Crypto Currency Thread (Vol.2)
Discussion
Exchanges are for exchanging. They don’t occupy the same space at all, unless you don’t understand Bitcoin.
The difference with Bitcoin is that it is a way to hold wealth yourself. You hold it, you can take it anywhere. Your own personal Fort Knox.
Dont hold it on an exchange. Keep it on a cold wallet. Most amazing store of value ever invented. Can’t be inflated or confiscated, no chance of being hacked, no way of blocking or closing your account, no third party organisation to f
k things up…it’s all on you.
Some people don’t get it or can’t handle it…but that will change.
The difference with Bitcoin is that it is a way to hold wealth yourself. You hold it, you can take it anywhere. Your own personal Fort Knox.
Dont hold it on an exchange. Keep it on a cold wallet. Most amazing store of value ever invented. Can’t be inflated or confiscated, no chance of being hacked, no way of blocking or closing your account, no third party organisation to f
k things up…it’s all on you.Some people don’t get it or can’t handle it…but that will change.
ERIKM400 said:
BTC is not a good store of value because of volatility?
That just depends on your timeframe.
Take a look at this chart: try to find the 9 red days were people are not in profit
BTC can't be used directly for making payments?
There have been countless examples on this forum of people buying things using BTC.
BTC is ulseless for international money transfers?
Please give me your BTC adress and I will send you 100 sats right away.
No, wait. I'll do this Saturday night at 23h00 to prove you the system works 24/7
I completely agree that money manipulation and inflation are very usefull for governments but that is exactly how we ended up with the financial st show we are in right now.
As to inflation "not necesserily being a bad thing" look at this chart and explain to me in which way it's not bad for me as an individual
I'm not sure quite what post you read, but your comments don't seem to reflect what I actually typed.... That just depends on your timeframe.
Take a look at this chart: try to find the 9 red days were people are not in profit
BTC can't be used directly for making payments?
There have been countless examples on this forum of people buying things using BTC.
BTC is ulseless for international money transfers?
Please give me your BTC adress and I will send you 100 sats right away.
No, wait. I'll do this Saturday night at 23h00 to prove you the system works 24/7
I completely agree that money manipulation and inflation are very usefull for governments but that is exactly how we ended up with the financial s
t show we are in right now.As to inflation "not necesserily being a bad thing" look at this chart and explain to me in which way it's not bad for me as an individual
You were the one who said it was too volatile to be a store of value, not me. I was simply agreeing.
ERIKM400 said:
The things that are currently standing in the way are price volatility...
That graph is the most laughably pointless thing to ever have been made. It means absolutely nothing, but I guess works well to point at and say "look always profitable", for people who don't have the most basic understanding of finance. If you bought on about 21st Nov 2021, at £44k, then you'd have had to wait over 3 years to be in profit. Similarly, if you've bought back in 2010 then you will have been in profit almost since you bought. Worrying about whether "on average" the holders have made money is pointless. As for saying Btc can't be used for payments, I said no such thing, I said it isn't being used for payments, which it isn't. Tesla famously said they would accept Bitcoin, and now don't. There are virtually no companies which do accept Btc as Bitcoin, and those payment processors which do allow you
"to pay" in Btc are simply selling Btc on your behalf, and paying the merchant in £/$.
I equally never said it couldn't be used for international money transfers, you said that you could use it to send money to someone in Nigeria without a bank account, I said that it was already possible using mobile numbers which require neither the internet nor a bank account, and also asked if they had the internet on their phone to receive bitcoin, why wouldn't they have a bank account?
Maybe rather than asking me to explain why inflation is not a bad thing, you could explain why it is a bad thing. To me it makes very little difference. Generally pay rises keep up with inflation and generally asset prices keep up with inflation, over the medium to long term. It only matters if you keep large amounts of cash, which very few people do. If in 1950 a loaf of bread was 20c, but you got paid $6 a week you're worse off than someone today paying $2 per loaf but paid $800 per week, it's all relative and despite your graph of doom Americans today are richer and lead a better quality of life than at any point in history, so you're going to have to explain why inflation is a bad thing.
As I said in my previous post, just because you don't like it, or can't understand it, doesn't mean it's a bad thing. A low level of inflation is generally seen as a good thing, economically, which is why the BoE have a 2% target and not a 0% target.
Condi said:
Why would anyone in power (be that political, financial, business/economic) who do very nicely out of the current system want to upset the apple cart and "revolt" against something which pays for their comfortable lifestyles? There has to be a reason for things to change, and if the people who run the system are doing very nicely then it will carry on as it is.
Gorbachev did so far I recall. The system brings those up which help the system (grow).
Most people love to put 100 $ into a product do a few clicks and get 150$ out.
That is the impression most people got when jumping the 1st time onto the bandwagon.
Now many people are wiser.
Condi said:
That graph is the most laughably pointless thing to ever have been made. It means absolutely nothing, but I guess works well to point at and say "look always profitable", for people who don't have the most basic understanding of finance. If you bought on about 21st Nov 2021, at £44k, then you'd have had to wait over 3 years to be in profit. Similarly, if you've bought back in 2010 then you will have been in profit almost since you bought. Worrying about whether "on average" the holders have made money is pointless.
As for saying Btc can't be used for payments, I said no such thing, I said it isn't being used for payments, which it isn't. Tesla famously said they would accept Bitcoin, and now don't. There are virtually no companies which do accept Btc as Bitcoin, and those payment processors which do allow you
"to pay" in Btc are simply selling Btc on your behalf, and paying the merchant in £/$.
I equally never said it couldn't be used for international money transfers, you said that you could use it to send money to someone in Nigeria without a bank account, I said that it was already possible using mobile numbers which require neither the internet nor a bank account, and also asked if they had the internet on their phone to receive bitcoin, why wouldn't they have a bank account?
Maybe rather than asking me to explain why inflation is not a bad thing, you could explain why it is a bad thing. To me it makes very little difference. Generally pay rises keep up with inflation and generally asset prices keep up with inflation, over the medium to long term. It only matters if you keep large amounts of cash, which very few people do. If in 1950 a loaf of bread was 20c, but you got paid $6 a week you're worse off than someone today paying $2 per loaf but paid $800 per week, it's all relative and despite your graph of doom Americans today are richer and lead a better quality of life than at any point in history, so you're going to have to explain why inflation is a bad thing.
As I said in my previous post, just because you don't like it, or can't understand it, doesn't mean it's a bad thing. A low level of inflation is generally seen as a good thing, economically, which is why the BoE have a 2% target and not a 0% target.
So a graph showing that if you have a time frame of four years or more and an IQ that exceeds your shoe size it's impossible to lose money by investing in BTC (the percentage returns are triple digits!) is pointless just because you say so and that proves BTC is a bad store of value?As for saying Btc can't be used for payments, I said no such thing, I said it isn't being used for payments, which it isn't. Tesla famously said they would accept Bitcoin, and now don't. There are virtually no companies which do accept Btc as Bitcoin, and those payment processors which do allow you
"to pay" in Btc are simply selling Btc on your behalf, and paying the merchant in £/$.
I equally never said it couldn't be used for international money transfers, you said that you could use it to send money to someone in Nigeria without a bank account, I said that it was already possible using mobile numbers which require neither the internet nor a bank account, and also asked if they had the internet on their phone to receive bitcoin, why wouldn't they have a bank account?
Maybe rather than asking me to explain why inflation is not a bad thing, you could explain why it is a bad thing. To me it makes very little difference. Generally pay rises keep up with inflation and generally asset prices keep up with inflation, over the medium to long term. It only matters if you keep large amounts of cash, which very few people do. If in 1950 a loaf of bread was 20c, but you got paid $6 a week you're worse off than someone today paying $2 per loaf but paid $800 per week, it's all relative and despite your graph of doom Americans today are richer and lead a better quality of life than at any point in history, so you're going to have to explain why inflation is a bad thing.
As I said in my previous post, just because you don't like it, or can't understand it, doesn't mean it's a bad thing. A low level of inflation is generally seen as a good thing, economically, which is why the BoE have a 2% target and not a 0% target.
Euhmm...
Well yeah, now you've convinced me that I'm wrong.
Please stop quoting me out of context, that's just proving the weakness of your arguments.
I did NOT say that volatility is a problem for BTC as a store of value. It is CURRENTLY a problem for it's use as a payment method but that will be resolved in the future.
As for inflation not being a bad thing: the graph I provided shows that inflation has eroded the value and purchasing power of the US dollar (and all other currencies) away to almost zero over the course of the last 100 years.
Because, contrary to what you say wages are not rising as fast as inflation is.
Here's inflation adjusted income in the US over the past decades:
Of course the Bank of England (and all other central banks) want inflation because that is the only thing preventing (or more accurate: slowing down) the inevitable collaps of their failing financial systeem.
ERIKM400 said:
So a graph showing that if you have a time frame of four years or more and an IQ that exceeds your shoe size it's impossible to lose money by investing in BTC (the percentage returns are triple digits!) is pointless just because you say so and that proves BTC is a bad store of value?
Euhmm...
Well yeah, now you've convinced me that I'm wrong.
Clearly you're either ignoring the obvious, thick or being deliberately obtuse... Euhmm...
Well yeah, now you've convinced me that I'm wrong.
Bitcoin's worth as a store of value has nothing to do with what happens over a 4 year timeframe, but is to do with the day to day volatility which is very high in comparison to almost any other asset class. If you buy at £44k and then it goes down to £22k, I would say that is a pretty disastrous result even if then it goes back up 3 years later. FWIW anyone who has bought Btc at all over the last 3 weeks is currently sitting on a loss of between 1.5% and 10% depending when they bought. A 10% loss in 6 days does not a good store of value make.
And he returns are very obviously not triple digit if you've bought at anything above half of what today's price is.
I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong, but simply showing you how you are wrong.
ERIKM400 said:
Please stop quoting me out of context, that's just proving the weakness of your arguments.
I did NOT say that volatility is a problem for BTC as a store of value. It is CURRENTLY a problem for it's use as a payment method but that will be resolved in the future.
How will it be resolved? What methods are there which will resolve it? It's a single tradable product without any fundamental or extrinsic value, and with no other use than an investment/gambling product. It is always going to be susceptible to times when the buyers and sellers are unequal and so I don't see how you can say so confidently it is going to be resolved in future. I did NOT say that volatility is a problem for BTC as a store of value. It is CURRENTLY a problem for it's use as a payment method but that will be resolved in the future.
ERIKM400 said:
As for inflation not being a bad thing: the graph I provided shows that inflation has eroded the value and purchasing power of the US dollar (and all other currencies) away to almost zero over the course of the last 100 years.
Because, contrary to what you say wages are not rising as fast as inflation is.
Here's inflation adjusted income in the US over the past decades:
Of course the Bank of England (and all other central banks) want inflation because that is the only thing preventing (or more accurate: slowing down) the inevitable collaps of their failing financial systeem.
Where is that graph from? And what, exactly, does it show? Inflation simply isn't measured by the M2 money supply, inflation is defined as the increase in the cost of goods and services, so maybe you can explain, simply, what relevance that has? Especially as it includes bank deposits, which therefore includes fractional reserves and so as the loans get paid back the money supply decreases, as well as increasing when more loans are made. Measuring money supply does not equal inflation. Because, contrary to what you say wages are not rising as fast as inflation is.
Here's inflation adjusted income in the US over the past decades:
Of course the Bank of England (and all other central banks) want inflation because that is the only thing preventing (or more accurate: slowing down) the inevitable collaps of their failing financial systeem.
The Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis (part of the US Central Bank and a centre for economic research) disagrees with you. The median personal income (adjusted for inflation), has risen from $26,000 in 1974 to $40,500 2022. (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N) while household income has gone from $56k to $75k in just under 40 years. (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N/)
This blog post explains and shows that US earnings are between 3% and 7% higher in real terms than in 2009, depending on what data set you use. Manufacturing wages at the lower end, overall wages at the higher end. (https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2018/02/are-wages-increasing-or-decreasing/)
If people are quantitively richer, why does it matter how much $1 buys today vs 100 years ago? A Model T Ford was $700 when it was new. Today a new car is, say, $25,000. This isn't an issue as nobody is buying a car today with dollars from 1910! What matters far more is the value of one currency relative to another, and in this respect the US$ has done very well.
Maybe you could explain why you see it as a problem? You are likely richer than your parents, and almost certainly have a better quality of life and standard of living than your Grandparents. This is itself should show inflation and the decrease in purchasing power of the £ doesn't really matter, if your logic was correct then you'd be worse of than your parents and significantly worse off than your Grandparents.
Edited by Condi on Sunday 14th April 21:06
Condi said:
Maybe you could explain why you see it as a problem? You are likely richer than your parents, and almost certainly have a better quality of life and standard of living than your Grandparents. This is itself should show inflation and the decrease in purchasing power of the £ doesn't really matter, if your logic was correct then you'd be worse of than your parents and significantly worse off than your Grandparents.
“Better quality” and “better standard of living” are very ambiguous terms.I think quality of life has dropped off loads over my lifetime.
But so many people measure quality by ability to afford to buy consumerist trash.
Or their ability to eat trash and walk around like Jabba the Hut.
Standard of living? “Love Life” letters on their mantle piece and huge tellys above that? Big mobile phones?
Condi said:
Where is that graph from? And what, exactly, does it show? Inflation simply isn't measured by the M2 money supply, inflation is defined as the increase in the cost of goods and services, so maybe you can explain, simply, what relevance that has? Especially as it includes bank deposits, which therefore includes fractional reserves and so as the loans get paid back the money supply decreases, as well as increasing when more loans are made. Measuring money supply does not equal inflation.
The Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis (part of the US Central Bank and a centre for economic research) disagrees with you. The median personal income (adjusted for inflation), has risen from $26,000 in 1974 to $40,500 2022. (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N) while household income has gone from $56k to $75k in just under 40 years. (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N/)
This blog post explains and shows that US earnings are between 3% and 7% higher in real terms than in 2009, depending on what data set you use. Manufacturing wages at the lower end, overall wages at the higher end. (https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2018/02/are-wages-increasing-or-decreasing/)
If people are quantitively richer, why does it matter how much $1 buys today vs 100 years ago? A Model T Ford was $700 when it was new. Today a new car is, say, $25,000. This isn't an issue as nobody is buying a car today with dollars from 1910! What matters far more is the value of one currency relative to another, and in this respect the US$ has done very well.
Maybe you could explain why you see it as a problem? You are likely richer than your parents, and almost certainly have a better quality of life and standard of living than your Grandparents. This is itself should show inflation and the decrease in purchasing power of the £ doesn't really matter, if your logic was correct then you'd be worse of than your parents and significantly worse off than your Grandparents.
Can you please account for this in your calculations, thanks The Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis (part of the US Central Bank and a centre for economic research) disagrees with you. The median personal income (adjusted for inflation), has risen from $26,000 in 1974 to $40,500 2022. (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N) while household income has gone from $56k to $75k in just under 40 years. (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N/)
This blog post explains and shows that US earnings are between 3% and 7% higher in real terms than in 2009, depending on what data set you use. Manufacturing wages at the lower end, overall wages at the higher end. (https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2018/02/are-wages-increasing-or-decreasing/)
If people are quantitively richer, why does it matter how much $1 buys today vs 100 years ago? A Model T Ford was $700 when it was new. Today a new car is, say, $25,000. This isn't an issue as nobody is buying a car today with dollars from 1910! What matters far more is the value of one currency relative to another, and in this respect the US$ has done very well.
Maybe you could explain why you see it as a problem? You are likely richer than your parents, and almost certainly have a better quality of life and standard of living than your Grandparents. This is itself should show inflation and the decrease in purchasing power of the £ doesn't really matter, if your logic was correct then you'd be worse of than your parents and significantly worse off than your Grandparents.
Edited by Condi on Sunday 14th April 21:06
dimots said:
Can you please account for this in your calculations, thanks
Account for it how? What point are you trying to make? Or is it just another meaningless point about how Bitcoin is limited to 21m whereas $ can be minted at will? If so it's up to you or anyone to show why that is a problem. That it can become a problem (eg Germany 1920's), doesn't mean it has to be a problem. Correlation doesn't equal causation.
ERIKM400 said:
So a graph showing that if you have a time frame of four years or more and an IQ that exceeds your shoe size it's impossible to lose money by investing in BTC (the percentage returns are triple digits!) is pointless just because you say so and that proves BTC is a bad store of value?
Euhmm...
Well yeah, now you've convinced me that I'm wrong.
Please stop quoting me out of context, that's just proving the weakness of your arguments.
I did NOT say that volatility is a problem for BTC as a store of value. It is CURRENTLY a problem for it's use as a payment method but that will be resolved in the future.
.
I wouldn't go talking about other peoples IQ when you are talking your own book. Its NOT a good store of value as the intra day vol is FAR too high - any shorter dated price chart shows you can be absolutely spanked. You said this:Euhmm...
Well yeah, now you've convinced me that I'm wrong.
Please stop quoting me out of context, that's just proving the weakness of your arguments.
I did NOT say that volatility is a problem for BTC as a store of value. It is CURRENTLY a problem for it's use as a payment method but that will be resolved in the future.
.
ERIKM400 said:
BTC is not a good store of value because of volatility?
That just depends on your timeframe.
Take a look at this chart: try to find the 9 red days were people are not in profit
That store of value - only works if you are long term "hodl'er". The long term growth trajectory masks the peaks and troughs. You could actually loose many hundreds of times over - IF the entry entry / exit points are wrong. It simply is not a granular enough chart (I showed the 3 day BTC chart - the swings are too high for a means of exchange). If you want your money out in a trough to pay a bill, you better hope you were in years ago. That volatility means you can't build a trust system and its decentralised nature means NO one is charged with maintaining price stability. The trust and price stability are linked together, its exactly that which removes excessive price volatility - BTC will never achieve it, unless everyone adopts it (which they won't because its parochial and anarchic).That just depends on your timeframe.
Take a look at this chart: try to find the 9 red days were people are not in profit
It may well be an awesome payment system, its speed, consensus etc all great things that probably exceed SWIFT etc - but only within its only eco system. And that's fine. For the early adapters its great, or those not worried about the erosion / inflation of sentiment value. But it won't work for the masses as speculation erodes labour value.
FIAT money has its issues, but BTC isn't a mass replacement option. Its great people have made a mint on it, but pretending its going to replace $, £UR, £ etc is a fantasy.
Condi said:
Where is that graph from? And what, exactly, does it show? Inflation simply isn't measured by the M2 money supply, inflation is defined as the increase in the cost of goods and services, so maybe you can explain, simply, what relevance that has? Especially as it includes bank deposits, which therefore includes fractional reserves and so as the loans get paid back the money supply decreases, as well as increasing when more loans are made. Measuring money supply does not equal inflation.
The Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis (part of the US Central Bank and a centre for economic research) disagrees with you. The median personal income (adjusted for inflation), has risen from $26,000 in 1974 to $40,500 2022. (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N) while household income has gone from $56k to $75k in just under 40 years. (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N/)
This blog post explains and shows that US earnings are between 3% and 7% higher in real terms than in 2009, depending on what data set you use. Manufacturing wages at the lower end, overall wages at the higher end. (https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2018/02/are-wages-increasing-or-decreasing/)
If people are quantitively richer, why does it matter how much $1 buys today vs 100 years ago? A Model T Ford was $700 when it was new. Today a new car is, say, $25,000. This isn't an issue as nobody is buying a car today with dollars from 1910! What matters far more is the value of one currency relative to another, and in this respect the US$ has done very well.
Maybe you could explain why you see it as a problem? You are likely richer than your parents, and almost certainly have a better quality of life and standard of living than your Grandparents. This is itself should show inflation and the decrease in purchasing power of the £ doesn't really matter, if your logic was correct then you'd be worse of than your parents and significantly worse off than your Grandparents.
So what you are saying is that an asset that is not going up in value every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every week of every month of every year is a worthless store of value?The Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis (part of the US Central Bank and a centre for economic research) disagrees with you. The median personal income (adjusted for inflation), has risen from $26,000 in 1974 to $40,500 2022. (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N) while household income has gone from $56k to $75k in just under 40 years. (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N/)
This blog post explains and shows that US earnings are between 3% and 7% higher in real terms than in 2009, depending on what data set you use. Manufacturing wages at the lower end, overall wages at the higher end. (https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2018/02/are-wages-increasing-or-decreasing/)
If people are quantitively richer, why does it matter how much $1 buys today vs 100 years ago? A Model T Ford was $700 when it was new. Today a new car is, say, $25,000. This isn't an issue as nobody is buying a car today with dollars from 1910! What matters far more is the value of one currency relative to another, and in this respect the US$ has done very well.
Maybe you could explain why you see it as a problem? You are likely richer than your parents, and almost certainly have a better quality of life and standard of living than your Grandparents. This is itself should show inflation and the decrease in purchasing power of the £ doesn't really matter, if your logic was correct then you'd be worse of than your parents and significantly worse off than your Grandparents.
Edited by Condi on Sunday 14th April 21:06
If so, then please advise me what this magical asset with unabaiting increase in value is that you are investing in so I can join you in a quest for wealth, oh wise one?
People are not getting richer, they really are not.
Asset prices are rising faster than income.
So the ability of ordinary people to acquire "wealth" is decreasing.
See house prices versus average income for an example:
And don't get me started on fractional reserve banking.
Please don't
ERIKM400 said:
So what you are saying is that an asset that is not going up in value every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every week of every month of every year is a worthless store of value?
If so, then please advise me what this magical asset with unabaiting increase in value is that you are investing in so I can join you in a quest for wealth, oh wise one?
You are being deliberately obtuse and it does your argument no favours. If so, then please advise me what this magical asset with unabaiting increase in value is that you are investing in so I can join you in a quest for wealth, oh wise one?
A good store of value means that it's price/value is stable, ideally keeping up with overall inflation. Bitcoin is incredibly volatile, and there is a big difference between something which is going up every second of every day and something which crashes by 50% in 6 months and then takes 4 years to return to it's previous price! (Which, of course, by the time you factor in inflation is actually worth less than it was at the same price 4 years ago). A 1% daily change in £/$/€ value is absolutely massive. Bitcoin has lost 10% in a week.
Think of it like this, you get paid £2k in Bitcoin from work, one week later it's only worth £1800. You need to pay rent, buy food, buy petrol, all next week. Try telling your landlord you'll pay him in 4 years time when your Btc recovers it's value.
ERIKM400 said:
People are not getting richer, they really are not.
Asset prices are rising faster than income.
So the ability of ordinary people to acquire "wealth" is decreasing.
See house prices versus average income for an example:
It's far more nuanced than that. House prices (and yes, asset prices in general), have outpaced pay increases, but that is as much a factor of supply and demand as anything to do with inflation. If your population grows by 2m people and you build enough houses for 1m more people then clearly there are more people fighting for the (proportionally) fewer number of houses and the price goes up. If we built double the number of houses we have then house prices would be more in line with overall inflation. Asset prices are rising faster than income.
So the ability of ordinary people to acquire "wealth" is decreasing.
See house prices versus average income for an example:
I agree the state of the UK housing market is a complete mess and it's very hard for anyone to buy a house these days - it takes up more take home pay than it used to and people are taking on more debt to pay off over their lifetimes. However, we are not talking about the ability of people to acquire wealth, we are talking about the ability of people to live day to day. The last few years have seen people get poorer, but that is a break in a longer term trend of them getting richer. What affects the UK more than other countries is the inequality and a single measure does hide a lot of variability.
I fail to see how Bitcoin is the answer to any of this, mind. Bitcoin isn't going to make the average person richer, if anything it is held in the hands of fewer people and is thus far more concentrated than any wealth or money we have at the moment. Switching to Bitcoin isn't going to change asset prices or wages.
ERIKM400 said:
And don't get me started on fractional reserve banking.
Please don't
Please do, I would love to hear it. Please don't
dimots said:
Exchanges are for exchanging. They don’t occupy the same space at all, unless you don’t understand Bitcoin.
The difference with Bitcoin is that it is a way to hold wealth yourself. You hold it, you can take it anywhere. Your own personal Fort Knox.
Dont hold it on an exchange. Keep it on a cold wallet. Most amazing store of value ever invented. Can’t be inflated or confiscated, no chance of being hacked, no way of blocking or closing your account, no third party organisation to fk things up…it’s all on you.
Some people don’t get it or can’t handle it…but that will change.
Tell that to the Canadian truckers during all the protests... they found out the hard way about what is and isn't Sound money.The difference with Bitcoin is that it is a way to hold wealth yourself. You hold it, you can take it anywhere. Your own personal Fort Knox.
Dont hold it on an exchange. Keep it on a cold wallet. Most amazing store of value ever invented. Can’t be inflated or confiscated, no chance of being hacked, no way of blocking or closing your account, no third party organisation to f
k things up…it’s all on you.Some people don’t get it or can’t handle it…but that will change.
Condi said:
Please do, I would love to hear it.
Yep, seconded. He can't differentiate an asset and money, nor why having both exhibit the same behaviour is bad. It's a nonsense argument he's cooked up. Just because it goes up in value doesn't mean it's a decent means of exchange - (heres a hint the value of investments go UP and DOWN). I've been long SPX for years, but I'm not demanding my corner shop takes 500 stocks for a loaf of bread.Why do these BTC maximilists conflate unrelated issues to form an argument, worse call others an idiot when they question it (conviently ignoring evidence like 3 day price vol from BBG....
ERIKM400 said:
People are not getting richer, they really are not.
Asset prices are rising faster than income.
So the ability of ordinary people to acquire "wealth" is decreasing.
It is interesting because that is the main line I usually hear people that are caught into crypto myth. (ignoring the first two sentences above because they basically mean nothing)Asset prices are rising faster than income.
So the ability of ordinary people to acquire "wealth" is decreasing.
I mentioned a few pages before, so there you go, I would like to see any of you crypto millionaires here to buy an actual property in U.K.
I'm yet to meet anyone who has done this. (Either cash or with leverage). Your conveyancer will not touch you, even if its full*cash purchase thats further risk for AML process.
ooid said:
It is interesting because that is the main line I usually hear people that are caught into crypto myth. (ignoring the first two sentences above because they basically mean nothing)
I mentioned a few pages before, so there you go, I would like to see any of you crypto millionaires here to buy an actual property in U.K.
I'm yet to meet anyone who has done this. (Either cash or with leverage). Your conveyancer will not touch you, even if its full*cash purchase thats further risk for AML process.
I have bought two properties with money from selling bitcoin. Total cost both properties low seven figures GBP. Refurb and development of another million or so partly funded through sales of bitcoin. I haven't bought property directly with bitcoin but one of the sellers was up for it and I can't see why it would cause any kind of problem. Do you have any experience in this area or are you just chatting breeze?I mentioned a few pages before, so there you go, I would like to see any of you crypto millionaires here to buy an actual property in U.K.
I'm yet to meet anyone who has done this. (Either cash or with leverage). Your conveyancer will not touch you, even if its full*cash purchase thats further risk for AML process.
OK, let's take a step back because I think we are not talking about the same things.
I do understand the differences between assets and money, thank you very much.
And I have told you that I'm not a BTC nor crypto maximalist and I do hold other assets.
So: what is a good store of value?
For me it's something that's going to be more valuable in the future than it is now and therefore worth investing in.
Time frame preference may be different for each of us but personally I'm happy with a four year or longer time frame for my investments.
From this perspective it's hard or impossible to find another asset that is outperforming BTC. Please prove me wrong and show me something that has appreciated more over the past decade than BTC.
For reference: BTC price in 2014 was about 1000$ at it's then ATH.
I have agreed with you on the fact that price volatility currently is a problem for BTC as a payment method or money if you like to consider it that way.
But try to look at it from this perspective: you say I get paid 2000$ in BTC which drops 20% in value and is now only worth 1600$ so I have a problem paying my rent or whatever.
But I've got the BTC I bought in 2018 at 6000$ which by now has appreciated 1000% to 60k $. So I will just use that, will still be massively in profit and keep the 2000$ of BTC that I just got paid for the next 4 years untill this appreciates by another 1000%. Rince and repeat.
As I have said over and over again: it's all about the time frame you're using.
I don't care about short time price volatility, I welcome 20% price drops because they give me an opportunity to invest more. The long term trend is up by 40% a year, that's what matters for me.
I do not agree that property prices are rising because of increasing demand. Population growth in the Western world has been slowing down in almost all countries and declining in a lot of them. So increased demand makes no sense, or at least not compared to the rate at which property prices are going up.
The real reason is decling purchasing power of fiat money.
I will bite on the fractional reserve banking subject: most commercial banks are leveraged 10 x or more. This means that about 10% of the money on the balance sheats is actually there. The rest is locked up in loans that someday will be paid back, investments that one day will return profits, etc...
It is not available at this moment.
So when 10% of clients want to withdraw their money NOW, the whole thing comes crashing down.
Try walking in to your bank and asking them for 10k £ in cash from your account.
"Sorry sir, can't do that. Regulations and law, you know. And please explain why you want to withdraw this sum of money"
And no, this has nothing to do with money laundering, tax evasion or criminal activities. Banks simply do not have the money they pretend to have.
This is exactly what happened with the banking crisis in 2008 (which ironically gave rise to the birth of BTC). People lost trust in the banking system, tried to retrieve their funds and the banking system went crashing down.
After which central banks decided to print a couple of trillion of $, £, € out of thin air to bail out the commercial banks and prevent their collaps. But hey, that's real money, not magic internet money without intrinsic value...
I'm not thick (university degree doctor, thanks for asking) nor trying to be obtuse. Just looking for some discussion on the pro and contra of crypto. There used to be some very interesting and enriching discussions on this forum from which I have learned a lot and made some serious money. Would like for this to return because currently it just seems to be religiously opposed points of view.
Apologies if this seems to apply to myself.
I do understand the differences between assets and money, thank you very much.
And I have told you that I'm not a BTC nor crypto maximalist and I do hold other assets.
So: what is a good store of value?
For me it's something that's going to be more valuable in the future than it is now and therefore worth investing in.
Time frame preference may be different for each of us but personally I'm happy with a four year or longer time frame for my investments.
From this perspective it's hard or impossible to find another asset that is outperforming BTC. Please prove me wrong and show me something that has appreciated more over the past decade than BTC.
For reference: BTC price in 2014 was about 1000$ at it's then ATH.
I have agreed with you on the fact that price volatility currently is a problem for BTC as a payment method or money if you like to consider it that way.
But try to look at it from this perspective: you say I get paid 2000$ in BTC which drops 20% in value and is now only worth 1600$ so I have a problem paying my rent or whatever.
But I've got the BTC I bought in 2018 at 6000$ which by now has appreciated 1000% to 60k $. So I will just use that, will still be massively in profit and keep the 2000$ of BTC that I just got paid for the next 4 years untill this appreciates by another 1000%. Rince and repeat.
As I have said over and over again: it's all about the time frame you're using.
I don't care about short time price volatility, I welcome 20% price drops because they give me an opportunity to invest more. The long term trend is up by 40% a year, that's what matters for me.
I do not agree that property prices are rising because of increasing demand. Population growth in the Western world has been slowing down in almost all countries and declining in a lot of them. So increased demand makes no sense, or at least not compared to the rate at which property prices are going up.
The real reason is decling purchasing power of fiat money.
I will bite on the fractional reserve banking subject: most commercial banks are leveraged 10 x or more. This means that about 10% of the money on the balance sheats is actually there. The rest is locked up in loans that someday will be paid back, investments that one day will return profits, etc...
It is not available at this moment.
So when 10% of clients want to withdraw their money NOW, the whole thing comes crashing down.
Try walking in to your bank and asking them for 10k £ in cash from your account.
"Sorry sir, can't do that. Regulations and law, you know. And please explain why you want to withdraw this sum of money"
And no, this has nothing to do with money laundering, tax evasion or criminal activities. Banks simply do not have the money they pretend to have.
This is exactly what happened with the banking crisis in 2008 (which ironically gave rise to the birth of BTC). People lost trust in the banking system, tried to retrieve their funds and the banking system went crashing down.
After which central banks decided to print a couple of trillion of $, £, € out of thin air to bail out the commercial banks and prevent their collaps. But hey, that's real money, not magic internet money without intrinsic value...
I'm not thick (university degree doctor, thanks for asking) nor trying to be obtuse. Just looking for some discussion on the pro and contra of crypto. There used to be some very interesting and enriching discussions on this forum from which I have learned a lot and made some serious money. Would like for this to return because currently it just seems to be religiously opposed points of view.
Apologies if this seems to apply to myself.
dimots said:
I have bought two properties with money from selling bitcoin. Total cost both properties low seven figures GBP. Refurb and development of another million or so partly funded through sales of bitcoin. I haven't bought property directly with bitcoin but one of the sellers was up for it and I can't see why it would cause any kind of problem. Do you have any experience in this area or are you just chatting breeze?
So your solicitors completed AML checks with your 7 figures directly coming from crypto investments with non-issue at all?I genuinely would like to know who was your conveyancing/ solicitors and what sort of insurance they got.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff