Crypto Currency Thread (Vol.2)
Discussion
Condi said:
I understand why it's unique, but don't see why it's valuable.
Maybe you could explain the benefits to average Joe? Someone who has a bank account, a middle income salary, pays his mortgage on time, uses credit cards to buy things online.
If the answer is "it's not for them", then who's it for? Even Nigerians in the middle of nowhere have payment via their mobile phones.
Watch this. 15 minutes and you should understand everything from what we mean when we say bitcoin is a protocol, to the applications of it, to why decentralization is essential, to why bitcoin is so secure, to why hash rate is so important. It's one of the most comprehensive introductions to bitcoin I have seen.Maybe you could explain the benefits to average Joe? Someone who has a bank account, a middle income salary, pays his mortgage on time, uses credit cards to buy things online.
If the answer is "it's not for them", then who's it for? Even Nigerians in the middle of nowhere have payment via their mobile phones.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_HW0x8V0o4
Condi said:
BandOfBrothers said:
Aren't you missing the very aspect that makes BTC unique and valuable amongst crypto currencies - its complete decentralisation?
If you don't see that as valuable and unique to BTC, then I'd suggest you don't actually understand it.
I understand why it's unique, but don't see why it's valuable. If you don't see that as valuable and unique to BTC, then I'd suggest you don't actually understand it.
Maybe you could explain the benefits to average Joe? Someone who has a bank account, a middle income salary, pays his mortgage on time, uses credit cards to buy things online.
If the answer is "it's not for them", then who's it for? Even Nigerians in the middle of nowhere have payment via their mobile phones.
It's incredibly (and uniquely) valuable if your government goes tits up, or decides it wants to take your assets or other governments place sanctions against your government and national currency.
I suspect a lot of the current demand is from Russians.
decentralisation is only a benefit to a particular group of the population; mainly tinfoil hat people. The rest of the population either believe centralisation is a good thing, and the rest don't give a f
k... certainly not enough to have to deal with the complexities and volatility of crypto.
k... certainly not enough to have to deal with the complexities and volatility of crypto. Blown2CV said:
decentralisation is only a benefit to a particular group of the population; mainly tinfoil hat people. The rest of the population either believe centralisation is a good thing, and the rest don't give a fk... certainly not enough to have to deal with the complexities and volatility of crypto.
I wonder if the Russians thought that 3 years ago too?k... certainly not enough to have to deal with the complexities and volatility of crypto. Not to mention that the vast majority of the Western governments have national debts levels that would have been considered crippling even only a decade ago. That all has to unwind somehow too.
dimots said:
Watch this. 15 minutes and you should understand everything from what we mean when we say bitcoin is a protocol, to the applications of it, to why decentralization is essential, to why bitcoin is so secure, to why hash rate is so important. It's one of the most comprehensive introductions to bitcoin I have seen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_HW0x8V0o4
I get "what" it is, I don't "why" it is. He calls it "cash for the internet" which clearly is inferior to using a credit card for most people, not least because anyone in the UK using a credit card gets Section 7 protection, and is also protected against scams and fraud by the bank being liable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_HW0x8V0o4
It also makes me laugh that he claims central banks are held back by their own rules, and yet Bitcoin has far far more ridged rules than central banks operate under. Central banks can, pretty much, do what they like - they are judged by investors and the market - there are very few central bank rules which "cannot be broken".
Condi said:
there are very few central bank rules which "cannot be broken".
"The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust."Satoshi Nakamoto
One doesn't wait until your house is burned down to buy some insurance.
Condi said:
I get "what" it is, I don't "why" it is. He calls it "cash for the internet" which clearly is inferior to using a credit card for most people, not least because anyone in the UK using a credit card gets Section 7 protection, and is also protected against scams and fraud by the bank being liable.
It also makes me laugh that he claims central banks are held back by their own rules, and yet Bitcoin has far far more ridged rules than central banks operate under. Central banks can, pretty much, do what they like - they are judged by investors and the market - there are very few central bank rules which "cannot be broken".
He's talking about creating an electronic protocol for cash. You don't seem to understand what that means in terms of why it is good and why it is a logical and practical improvement to the system of money we have now. The root of your entire position seems to be 'Money needs banks'.It also makes me laugh that he claims central banks are held back by their own rules, and yet Bitcoin has far far more ridged rules than central banks operate under. Central banks can, pretty much, do what they like - they are judged by investors and the market - there are very few central bank rules which "cannot be broken".
Money doesn't need banks. Or governments. Money can be completely democratised. In fact, I'd go much further than that...ownership of everything can be democratised through tokenization AS LONG AS that tokenization is decentralised.
I don't know why you are so locked into your little bubble, it's weird tbh.
dimots said:
He's talking about creating an electronic protocol for cash. You don't seem to understand what that means in terms of why it is good and why it is a logical and practical improvement to the system of money we have now. The root of your entire position seems to be 'Money needs banks'.
Money doesn't need banks. Or governments. Money can be completely democratised. In fact, I'd go much further than that...ownership of everything can be democratised through tokenization AS LONG AS that tokenization is decentralised.
I don't know why you are so locked into your little bubble, it's weird tbh.
I don't see why you are unable to understand the economics and realpolitik of money and why it is highly beneficial that central banks can control the supply of that money and change interest rates, and why it is economically useful that currencies can float relative to one another. It's weird tbh. Money doesn't need banks. Or governments. Money can be completely democratised. In fact, I'd go much further than that...ownership of everything can be democratised through tokenization AS LONG AS that tokenization is decentralised.
I don't know why you are so locked into your little bubble, it's weird tbh.
Didn't you learn much from the Euro crisis in 2008/2010, when countries were unable to devalue their own currency compared with other countries? If a single currency barely works across Europe it's never going to be something which can apply across the world. Also a clear issue with something which is limited to 21m coins is that people hoard it because they think it's always going to go up in value. Look at the past few pages of this thread - it's not a currency it's a store of value/investment (apparently). It always goes up in value! Great, but totally useless for use as "digital cash" if nobody wants to spend it!
And again, for 99.99% of people this does nothing which is an improvement over the systems they already have. You seem either naïve to or are simply ignoring the issues with Btc, and while in your opinion Btc is better than what we have, you've never once explained why Average Joe would benefit from Btc over £/$.
Condi said:
I don't see why you are unable to understand the economics and realpolitik of money and why it is highly beneficial that central banks can control the supply of that money and change interest rates, and why it is economically useful that currencies can float relative to one another. It's weird tbh.
It's useful in a centrally planned monetary system. Which is extractive and a net negative for most regular people in the economy. The cantillon effect is alive and well in every wealth distribution chart you might wish to peruse. If your savings are constantly devalued through inflation of the money supply you need to become a savvy investor in order to beat inflation and not become poor. This is also evident in the long term trends of asset and equity price inflation (in fiat terms) and the down trend in savings and a strategic disincentive to save in 'money'. Keynsian economics is non-sensical because it supposes that a centralised authority is omniscient to the monetary needs of an organic and highly complex financial system. This is now slowly unravelling due to the excessive debt loads and the very real knowledge that $1 spent to stimulate an economy does not yield $1 of economic growth and that number is falling by the year.
Mises said:
Sustainable economic growth depends on individual producers’ freedom to divide their income into consumption and saving in accordance with their own preferences, not the preferences assumed for them by politicians and bureaucrats. It is a bizarre delusion to argue that a sustainable outcome which reflects agent preferences can be improved by manipulating interest rates or credit markets. At best, such manipulations can only increase short-term production through inflation. As repeated experience has demonstrated, they can also bring about speculative bubbles and recurrent recessions which make welfare-maximizing consumption smoothing impossible. Monetary expansion and deficit financing should hardly be promoted as welfare-enhancing policy measures, the Keynesian resurgence notwithstanding.
https://mises.org/quarterly-journal-austrian-economics/central-fallacy-keynesian-economicsCondi said:
Didn't you learn much from the Euro crisis in 2008/2010, when countries were unable to devalue their own currency compared with other countries?
Yes, I learned that I don't want faceless bureaucrats in a central bank deciding when we should accept that our money has been devalued. Condi said:
And again, for 99.99% of people this does nothing which is an improvement over the systems they already have. You seem either naïve to or are simply ignoring the issues with Btc, and while in your opinion Btc is better than what we have, you've never once explained why Average Joe would benefit from Btc over £/$.
No, it's better for some. Its worse for others. That 99% in one country that it doesn't 'work' for, could be 99% of people in a country that it does work for. That doesn't mean that it has failed, just that it is entirely situational. Condi said:
dimots said:
He's talking about creating an electronic protocol for cash. You don't seem to understand what that means in terms of why it is good and why it is a logical and practical improvement to the system of money we have now. The root of your entire position seems to be 'Money needs banks'.
Money doesn't need banks. Or governments. Money can be completely democratised. In fact, I'd go much further than that...ownership of everything can be democratised through tokenization AS LONG AS that tokenization is decentralised.
I don't know why you are so locked into your little bubble, it's weird tbh.
I don't see why you are unable to understand the economics and realpolitik of money and why it is highly beneficial that central banks can control the supply of that money and change interest rates, and why it is economically useful that currencies can float relative to one another. It's weird tbh. Money doesn't need banks. Or governments. Money can be completely democratised. In fact, I'd go much further than that...ownership of everything can be democratised through tokenization AS LONG AS that tokenization is decentralised.
I don't know why you are so locked into your little bubble, it's weird tbh.
Didn't you learn much from the Euro crisis in 2008/2010, when countries were unable to devalue their own currency compared with other countries? If a single currency barely works across Europe it's never going to be something which can apply across the world. Also a clear issue with something which is limited to 21m coins is that people hoard it because they think it's always going to go up in value. Look at the past few pages of this thread - it's not a currency it's a store of value/investment (apparently). It always goes up in value! Great, but totally useless for use as "digital cash" if nobody wants to spend it!
And again, for 99.99% of people this does nothing which is an improvement over the systems they already have. You seem either naïve to or are simply ignoring the issues with Btc, and while in your opinion Btc is better than what we have, you've never once explained why Average Joe would benefit from Btc over £/$.
And BTC is no more speculative in its nature than gold, apparently the most popular store of wealth. People are choosing to speculate in it, but they could equally choose to speculate in tulips.
In fact BTC has fewer speculative qualities than gold, because the finite amount is known and it doesn't have any other use than as a currency to distort demand.
And arguing that removing a government's ability to devalue currency to get itself out of trouble as a positive is questionable too.
BandOfBrothers said:
Who is hoarding BTC?
Everyone who considers it an investment rather than a currency. Everyone who is not using it for what it was designed to do. IE, most people on this thread who have spent the last 3 pages arguing it's an investment and look how much money we've made! BandOfBrothers said:
And BTC is no more speculative in its nature than gold, apparently the most popular store of wealth. People are choosing to speculate in it, but they could equally choose to speculate in tulips.
In fact BTC has fewer speculative qualities than gold, because the finite amount is known and it doesn't have any other use than as a currency to distort demand.
Is this bit true? I would guess the amount of money in shares/bonds/gilts vastly exceeds the amount in gold. In fact BTC has fewer speculative qualities than gold, because the finite amount is known and it doesn't have any other use than as a currency to distort demand.
And you're right, it has very few uses, but you seem to be confusing yourself - you're saying it's use is as a currency then saying people are using it to speculate with. Evidence of its use as a currency is very few and far between, very few places accept bitcoin.
BandOfBrothers said:
And arguing that removing a government's ability to devalue currency to get itself out of trouble as a positive is questionable too.
Why is it questionable? The ability to float currencies is a huge buffer or crash barrier against economic conditions, by actively making the country more competitive and so going some way to offset the economic hardship of the people. Unless you have a considered opinion to the contrary, rather than just dismissing it because in your idealised world you don't like the idea.
Condi said:
Why is it questionable? The ability to float currencies is a huge buffer or crash barrier against economic conditions, by actively making the country more competitive and so going some way to offset the economic hardship of the people.
Unless you have a considered opinion to the contrary, rather than just dismissing it because in your idealised world you don't like the idea.
The considered opinion to the contrary is Austrian economics. Of which there are many proponents who repeatedly call out the ultimate and messy failure of every centrally managed and easily printable fiat currency throughout historical example. Read some Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, or Menger. Unless you have a considered opinion to the contrary, rather than just dismissing it because in your idealised world you don't like the idea.
Hell, if you haven't, go read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. You can't argue the for position without understand the basics of the against position. Outwith the boundaries of this forum.
If Keynesian economics worked we wouldn't be having this conversation. There is no successful example of Keynesian economics. It didn’t work for Hoover and Roosevelt in the 1930s. It didn’t work for Japan in the 1990s. It didn’t work for Bush in 2001 or 2008, and it didn’t work for Obama. It didn't work for any of the countries through the GFC or the pandemic QE.
Keynesian economics looks to transform saving into consumption (hence an almost complete collapse in savings). But a recession or depression exists when national income is falling. Shifting how some of that income is used does not solve the problem and creating money from thin air is only papering over the cracks of a lack of savings. If people had savings in something that couldn't be devalued easily, then hardships can be survived.
In reality, the idealised world you are talking about is where MMT and Keynesian economics actually works. The rest of history dictates that it doesn't.
Edited by RichTT on Tuesday 7th May 13:51
Condi said:
ERIKM400 said:
You're not proving anything. The point you are making is entirely separate to the one I am making, either you don't understand that or are ignoring it because it doesn't fit your narrative.
Great, you've made money. Congratulations.
However, it's still a terrible store of value and is too volatile to be of any use as it was originally intended, ie as a currency or payment method.
OK, let's take this argument down to the most basic level.
What is a store of value?
For me it is an asset that will garuantuee that my future purchasing power will be at least equal to or preferably superior to my current situation.
I have shown you that my crypto investments do just that: 100% gains over just one year and I can show you > 1000% over the last six years.
But, still you consider it to be a bad store of value?
So please tell me, what is it that I should be investing in instead?
Everyone who has invested in BTC and held on for 4 years or more is in profit.
Each and everyone. Bear markets and all that.
The only way you can drive your point about volatility home is by using carefully selected short time frames when the market goes down.
As I have said numereous times before: it's all about the time frame you're using.
Spoiler alert: markets going down is when you buy, markets going up is when you sell. That's how you make money and get rich. Free advice.
Great, you've made money. Congratulations.
However, it's still a terrible store of value and is too volatile to be of any use as it was originally intended, ie as a currency or payment method.
OK, let's take this argument down to the most basic level.
What is a store of value?
For me it is an asset that will garuantuee that my future purchasing power will be at least equal to or preferably superior to my current situation.
I have shown you that my crypto investments do just that: 100% gains over just one year and I can show you > 1000% over the last six years.
But, still you consider it to be a bad store of value?
So please tell me, what is it that I should be investing in instead?
Everyone who has invested in BTC and held on for 4 years or more is in profit.
Each and everyone. Bear markets and all that.
The only way you can drive your point about volatility home is by using carefully selected short time frames when the market goes down.
As I have said numereous times before: it's all about the time frame you're using.
Spoiler alert: markets going down is when you buy, markets going up is when you sell. That's how you make money and get rich. Free advice.
Condi said:
ERIKM400 said:
Maybe you (or anyone else) could answer a very simple question - What use does Bitcoin or any other crypto have? Dimots will tell you it's the worlds future reserve currency. You may say an investment. Someone else may say it's a gambling asset. Morgan Stanley would might say it's simply a product they can charge huge fees for customers to access.
It's protecting the wealth I managed to accumulate by hard work from the continuous devaluation of fiat currecy through inflation (which you think is a good thing although you still have not explained this to me).
And by the way, still eagerly awaiting your comments on the BTC ETF's
It's protecting the wealth I managed to accumulate by hard work from the continuous devaluation of fiat currecy through inflation (which you think is a good thing although you still have not explained this to me).
And by the way, still eagerly awaiting your comments on the BTC ETF's
ERIKM400 said:
For me it is an asset that will garuantuee that my future purchasing power will be at least equal to or preferably superior to my current situation.
I have shown you that my crypto investments do just that: 100% gains over just one year and I can show you > 1000% over the last six years.
But, still you consider it to be a bad store of value?
Lol, can you read a chart?! I have shown you that my crypto investments do just that: 100% gains over just one year and I can show you > 1000% over the last six years.
But, still you consider it to be a bad store of value?
What about this is guaranteed? You have no idea where Btc is going next, all you're doing is looking at it over a time frame and going "its guaranteed to go up" when it has had several large dips which have resulted in 50%+ reductions in price and have taken years to recover from. If it was guaranteed to go up it wouldn't have this big drops would it? If you bought in 2017 it might have taken 3 years to be in profit, if you bought in 2021 it could have taken 3 years again. I wouldn't consider something which can drop 50%+ in a matter of months and take years to recover "guaranteed to go up" or a "good store of value". What if you need that cash when it's 50% down (which it could do, over the next few months, you have literally no idea)? A good store of value is not volatile, but is predictable, Bitcoin is anything but.
Honestly, if you look at this chart and think it's "guaranteed to go up" and is a "good store of value" then there is little point continuing this discussion.
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
― George Orwell, 1984
@condi....
you asked about 'which institutional inestors' are investing in BTC....
well for starters there's 700+ who effectively own/back it by having bought shares of MSTR....i'm guessing you'd agree that they didn't bu the shares on the back of MSTR's software business - but rather the BTC which they've owned/added to since before the US ETF's were launched.
among those insitutions, yeah, blackroak themselves, vanguard and various other banks, includin the national bank of norway....
but hey, keep calling it currency and keep banging on about how it can't be a currency.....and in doing so, you're attributing a label and then arguing your point on that label!
and as for your thoughts/comments about blockchain etc....
So VISA starting to trial/rollout crossborder payments on Solan is a nothing burger then? ie/ one of the major payments vehicles has publicly acknowledged that blockcahins such as SOL will have a role to play, due to the speed of finality and crazy cheap costs.
Time will tell, and prob not that far into the future.....
meanwhile:
who decided that sparkly stomnes were a currency/investment/store of value - how long that take to catch on
same with sparkly metals
same with evolution from promisary note to banks, central banks etc
and forget the tinfoil.....coins used to be worth an mount of corresponding 'hard currency' - whether silver/gold, guess what, the governments fked everyone by dilutiing the amount of said precious metal. Ring a bell? or any alarm bells - national debts around teh world that cannot ever be repiad, - so they turn on the money printer.
so yeah, i kind of like the fact that there's only ever going to be around 15-17M BTC ( albeit highly divisible)...and before you bang on about 'there's 21M' - yep, correct, but umpteen have been proven to have been lost in the early days.
you asked about 'which institutional inestors' are investing in BTC....
well for starters there's 700+ who effectively own/back it by having bought shares of MSTR....i'm guessing you'd agree that they didn't bu the shares on the back of MSTR's software business - but rather the BTC which they've owned/added to since before the US ETF's were launched.
among those insitutions, yeah, blackroak themselves, vanguard and various other banks, includin the national bank of norway....
but hey, keep calling it currency and keep banging on about how it can't be a currency.....and in doing so, you're attributing a label and then arguing your point on that label!
and as for your thoughts/comments about blockchain etc....
So VISA starting to trial/rollout crossborder payments on Solan is a nothing burger then? ie/ one of the major payments vehicles has publicly acknowledged that blockcahins such as SOL will have a role to play, due to the speed of finality and crazy cheap costs.
Time will tell, and prob not that far into the future.....
meanwhile:
who decided that sparkly stomnes were a currency/investment/store of value - how long that take to catch on
same with sparkly metals
same with evolution from promisary note to banks, central banks etc
and forget the tinfoil.....coins used to be worth an mount of corresponding 'hard currency' - whether silver/gold, guess what, the governments f
ked everyone by dilutiing the amount of said precious metal. Ring a bell? or any alarm bells - national debts around teh world that cannot ever be repiad, - so they turn on the money printer.so yeah, i kind of like the fact that there's only ever going to be around 15-17M BTC ( albeit highly divisible)...and before you bang on about 'there's 21M' - yep, correct, but umpteen have been proven to have been lost in the early days.
Condi said:
Lol, can you read a chart?!
Can you?1yr return on weekly DCA - 83.52%
2yr return on weekly DCA - 143.17%
3yr return on weekly DCA - 112.78%
4yr return on weekly DCA - 165.23%
5yr return on weekly DCA - 269.27%
6yr return on weekly DCA - 423.82%
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dollarcostave...
Edited by RichTT on Wednesday 8th May 06:28
RichTT said:
Can you?
1yr return on weekly DCA - 83.52%
2yr return on weekly DCA - 143.17%
3yr return on weekly DCA - 112.78%
4yr return on weekly DCA - 165.23%
5yr return on weekly DCA - 269.27%
6yr return on weekly DCA - 423.82%
This doesn't make it a good store of value, you clearly don't understand what you're talking about. Store of value is about the volatility of the instrument, ie how likely is it to be worth today's value in 1/3/6/12 months time. Bitcoin is absolutely terrible for that because it is volatile. This isn't something made up, it's mathematical, it's measurable. 1yr return on weekly DCA - 83.52%
2yr return on weekly DCA - 143.17%
3yr return on weekly DCA - 112.78%
4yr return on weekly DCA - 165.23%
5yr return on weekly DCA - 269.27%
6yr return on weekly DCA - 423.82%
Also, those figures above only look good because of Btc's current price, if in 6 months it has gone down by 20/30/40% (hardly unprecedented) then they'll look nowhere near so favourable. You cannot predict where it will be in 3 months or 6 months.
greengreenwood7 said:
@condi....
you asked about 'which institutional inestors' are investing in BTC....
well for starters there's 700+ who effectively own/back it by having bought shares of MSTR....i'm guessing you'd agree that they didn't bu the shares on the back of MSTR's software business - but rather the BTC which they've owned/added to since before the US ETF's were launched.
among those insitutions, yeah, blackroak themselves, vanguard and various other banks, includin the national bank of norway....
You don't think these companies own MSTR because they're massive holders of market tracker funds and so buy into all listed companies? And you think that the company has a market cap of $22bn because it owns $5/7bn of Btc - that's one hell of a premium to pay!! you asked about 'which institutional inestors' are investing in BTC....
well for starters there's 700+ who effectively own/back it by having bought shares of MSTR....i'm guessing you'd agree that they didn't bu the shares on the back of MSTR's software business - but rather the BTC which they've owned/added to since before the US ETF's were launched.
among those insitutions, yeah, blackroak themselves, vanguard and various other banks, includin the national bank of norway....
greengreenwood7 said:
So VISA starting to trial/rollout crossborder payments on Solan is a nothing burger then? ie/ one of the major payments vehicles has publicly acknowledged that blockcahins such as SOL will have a role to play, due to the speed of finality and crazy cheap costs.
Possibly so, but I can guarantee you one thing, Visa will not be buying SOL coins to use it. Blockchain/token asset tech may well become a thing, but it will be mainly B2B and will be paid for by those using it without the need to buy volatile price coins. greengreenwood7 said:
so yeah, i kind of like the fact that there's only ever going to be around 15-17M BTC ( albeit highly divisible)...and before you bang on about 'there's 21M' - yep, correct, but umpteen have been proven to have been lost in the early days.
So what prevents people from simply hoarding it? Why would anyone ever sell something which has a known, finite quantity if they believe it has some utility or value? Our money supply increases on purpose - to discourage exactly what I've described - to discourage people from simply sitting on it without it doing any useful work. There are clearly issues with both (deflationary and inflationary) but of the 2 a moderately inflationary money supply is generally seen as preferable for an economy to work. Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff