Crypto Currency Thread (Vol.2)
Discussion
Elsewhere in cryptoscumland Craig Wright has had a worldwide freezing order slapped on him - https://twitter.com/BitMEXResearch/status/17734766...
He was busy moving his benefactor's money abroad but it was noticed.
He was busy moving his benefactor's money abroad but it was noticed.
Just going to leave this here for all of you who are (still) arguing that Bitcoin has no real use case or value.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI3Xcei8d_I
Please discuss
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI3Xcei8d_I
Please discuss
Just going to leave this here for all of you who are (still) arguing that Bitcoin has no real use case or value.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI3Xcei8d_I
Please discuss
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI3Xcei8d_I
Please discuss
ERIKM400 said:
Just going to leave this here for all of you who are (still) arguing that Bitcoin has no real use case or value.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI3Xcei8d_I
Please discuss
Are you going to be repeating this message every 20 minutes from now on then?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI3Xcei8d_I
Please discuss
ERIKM400 said:
Please discuss
10.51 to 11.10 "because it's the only digitally scarce asset in the world.....that provides a foundation for the other use cases...it kinda makes the whole thing work"
is that first part actually true though? because if you don't accept that then the foundation isn't so strong and perhaps it doesn't all then work?
I'll listen on, but the above passage appears quite a sweeping assumptive statement?
ERIKM400 said:
Just going to leave this here for all of you who are (still) arguing that Bitcoin has no real use case or value.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI3Xcei8d_I
Please discuss
Nothing new in that really, it is the same argument that citizen banking free of government oversight and interference is preferable to centrally controlled finance and currency issuance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI3Xcei8d_I
Please discuss
There are pros and cons to both, however conventional wisdom, and certainly government wisdom, is that central control is preferable. It allows regulation, protection, and is vastly more beneficial than the alternative for the vast majority of people. Are there times people want to do things without government oversight? Of course, but now Bitcoin is far more traceable than it was in the past even that use case is very thin, and governments can still control the on/off ramps because irrespective of your opinion on the video Bitcoin still needs to be converted to a FIAT currency at the end. Even vendors or payment providers who do "accept" Bitcoin don't accept Bitcoin, they convert the btc to £ at the point of sale and the vendor gets paid in £.
So yes, for people behind oppressive regimes and in countries with currency controls it has a use, but you've still got to contend with the fact that you're deliberately trying to circumvent government rules and that is not often look on favourably. Governments, if they want, have the ability to control access to Bitcoin via the on/off ramps, and given every transaction is recorded for all time I think you'd be brave these days to assume it is easy to get around currency controls with bitcoin and expect to get away with it. Much like the Silk Road sellers did 10 years ago, someone might find that they get a knock on the door at some unspecified time in the future.
Unless you have an alternative opinion?
Scootersp said:
10.51 to 11.10
"because it's the only digitally scarce asset in the world.....that provides a foundation for the other use cases...it kinda makes the whole thing work"
is that first part actually true though? because if you don't accept that then the foundation isn't so strong and perhaps it doesn't all then work?
I'll listen on, but the above passage appears quite a sweeping assumptive statement?
Then please tell me what the other scarce digital assets are?"because it's the only digitally scarce asset in the world.....that provides a foundation for the other use cases...it kinda makes the whole thing work"
is that first part actually true though? because if you don't accept that then the foundation isn't so strong and perhaps it doesn't all then work?
I'll listen on, but the above passage appears quite a sweeping assumptive statement?
Or why BTC isn't?
Condi said:
Nothing new in that really, it is the same argument that citizen banking free of government oversight and interference is preferable to centrally controlled finance and currency issuance.
There are pros and cons to both, however conventional wisdom, and certainly government wisdom, is that central control is preferable. It allows regulation, protection, and is vastly more beneficial than the alternative for the vast majority of people. Are there times people want to do things without government oversight? Of course, but now Bitcoin is far more traceable than it was in the past even that use case is very thin, and governments can still control the on/off ramps because irrespective of your opinion on the video Bitcoin still needs to be converted to a FIAT currency at the end. Even vendors or payment providers who do "accept" Bitcoin don't accept Bitcoin, they convert the btc to £ at the point of sale and the vendor gets paid in £.
So yes, for people behind oppressive regimes and in countries with currency controls it has a use, but you've still got to contend with the fact that you're deliberately trying to circumvent government rules and that is not often look on favourably. Governments, if they want, have the ability to control access to Bitcoin via the on/off ramps, and given every transaction is recorded for all time I think you'd be brave these days to assume it is easy to get around currency controls with bitcoin and expect to get away with it. Much like the Silk Road sellers did 10 years ago, someone might find that they get a knock on the door at some unspecified time in the future.
Unless you have an alternative opinion?
BTC is not citizen banking. BTC is governed by the white paper and the principles of a true free market economy.There are pros and cons to both, however conventional wisdom, and certainly government wisdom, is that central control is preferable. It allows regulation, protection, and is vastly more beneficial than the alternative for the vast majority of people. Are there times people want to do things without government oversight? Of course, but now Bitcoin is far more traceable than it was in the past even that use case is very thin, and governments can still control the on/off ramps because irrespective of your opinion on the video Bitcoin still needs to be converted to a FIAT currency at the end. Even vendors or payment providers who do "accept" Bitcoin don't accept Bitcoin, they convert the btc to £ at the point of sale and the vendor gets paid in £.
So yes, for people behind oppressive regimes and in countries with currency controls it has a use, but you've still got to contend with the fact that you're deliberately trying to circumvent government rules and that is not often look on favourably. Governments, if they want, have the ability to control access to Bitcoin via the on/off ramps, and given every transaction is recorded for all time I think you'd be brave these days to assume it is easy to get around currency controls with bitcoin and expect to get away with it. Much like the Silk Road sellers did 10 years ago, someone might find that they get a knock on the door at some unspecified time in the future.
Unless you have an alternative opinion?
Can you explain why a government controlled fiat money, backed by nothing, that is continuously manipulated, taxed, inflated and debased driving it's value and purchasing power ever lower in a futile attempt to cover for infinitely increasing debts is preferable?
There is no need to convert BTC back to fiat to make payments. BTC was developed for peer to peer transactions. The things that are currently standing in the way are price volatility (which is decreasing and will continue to do so), adoption (which is progressively increasing) and scalability (for which solutions are being developed and already exist).
BTC transactions are trustless, censorship resistant, pseudo anonymous, require no middle man and are avialable to anyone with an internet connection.
Yes, that means it can be used for "illegal transactions" (definition depends on what your government considers illegal). But most criminal transactions are using good old cash fiat money for this, which nobody is trying to ban.
On the other hand there are some big benefits to this: you can make instant payments, even of large sums of money, to anyone, anywhere in the world, without incurring large costs, without anyone blocking your payment, even to people who have no access to the banking system. Try paying someone in Nigeria 50£ using your bank and see what happens.
The most important use case for BTC is store of value in a world where all currencies are losing value at an alarming rate and protect the individual from this. Not illegal transactions, tax evasion, money laundering,...
The main reason governments are scared of BTC and try to ban or limit it's use is because it threatens to undermine their failing monetary system.
dimots said:
Bitcoin is a self regulating protocol for value transfer which requires no intermediary. It is impossible to be scammed by bitcoin in my opinion. Can you please explain how it might happen?
Fraud/Scam, by definition, is theft by deception. The failure point is the human, and bitcoin is just as susceptible to that as any other transfer method. Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff