of these countries, not the governments, should adopt bitcoin as a savings vehicle. I stand by that. Their savings will be protected better than holding their own currency. 
 

Also you keep going back to people getting paid with bitcoin and buying things day to day with it. I’ve never said it was ready for that. If that happens it will be in the future when enough people have adopted it and volatility has smoothed. And yes, between now and then I expect it to appreciate vs the USD substantially. That is a given and one would be foolish not to take advantage of that. It’s a layup, but that’s not the sole reason I follow it or posted about it here. It’s a massive innovation. 
 

If I want to talk about how much money we’re all going to make on it I chat with my friends in the other forum. 😜

[GRHorn 105]

43 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

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

Which hard currency? I wonder how easily then can attain it?

[956 Worldwide 34446]

24 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

well you're confusing the definition of money and currency.  

A currency is a system of money, or money being circulated....it’s not just something being used as a medium of exchange except in the most colloquial/figurative terms.

[Dahobbs 17449]

28 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

What the fuck? This might be the dumbest thing ever uttered.

Because it is accurate? If you agree to help your buddy move some stuff in exchange for a few beers, would you now consider the beers to be currency? Of course not. Occasionally using a thing for barter does not make it a currency. 

[gsoda3 3237]

19 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

A currency is a system of money, or money being circulated....it’s not just something being used as a medium of exchange [b]except in the most colloquial/figurative terms.[/b]

you've got it the wrong way around but i'm glad you finally decided to look up the terms on wikipedia.  

[956 Worldwide 34446]

23 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Which hard currency? I wonder how easily then can attain it?

I mean, if you can get Swiss francs . .  

No one is arguing that BTC is not a better alternative to keeping bolivars in the bank, but if you have a way to safely buy hard currency, you do that. 
 

 

[gsoda3 3237]

21 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

A currency is a system of money, or money being circulated....it’s not just something being used as a medium of exchange except in the most colloquial/figurative terms.

ok here's my serious answer.

 

there's a difference between money and currency.  when you consider the usage that word has in main street and then look at what it means in economics, money has more layers to it than currency.  currency is a type of money.  i suspect that's what you're trying to get at with the different criteria of volatility and recognition (and there are others) you were speaking to.  

 

 

[gsoda3 3237]

18 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Because it is accurate? If you agree to help your buddy move some stuff in exchange for a few beers, would you now consider the beers to be currency? Of course not. Occasionally using a thing for barter does not make it a currency. 

[956 Worldwide 34446]

3 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

ok here's my serious answer.

 

currency is a type of money.  

 

 

Yes— it is. 

The question—- is BTC used like other currencies?  And it’s not.  You can use it for some of the same things you use other currencies for, but not for others. 

And I’m not using BTC as a stand in for “virtual currency” or “crypto currency” in general.  I’m using it to refer to Bitcoin in particular.

 

 

[gsoda3 3237]

7 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Yes— it is. 

[b]The question—- is BTC used like other currencies?  And it’s not.  You can use it for some of the same things you use other currencies for, but not for others. [/b]

And I’m not using BTC as a stand in for “virtual currency” or “crypto currency” in general.  I’m using it to refer to Bitcoin in particular.

 

 

but you can.  you can use it to pay bills.  you can use it to buy goods.  you can use it to satisfy debts.  is it widely adopted across all goods?  no.  but if you're looking for a comparison, neither was the euro for the first act of its life.  

[FondrenRoad 4378]

47 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

@FondrenRoadi’m not going to quote your longcat post, but you’re misrepresenting some things I stated. I said the people of these countries, not the governments, should adopt bitcoin as a savings vehicle. I stand by that. Their savings will be protected better than holding their own currency. 
 

Also you keep going back to people getting paid with bitcoin and buying things day to day with it. I’ve never said it was ready for that. If that happens it will be in the future when enough people have adopted it and volatility has smoothed. And yes, between now and then I expect it to appreciate vs the USD substantially. That is a given and one would be foolish not to take advantage of that. It’s a layup, but that’s not the sole reason I follow it or posted about it here. It’s a massive innovation. 
 

If I want to talk about how much money we’re all going to make on it I chat with my friends in the other forum. 😜

Lol. So people currently getting paid in bolivares should just buy bitcoin?  You realize that transactions are two sided, right?  For these people to buy bitcoin from someone, the second party has to take the bolivares in exchange.  Or maybe you think that the baker can just start pricing bread in bitcoin and it will magically appear.  How does one enter a market for something when there is no actual entry point for them?  As I said before, you are welcome to be the one to do that.  There is nothing stopping you from helping Venezuelans move their money into bitcoin by accepting their bolivares in return.   But as it is, dollars are both more stable, more spendable, and easier for them to come by since their market has had physical dollars present for decades.  So they can and do try to obtain dollars and hold those instead.  And while I'm sure you'd love for them to gamble those hard earned dollars in order to drive up the value of your bitcoin, it would simply be a terrible idea for them to do so.  They simply can't afford the yo-yo for some distant possible return when they have in their hands a steady currency with predictable purchasing power.

Hell, you won't even sell it to people with dollars much less bolivares.  Once people like you start treating it like a currency, maybe others will too.  

[FondrenRoad 4378]

16 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

but you can.  you can use it to pay bills.  you can use it to buy goods.  you can use it to satisfy debts.  is it widely adopted across all goods?  no.  but if you're looking for a comparison, neither was the euro for the first act of its life.  

Okay, start entering into installment contracts where the prices are denominated in bitcoin.  Find a vendor that is selling a subscription you want at a monthly rate.  Offer to price that in bitcoin instead based on today's exchange rate.  And by price in bitcoin, I don't mean the floating exchange rate each month when your bill is due.  I mean your bill is for X btc per month and that is what you pay.

You can find plenty of vendors willing to accept that deal, but you won't do it.  Approximately 0 people are willing to enter a contract with future payment dates denominated in bitcoin.  And that's because you are valuing bitcoin as it relates to the dollar and not as a currency in itself.  Most bitcoin holders won't even pay a dollar denominated bill today in bitcoin even though they can, much less enter a bitcoin denominated contract.

And what are you talking about with the euro again?  The euro was absolutely accepted in the eurozone.  It is fiat money backed by government and enforced as legal tender.  There is no comparison.

Edited March 2, 2021 by FondrenRoad

[956 Worldwide 34446]

10 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

but you can.  you can use it to pay bills.  you can use it to buy goods.  you can use it to satisfy debts.  is it widely adopted across all goods?  no.  but if you're looking for a comparison, neither was the euro for the first act of its life.  

It’s pretty disingenuous to compare the introduction of a new form of central bank money with the roll out of something that’s primary advantage according to acolytes is that it’s NOT central bank money. The euro was nothing at all like BTC for the first act of its life. 

You’re not really buying things priced in BTC. You’re using BTC as an intermediary to buy things priced in dollars (or whatever) or satisfy your dollar debt. In Weimar Germany, when the mark reached one trillion to the dollar, it remained “currency” by virtue of being legal tender but it had lost all meaning and couldn’t be actually used as such. BTC is right now sort of the opposite (and not as extreme of course), if something is primarily being hoarded or used as a speculative asset — which is very much what people are doing with BTC outside of basket case economies with an artificial barrier to acquiring hard currency—  it is not useful as a currency.  

[gsoda3 3237]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

Okay, start entering into installment contracts where the prices are denominated in bitcoin.  Find a vendor that is selling a subscription you want at a monthly rate.  Offer to price that in bitcoin instead based on today's exchange rate.  And by price in bitcoin, I don't mean the floating exchange rate each month when your bill is due.  I mean your bill is for X btc per month and that is what you pay.

You can find plenty of vendors willing to accept that deal, but you won't do it.  Approximately 0 people are willing to enter a contract with future payment dates denominated in bitcoin.  And that's because you are valuing bitcoin as it relates to the dollar and not as a currency in itself.  Most bitcoin holders won't even pay a dollar denominated bill today in bitcoin even though they can, much less enter a bitcoin denominated contract.

sorry, bit of a busy day for me and i find myself not being able to remember your point.  are you saying it's not a realistic viable option?

 

Quote

And what are you talking about with the euro again?  The euro was absolutely accepted in the eurozone.  It is fiat money backed by government and enforced as legal tender.  There is no comparison.

it's actually a great comparison. here's why.

(the origination story of the euro is complicated and my memory's not so good so forgive me if this glosses over a few details.)

we're gonna go backwards. today, the euro can be used anywhere to transact goods and services.  when the euro was formally adopted it was comprised of a basket of european currencies and each currency had a final peg to the euro.  to this day there are currencies you can still exchange for a set ratio of euros.  before they pegged that ratio and before they issued paper currency, the euro could only be used for electronic transactions, usually between banks and governments.  this "digital" euro replaced the European Currency Unit in name and function on a 1 for 1 basis. the ratios to national currencies were free floating and the value of the ecu was derived from those ratios.  you couldn't buy anything with the ecu.  it wasn't an actual currency, it was an accounting unit used to try to maintain the stability of the participating national currencies.  

 

[956 Worldwide 34446]

4 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

sorry, bit of a busy day for me and i find myself not being able to remember your point.  are you saying it's not a realistic viable option?

 

it's actually a great comparison. here's why.

(the origination story of the euro is complicated and my memory's not so good so forgive me if this glosses over a few details.)

we're gonna go backwards. today, the euro can be used anywhere to transact goods and services.  when the euro was formally adopted it was comprised of a basket of european currencies and each currency had a final peg to the euro.  to this day there are currencies you can still exchange for a set ratio of euros.  before they pegged that ratio and before they issued paper currency, the euro could only be used for electronic transactions, usually between banks and governments.  this "digital" euro replaced the European Currency Unit in name and function on a 1 for 1 basis. the ratios to national currencies were free floating and the value of the ecu was derived from those ratios.  you couldn't buy anything with the ecu.  it wasn't an actual currency, it was an accounting unit used to try to maintain the stability of the participating national currencies.  

 

The ECU was not a currency when it was introduced. The Euro was, even though it didn’t exist in physical form. National currencies were locked relative to one another the moment the Euro rolled out. Prices rose and fell based on the value of the Euro alone. The Euro was the successor to the ECU, but it wasn’t a strict replacement, it took on additional functions as a real currency as soon as it was introduced.

[gsoda3 3237]

19 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

It’s pretty disingenuous to compare the introduction of a new form of central bank money with the roll out of something that’s primary advantage according to acolytes is that it’s NOT central bank money. The euro was nothing at all like BTC for the first act of its life. 

You’re not really buying things priced in BTC. You’re using BTC as an intermediary to buy things priced in dollars (or whatever) or satisfy your dollar debt. In Weimar Germany, when the mark reached one trillion to the dollar, it remained “currency” by virtue of being legal tender but it had lost all meaning and couldn’t be actually used as such. BTC is right now sort of the opposite (and not as extreme of course), if something is primarily being hoarded or used as a speculative asset — which is very much what people are doing with BTC outside of basket case economies with an artificial barrier to acquiring hard currency—  it is not useful as a currency.  

does it really matter that the euro was the result of central bank intervention and bitcoin isn't?  you might've missed when i said it before, but i'm not so sure it matters.  

 

also in weimar germany goods were starting to be priced using the cost of acquisition in foreign currency and a large amount, if not most, transactions were actually done in foreign currency.  same with the euro.  when it was first being used the cost of goods in euros were being calculated by the ratio of that country's national currency.

[gsoda3 3237]

2 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The ECU was not a currency when it was introduced. The Euro was, even though it didn’t exist in physical form. National currencies were locked relative to one another the moment the Euro rolled out. Prices rose and fell based on the value of the Euro alone. The Euro was the successor to the ECU, but it wasn’t a strict replacement, it took on additional functions as a real currency as soon as it was introduced.

yes, that's what i said.  the ecu was an accounting unit which converted 1 for 1 to the euro which at that time became a currency.  for a while it was only used for interbank and government transactions.  and yes, the euro as expected would take on additional functions since it was being used as currency instead of just an accounting unit.  

 

 

[956 Worldwide 34446]

3 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

does it really matter that the euro was the result of central bank intervention and bitcoin isn't?  you might've missed when i said it before, but i'm not so sure it matters.  

 

also in weimar germany goods were starting to be priced using the cost of acquisition in foreign currency and a large amount, if not most, transactions were actually done in foreign currency.  same with the euro.  when it was first being used the cost of goods in euros were being calculated by the ratio of that country's national currency.

That’s not at all what happened when the euro rolled lit. When the euro came into existence, legacy currencies were frozen relative to each other (mark vs. lira vs. franc). Goods were priced in euro and you handed over legacy cash that no longer floated relative to anything else. Marks were no longer a thing you could trade on currency markets. 

[956 Worldwide 34446]

4 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

yes, that's what i said.  the ecu was an accounting unit which converted 1 for 1 to the euro which at that time became a currency.  for a while it was only used for interbank and government transactions.  and yes, the euro as expected would take on additional functions since it was being used as currency instead of just an accounting unit.  

 

 

I’m not sure what you are getting at. You’re saying BTC is like a currency because it has some similarities with the ECU, which was not a currency?

Everyone’s personal accounts became euros in 1999.  The euro was a currency from its inception. 

[gsoda3 3237]

2 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

That’s not at all what happened when the euro rolled lit. When the euro came into existence, legacy currencies were frozen relative to each other (mark vs. lira vs. franc). Goods were priced in euro and you handed over legacy cash that no longer floated relative to anything else. Marks were no longer a thing you could trade on currency markets. 

don't know what part you're referring to but your next two sentences i covered a couple posts ago.  

Quote

when the euro was formally adopted it was comprised of a basket of european currencies and each currency had a final peg to the euro.  to this day there are currencies you can still exchange for a set ratio of euros.  

when you say ... 

Quote

Goods were priced in euro

... and i say they were calculated by the ratio of each country's national currency i'm talking about how they arrived at the number.  remember, for a while you could pay in either francs or euros, etc.

[gsoda3 3237]

1 minute ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I’m not sure what you are getting at. You’re saying BTC is like a currency because it has some similarities with the ECU, which was not a currency?

Everyone’s personal accounts became euros in 1999.  The euro was a currency from its inception. 

i'm pointing out bitcoin satisfies the strict definition of currency and using the euro to highlight how some of the arguments against bitcoin can be seen in the euro's history.  

[GRHorn 105]

I think what we see here is people hung up on what bitcoin/crypto isn’t right now. On what can’t be done with it right now.

At the same time you’re dismissing all the progress that has been made up to this point. If I had told a few years ago you that numerous s&p 500 corporations, insurance companies, and public endowments would all hold bitcoin on their balance sheets, or that Coinbase would trade with a valuation in the neighborhood of Goldman Sachs, you’ve would said no fucking way. It has no value. You can’t buy anything with it. Nobody can force you to use it. They can just make other better coins. You start to sound like Paul Krugman talking about the internet. All the same arguments, but it keeps ascending to a level of geopolitical significance. 
 

In the future we will have a country come public as a holder of bitcoin in reserves. When that happens things will escalate. Not sure who it will be, but this guy hopes it’s India. He wants them to embrace bitcoin and all other possible uses of crypto, such as decentralized social media. 
 

https://www.medianama.com/2021/02/223-india-bitcoin-balajis-srinivasan/

 

 

[gsoda3 3237]

4 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Everyone’s personal accounts became euros in 1999.  The euro was a currency from its inception. 

not everyone's.  family still had bank accounts in francs til the early 2000s.

[GRHorn 105]

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Every conservative should invest their entire SHTF budget into BTC. I enthusiastically support it.

Finally, something we agree on.
 

But seriously we’re about to see a new wave of crypto rich coming from this bull cycle and Coinbase ipo. I’ll be interested to see what they pursue a la the PayPal mafia before. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13414]

It's not easy to come up with a definition or historical comparison to bitcoin because it could be a new category of money. Gold is a close example in some respects but gold cannot be easily transported or exchanged. But gold can be similar to bitcoin in that when the value is high, many resources are consumed to mine/find/create it.

I don't see this as an either/or situation about fiat vs crypto, but both used together. I would be extremely shocked if I ever see grocery prices listed in BTC. But Kroger shouldn't care if my payment card is backed by BTC or fiat as the exchange can be seamless.  But I also don't want to check the exchange rate before making a grocery store purchase. Therefore I don't foresee me paying for anything in the near future with crypto especially everyday, retail buys.

[Serak The Preparer 3424]

3 hours ago, workswithseed said:

What the fuck? This might be the dumbest thing ever uttered.

From the guy who pasted that the economy was "basically back to pre Covid" in November, this is a pretty funny statement.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

37 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

That’s not at all what happened when the euro rolled lit. When the euro came into existence, legacy currencies were frozen relative to each other (mark vs. lira vs. franc). Goods were priced in euro and you handed over legacy cash that no longer floated relative to anything else. Marks were no longer a thing you could trade on currency markets. 

Not to mention, the euro was a mandated in-place replacement for legacy currency.  It was not a currency exchange. They were pegged so that they would be functionally the same, and the conversion sent the legacy currency to the shredder, both the physical and the virtual shredder.  At no point was anyone in danger of total loss. Even if a country decided to opt out late, every single person in that country would have had their euros converted back at the pegged rate. 

This is simply not what occurs with bitcoin. One doesn't just convert to bitcoin and the dollars magically disappear. The dollars go to the other side of the transaction.  And there is no guarantee or mandate that you will be able to convert back because there is no entity guaranteeing that bitcoin will be spendable within its borders.  

 

[956 Worldwide 34446]

1 hour ago, gsoda3 said:

don't know what part you're referring to but your next two sentences i covered a couple posts ago.  

when you say ... 

... and i say they were calculated by the ratio of each country's national currency i'm talking about how they arrived at the number.  remember, for a while you could pay in either francs or euros, etc.

You seem to be suggesting that marks, francs, lira, etc. continued to have some sort of value relative to each other and relative to the euro independently of the euro itself. But that’s not the case, on 1 January 1999 the euro was the “real” although invisible currency and the national currencies were only useful as a stand-in for the euro in physical and geographic space. For example, if the lira was valued at .10 euro and 1.3 francs on 31 December 1998 you would never get any more or any fewer of either euro or franc when you went to convert them.  The value of the lira against the dollar rose and fell as the euro rose and fell, not on its own.  The continued listing of prices in national currencies just helped make the price less abstract and more understandable. A lira’s actual value could only be understood in terms of its purchasing power as a fraction of a euro in the geographic area that was Italy.  You could say “a euro is worth 10 lira“ in 1999 and it was a tautology, like saying “a penny is worth one cent.”  

A better analogy would be if all of a sudden everyone in East Texas started writing prices in nickels. If the guy at the gas station said  “that coke costs twenty nickels”, that doesn’t mean that nickels are the currency. The dollar is the currency, even if the nickels are legal tender and even if there are no physical circulating dollars. You could get a bank statement  telling you how many thousands of nickels you have so you can conceptualize your nickels to cokes, but it is no different than holding an account in dollars. 
 

None of this is anything at all like BTC. 

Edited March 2, 2021 by 956 Worldwide

[956 Worldwide 34446]

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

I think what we see here is people hung up on what bitcoin/crypto isn’t right now. On what can’t be done with it right now.

At the same time you’re dismissing all the progress that has been made up to this point. If I had told a few years ago you that numerous s&p 500 corporations, insurance companies, and public endowments would all hold bitcoin on their balance sheets, or that Coinbase would trade with a valuation in the neighborhood of Goldman Sachs, you’ve would said no fucking way. It has no value. You can’t buy anything with it. Nobody can force you to use it. They can just make other better coins. You start to sound like Paul Krugman talking about the internet. All the same arguments, but it keeps ascending to a level of geopolitical significance. 
 

In the future we will have a country come public as a holder of bitcoin in reserves. When that happens things will escalate. Not sure who it will be, but this guy hopes it’s India. He wants them to embrace bitcoin and all other possible uses of crypto, such as decentralized social media. 
 

https://www.medianama.com/2021/02/223-india-bitcoin-balajis-srinivasan/

 

 

You’ve had people give you plenty of examples of what BTC and other cryptos are good for, or could be for theoretically. And one thing that BTC is not good for— it’s not money. 
 

 

[gsoda3 3237]

13 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

You seem to be suggesting that marks, francs, lira, etc. continued to have some sort of value relative to each other and relative to the euro independently of the euro itself. But that’s not the case, on 1 January 1999 the euro was the “real” although invisible currency and the national currencies were only useful as a stand-in for the euro in physical and geographic space. For example, if the lira was valued at .10 euro and 1.3 francs on 31 December 1998 you would never get any more or any fewer of either euro or franc when you went to convert them.  The value of the lira against the dollar rose and fell as the euro rose and fell, not on its own.  The continued listing of prices in national currencies just helped make the price less abstract and more understandable. A lira’s actual value could only be understood in terms of its purchasing power as a fraction of a euro in the geographic area that was Italy.  You could say “a euro is worth 10 lira“ in 1999 and it was a tautology, like saying “a penny is worth one cent.”  

A better analogy would be if all of a sudden everyone in East Texas started writing prices in nickels. If the guy at the gas station said  “that coke costs twenty nickels”, that doesn’t mean that nickels are the currency. The dollar is the currency, even if the nickels are legal tender and even if there are no physical circulating dollars. You could get a bank statement  telling you how many thousands of nickels you have so you can conceptualize your nickels to cokes, but it is no different than holding an account in dollars. 
 

i was wondering why you kept saying that but i found where i said...

Quote

before they pegged that ratio and before they issued paper currency, the euro could only be used for electronic transactions, usually between banks and governments.  this "digital" euro replaced the European Currency Unit in name and function on a 1 for 1 basis

my fault.  that before should have said after. 

 

 

Quote

None of this is anything at all like BTC. 

i disagree.  

[956 Worldwide 34446]

13 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

i was wondering why you kept saying that but i found where i said...

my fault.  that before should have said after. 

 

 

i disagree.  

How is the early euro like BTC? Once the legacy currencies froze in 1999 they ceased to actually be currency.  The euro became the currency. National currencies became in effect just odd subdivisions of the euro. 
 

Go to an international airport in Europe. A lot of the big ones have vendors that will take your dollars or you can pay them in euro depending on what’s in your wallet. That actually means something, it makes a difference, you might come out ahead or behind.
 

But if they say “that’s two euro” and you say “do you accept fifty euro cent pieces instead,” you’re just a weirdo. 
 

BTC is not replacing legacy currency and the dollar to BTC exchange isn’t fixed now and forever. There’s no comparison. 

Edited March 2, 2021 by 956 Worldwide

[workswithseed 2037]

23 minutes ago, Serak The Preparer said:

From the guy who pasted that the economy was "basically back to pre Covid" in November, this is a pretty funny statement.

lol, are you hurting this guy for fun?

 

[RDCanecutter 26287]

2 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

A better analogy would be if all of a sudden everyone in East Texas started writing prices in nickels. If the guy at the gas station said  “that coke costs twenty nickels”, that doesn’t mean that nickels are the currency. The dollar is the currency, even if the nickels are legal tender and even if there are no physical circulating dollars. You could get a bank statement  telling you how many thousands of nickels you have so you can conceptualize your nickels to cokes, but it is no different than holding an account in dollars. 

I for one salute our Nickel-Using East Texas Overlords.

I would keep mine in a sock, and dare people to try to rob me. "C'mon, bwah-- I'm gonna put this bank account upside your head!"

[GRHorn 105]

3 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

You’ve had people give you plenty of examples of what BTC and other cryptos are good for, or could be for theoretically. And one thing that BTC is not good for— it’s not money. 
 

 

Is gold money?

[GRHorn 105]

my girl 

Edited March 3, 2021 by GRHorn

[workswithseed 2037]

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

Is gold money?

Uhm uhm...... Uhm..... Golden Eagles are!

[RDCanecutter 26287]

Here are a couple of things that puzzle me about cryptos. I will be happy for any enlightenment.

1. Security. If Moore's Law holds up even halfway, what is to stop computers being developed of such password-cracking power that a 400-pound Romanian in his mother-cousin's basement ends up with everybody's loot?

2. Insane Reaction: Not yet, but suppose some Bitcoin ransom demand of such infamy (pay us or 5,000 orphans and puppies go up in flames, they get paid, orphans and puppies die anyway, livestreamed) that multiple nations outlaw it. Granted, it won't be because of BTC that the Bond villains did Bond villainy, but still. What if this happened?

[GRHorn 105]

49 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

Here are a couple of things that puzzle me about cryptos. I will be happy for any enlightenment.

1. Security. If Moore's Law holds up even halfway, what is to stop computers being developed of such password-cracking power that a 400-pound Romanian in his mother-cousin's basement ends up with everybody's loot?

2. Insane Reaction: Not yet, but suppose some Bitcoin ransom demand of such infamy (pay us or 5,000 orphans and puppies go up in flames, they get paid, orphans and puppies die anyway, livestreamed) that multiple nations outlaw it. Granted, it won't be because of BTC that the Bond villains did Bond villainy, but still. What if this happened?

Thank you for actually bringing up something that is a concern of mine, mostly due to my limited knowledge of cryptography. People smarter than me are not overly concerned about the quantum computing threat, but I’m not totally convinced tbh. 
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerhuang/2020/12/21/heres-why-quantum-computing-will-not-break-cryptocurrencies/?sh=27d7a03c167b

Pardon the cheesy YouTube graphic. Andreas Is one of the top bitcoin advocates/speakers out there. A very thoughtful guy. 
 

As for #2 I think we will see some variation of that. The govt will likely try to link it to “domestic terrorism”. I use the air quotes not to minimize what may happen, but they will try to exaggerate Bitcoin’s role in it. I think they tried to play that up with the Viking hat crew. Janet Yellen recently reiterated the old nonsense about how it’s used mainly by criminals even though USD via cash is most used for crime. So they’re already showing their hand. We’ll see how far it goes when it happens. 

[gsoda3 3237]

18 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

How is the early euro like BTC? Once the legacy currencies froze in 1999 they ceased to actually be currency.  The euro became the currency. National currencies became in effect just odd subdivisions of the euro. 
 

Go to an international airport in Europe. A lot of the big ones have vendors that will take your dollars or you can pay them in euro depending on what’s in your wallet. That actually means something, it makes a difference, you might come out ahead or behind.
 

But if they say “that’s two euro” and you say “do you accept fifty euro cent pieces instead,” you’re just a weirdo. 

you don't consider the franc, lira, drachma, pound, etc to be currency after 99 even though they were in use for another 3 years.  i get why you don't, you adhere to the strict technical definition.  do you accept that they were still in use as currency and fulfilled that function?  

 

Quote

BTC is not replacing legacy currency and the dollar to BTC exchange isn’t fixed now and forever. There’s no comparison. 

i haven't read the entire thread so you might be directing that at someone else, but i've never said anything of that kind.  it's good to know what you think you're arguing against in these replies though.  some of those wtf comments make more sense now knowing where you're coming from. 

 

 

[956 Worldwide 34446]

27 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

you don't consider the franc, lira, drachma, pound, etc to be currency after 99 even though they were in use for another 3 years.  i get why you don't, you adhere to the strict technical definition.  do you accept that they were still in use as currency and fulfilled that function?  

 

 

 

 

All those physical bills and coins were currency, just like my pocket full of U.S. change is currency. But the mark was no longer A currency. And what the relation of legacy physical bills and coins to the new euro has to do with BTC is completely beyond me.

And talking about having a bank account in francs but not euros in 2001? That’s venturing into this type of absurdity.

No matter what was written on the mailed statement to help clients understand things—- those accounts were on the bank balance sheets as euro-denominated holdings. 

Edited March 3, 2021 by 956 Worldwide

[gsoda3 3237]

right we're not getting anywhere, thanks for the discussion.  

[gsoda3 3237]

Mark Cuban... https://markets.businessinsider.com/amp/news/mark-cubans-dallas-mavericks-will-accept-dogecoin-for-tickets-2021-3-1030151539

[GRHorn 105]

It came up again in the fiscal irresponsibility thread. Here’s a good column I found a couple weeks late regarding possible government attacks on Bitcoin. Just trying to help you out @Biff Tannen It’s not too late.  

 

[Biff Tannen 45500]

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

It came up again in the fiscal irresponsibility thread. Here’s a good column I found a couple weeks late regarding possible government attacks on Bitcoin. Just trying to help you out @Biff Tannen It’s not too late.  

 

Hey man, my investment is looking great right now.  I blame my outrage on diabeetus.  But your avatar still sucks.