Crypto Currency Thread (Vol.2)
Discussion
Condi said:
Really?! You don't understand, clearly. What makes GBP legit is that it's backed by the BoE, hence every note says "I promise to pay the bearer on demand".
Which is why the only crypto which ever will be "legitimate" is a CBDC, not bitcoin, not anything else.
From the BoE's own website:Which is why the only crypto which ever will be "legitimate" is a CBDC, not bitcoin, not anything else.
[i] "The words ‘I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of five/ten/twenty/fifty pounds’ appear on all of our notes. This phrase dates from long ago when our notes represented deposits of gold. At that time, a member of the public could exchange one of our banknotes for gold of the same value. For example, a £5 note could be exchanged for five gold coins, called sovereigns.
However, the value of the pound has not been linked to gold for many years, so the meaning of the promise to pay has changed. You can no longer exchange banknotes for gold. You can only exchange them for other Bank of England banknotes of the same face value. " [/i]
Which means that what actually makes GBP valuable is the public's willingness to accept it as a medium of exchange. And, again, from the BoE's own website:
[i] " You might have heard someone in a shop say: “But it’s legal tender!”. Most people think it means the shop has to accept the payment form. But that’s not the case.
A shop owner can choose what payment they accept. If you want to pay for a pack of gum with a £50 note, it’s perfectly legal to turn you down. Likewise for all other banknotes, it’s a matter of discretion. If your local corner shop decided to only accept payments in Pokémon cards that would be within their right too. But they’d probably lose customers. " [/i]
And what makes people accept a currency is often (particularly the case with the USD) the threat of violence. For example, if an oil-rich country suddenly decides it will accept bitcoin or yuan or roubles for oil, expect to be invaded and/or the ruler to be assassinated or exiled in a coup.
As for what will be considered "legitimate", if the public considers CBDCs as being a social credit-related surveillance tool, they may simply refuse to engage. It is impossible in the long-term for a government to outlaw the use of a form of money if enough people use it. It's not easy to jail a billion people.
Harris_I said:
Which means that what actually makes GBP valuable is the public's willingness to accept it as a medium of exchange.
As for what will be considered "legitimate", if the public considers CBDCs as being a social credit-related surveillance tool, they may simply refuse to engage. It is impossible in the long-term for a government to outlaw the use of a form of money if enough people use it. It's not easy to jail a billion people.
When I said the BoE I meant more that they will lend in GBP. As for what will be considered "legitimate", if the public considers CBDCs as being a social credit-related surveillance tool, they may simply refuse to engage. It is impossible in the long-term for a government to outlaw the use of a form of money if enough people use it. It's not easy to jail a billion people.
I would also strongly argue what makes GBP valuable is the government's willingness to accept it as a medium of exchange.
While you can borrow from the reserve bank in a currency, and pay your taxes in that currency, then it will continue to be "legitimate". That is a status Bitcoin will never achieve.
Condi said:
Really?! You don't understand, clearly. What makes GBP legit is that it's backed by the BoE, hence every note says "I promise to pay the bearer on demand".
Which is why the only crypto which ever will be "legitimate" is a CBDC, not bitcoin, not anything else.
This is a major L for you. Backing a CBDC with fiat is like getting Father Christmas to be your guarantor.Which is why the only crypto which ever will be "legitimate" is a CBDC, not bitcoin, not anything else.
Condi said:
Seventyseven7 said:
. It's probably similar to what makes GBP legit and what makes the IRR legit.
Really?! You don't understand, clearly. What makes GBP legit is that it's backed by the BoE, hence every note says "I promise to pay the bearer on demand". Which is why the only crypto which ever will be "legitimate" is a CBDC, not bitcoin, not anything else.
It's a common misconception that the phrase 'I promise to pay the bearer on demand' on GBP banknotes implies a backing by physical commodities. In reality, the legitimacy of the pound doesn't come from a guarantee by the Bank of England to exchange notes for gold or any other tangible asset.
Harris_I said:
From the BoE's own website:
[i] "The words ‘I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of five/ten/twenty/fifty pounds’ appear on all of our notes. This phrase dates from long ago when our notes represented deposits of gold. At that time, a member of the public could exchange one of our banknotes for gold of the same value. For example, a £5 note could be exchanged for five gold coins, called sovereigns.
However, the value of the pound has not been linked to gold for many years, so the meaning of the promise to pay has changed. You can no longer exchange banknotes for gold. You can only exchange them for other Bank of England banknotes of the same face value. " [/i]
Which means that what actually makes GBP valuable is the public's willingness to accept it as a medium of exchange. And, again, from the BoE's own website:
[i] " You might have heard someone in a shop say: “But it’s legal tender!”. Most people think it means the shop has to accept the payment form. But that’s not the case.
A shop owner can choose what payment they accept. If you want to pay for a pack of gum with a £50 note, it’s perfectly legal to turn you down. Likewise for all other banknotes, it’s a matter of discretion. If your local corner shop decided to only accept payments in Pokémon cards that would be within their right too. But they’d probably lose customers. " [/i]
And what makes people accept a currency is often (particularly the case with the USD) the threat of violence. For example, if an oil-rich country suddenly decides it will accept bitcoin or yuan or roubles for oil, expect to be invaded and/or the ruler to be assassinated or exiled in a coup.
As for what will be considered "legitimate", if the public considers CBDCs as being a social credit-related surveillance tool, they may simply refuse to engage. It is impossible in the long-term for a government to outlaw the use of a form of money if enough people use it. It's not easy to jail a billion people.
That depends if it is a first edition charizard or not[i] "The words ‘I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of five/ten/twenty/fifty pounds’ appear on all of our notes. This phrase dates from long ago when our notes represented deposits of gold. At that time, a member of the public could exchange one of our banknotes for gold of the same value. For example, a £5 note could be exchanged for five gold coins, called sovereigns.
However, the value of the pound has not been linked to gold for many years, so the meaning of the promise to pay has changed. You can no longer exchange banknotes for gold. You can only exchange them for other Bank of England banknotes of the same face value. " [/i]
Which means that what actually makes GBP valuable is the public's willingness to accept it as a medium of exchange. And, again, from the BoE's own website:
[i] " You might have heard someone in a shop say: “But it’s legal tender!”. Most people think it means the shop has to accept the payment form. But that’s not the case.
A shop owner can choose what payment they accept. If you want to pay for a pack of gum with a £50 note, it’s perfectly legal to turn you down. Likewise for all other banknotes, it’s a matter of discretion. If your local corner shop decided to only accept payments in Pokémon cards that would be within their right too. But they’d probably lose customers. " [/i]
And what makes people accept a currency is often (particularly the case with the USD) the threat of violence. For example, if an oil-rich country suddenly decides it will accept bitcoin or yuan or roubles for oil, expect to be invaded and/or the ruler to be assassinated or exiled in a coup.
As for what will be considered "legitimate", if the public considers CBDCs as being a social credit-related surveillance tool, they may simply refuse to engage. It is impossible in the long-term for a government to outlaw the use of a form of money if enough people use it. It's not easy to jail a billion people.
Seventyseven7 said:
It's a common misconception that the phrase 'I promise to pay the bearer on demand' on GBP banknotes implies a backing by physical commodities. In reality, the legitimacy of the pound doesn't come from a guarantee by the Bank of England to exchange notes for gold or any other tangible asset.
No, as explained above, the legitimacy of the Pound is because the BoE will lend (and accept repayments) in the currency, and it is the only way you can pay taxes to the government. The "I promise to pay the bearer on demand" is more taken to mean that it will be accepted/redeemed at the BoE for it's face value.
Anyway, SBF, guilty of a multi-billion dollar fraud. And that was supposed to be the "legitimate" and "professional" face of crypto exchanges.
Imagine what the others are up to! Condi said:
Seventyseven7 said:
It's a common misconception that the phrase 'I promise to pay the bearer on demand' on GBP banknotes implies a backing by physical commodities. In reality, the legitimacy of the pound doesn't come from a guarantee by the Bank of England to exchange notes for gold or any other tangible asset.
No, as explained above, the legitimacy of the Pound is because the BoE will lend (and accept repayments) in the currency, and it is the only way you can pay taxes to the government. The "I promise to pay the bearer on demand" is more taken to mean that it will be accepted/redeemed at the BoE for it's face value.
Anyway, SBF, guilty of a multi-billion dollar fraud. And that was supposed to be the "legitimate" and "professional" face of crypto exchanges.
Imagine what the others are up to! The major ones are Coinbase, Kraken and Binance. SBF spent a load of money trying to market FTX but I don't think it had the same sort of reputation as the 3 I listed.
g4ry13 said:
Was it though?
The major ones are Coinbase, Kraken and Binance. SBF spent a load of money trying to market FTX but I don't think it had the same sort of reputation as the 3 I listed.
It was certainly trying to be, and was the most "well connected" firm with regards to it's presence in front of lawmakers (ironic!). The major ones are Coinbase, Kraken and Binance. SBF spent a load of money trying to market FTX but I don't think it had the same sort of reputation as the 3 I listed.
People I listen too that talk about central banks, economics, debt, monetary system in general, often talk of Bitcoin in a positive or at least not totally negative way. (wealth mobility benefits etc)
There are also ones with Condi type views that I also think are switched on/reasonable.
There was the explosion of alt etc coins/tokens after/with Bitcoin, that are largely speculative (at best), this is where the exploiters, greed and hype came in .
So Crypto is a range of complete corruption fraud to interesting electronic ledger systems mainly Bitcoin. Bitcoin does at least have structure/substance, but I for one still can't get over the digital/nothing (in my eyes nature) but do see the parallel that money is in essence a ledger of sorts and Bitcoin mirrors this in some ways.
My luddite'ness still veers towards real things, everyone is talking about AI and it's use/dangers, now I can see AI creating a Bitcoin type system, lot's of digital progress (AI being tasked with "what is the best monetary system for humans" would be interesting!?) but it'll never be able to create different elements, and very very unlikely to allow us to 'make' elements we desire.
I accept the system we have (as we all have to) but the more I watch/read/listen to the less I like it! it seems like the path we are on isn't sustainable and so will lead to something needing to change, but I have no idea when and what will transpire.
There are also ones with Condi type views that I also think are switched on/reasonable.
There was the explosion of alt etc coins/tokens after/with Bitcoin, that are largely speculative (at best), this is where the exploiters, greed and hype came in .
So Crypto is a range of complete corruption fraud to interesting electronic ledger systems mainly Bitcoin. Bitcoin does at least have structure/substance, but I for one still can't get over the digital/nothing (in my eyes nature) but do see the parallel that money is in essence a ledger of sorts and Bitcoin mirrors this in some ways.
My luddite'ness still veers towards real things, everyone is talking about AI and it's use/dangers, now I can see AI creating a Bitcoin type system, lot's of digital progress (AI being tasked with "what is the best monetary system for humans" would be interesting!?) but it'll never be able to create different elements, and very very unlikely to allow us to 'make' elements we desire.
I accept the system we have (as we all have to) but the more I watch/read/listen to the less I like it! it seems like the path we are on isn't sustainable and so will lead to something needing to change, but I have no idea when and what will transpire.
Condi said:
No, as explained above, the legitimacy of the Pound is because the BoE will lend (and accept repayments) in the currency, and it is the only way you can pay taxes to the government.
In the US, many politicians have switched on to the concept of bitcoin and are seeking ways to accommodate. The SEC itself has designated bitcoin a commodity (which is a key step towards recognising it as currency), and most other altcoins as securities.In the UK, HMRC has accommodated digital assets within the definitions of taxable wealth, which is the first step towards recognition and "legitimacy" (in quotation marks because some people consider a thing to be legitimate if it is legitimate in the eyes of government), even if they do not currently consider it "money".
Consider a catastrophic economic event taking place - perhaps bigger than Liz Truss tanking the value of GBP, perhaps a combination of the 2007 crisis plus an oil embargo. At a point of economic turmoil, people look for safe havens and potentially seek to store value in gold, bitcoin and other commodities. If the general public no longer has confidence in GBP, we may replace it with something else we do see as having long term value. It becomes irrelevant at that point as to whether BoE lends to banks in GBP or purchases bonds in GBP or increases the value of reserves in GBP.
If a government can no longer prop up the value of its currency, there is no golden rule that says they cannot accommodate another form of money, even be paid tax in it.
Harris_I said:
In the US, many politicians have switched on to the concept of bitcoin and are seeking ways to accommodate. The SEC itself has designated bitcoin a commodity (which is a key step towards recognising it as currency), and most other altcoins as securities.
Your assumption that recognising it as a commodity is a key step towards using it as a currency is stretched at best. Bitcoin had to be "something". Crypto couldn't exist outside of the regulatory system forever, by categorising them as a security or commodity simply means it comes under the jurisdiction of the CFTC or SEC respectively. Anyone who understands geo-politics will know the greatest asset the US has is it's control of the US Dollar. The sanctions regimes it can enforce are far far more efficient than anything their military might will achieve. One stroke of a pen in Washington and an entire country can be pretty much ostracised from the Western world. There is no way in hell that any US president is going to give away that power.
To me people who think like this live in some socialist, unregulated utopia, but it's always difficult to connect that to reality. It's all very well not wanting government oversight, but then when something like FTX happens (or any of the other scams), then people want enforcement of rules and the people responsible to be in jail. You can't have it both ways - the financial system has rules and regulations to protect people and to ensure business is done in an orderly fashion. If you don't want that then fine, but the rules benefit the vast vast majority of people and that is why they exist.
Condi said:
Your assumption that recognising it as a commodity is a key step towards using it as a currency is stretched at best. Bitcoin had to be "something". Crypto couldn't exist outside of the regulatory system forever, by categorising them as a security or commodity simply means it comes under the jurisdiction of the CFTC or SEC respectively.
Anyone who understands geo-politics will know the greatest asset the US has is it's control of the US Dollar. The sanctions regimes it can enforce are far far more efficient than anything their military might will achieve. One stroke of a pen in Washington and an entire country can be pretty much ostracised from the Western world. There is no way in hell that any US president is going to give away that power.
To me people who think like this live in some socialist, unregulated utopia, but it's always difficult to connect that to reality. It's all very well not wanting government oversight, but then when something like FTX happens (or any of the other scams), then people want enforcement of rules and the people responsible to be in jail. You can't have it both ways - the financial system has rules and regulations to protect people and to ensure business is done in an orderly fashion. If you don't want that then fine, but the rules benefit the vast vast majority of people and that is why they exist.
FTX is an example of sAnyone who understands geo-politics will know the greatest asset the US has is it's control of the US Dollar. The sanctions regimes it can enforce are far far more efficient than anything their military might will achieve. One stroke of a pen in Washington and an entire country can be pretty much ostracised from the Western world. There is no way in hell that any US president is going to give away that power.
To me people who think like this live in some socialist, unregulated utopia, but it's always difficult to connect that to reality. It's all very well not wanting government oversight, but then when something like FTX happens (or any of the other scams), then people want enforcement of rules and the people responsible to be in jail. You can't have it both ways - the financial system has rules and regulations to protect people and to ensure business is done in an orderly fashion. If you don't want that then fine, but the rules benefit the vast vast majority of people and that is why they exist.
tcoin centralisation. Not sure why you keep referring to this.There is no reason one cannot have a sound decentralised money and also have checks and balances in place to protect the general public from commercial scams, monopolies and misrepresentation. Fractional reserve banking itself is a form of legalised fraud since it involves money creation but we've been programmed to defer to the priests speaking Latin (economists and central bankers) and dare not question received wisdom. We may not acknowledge inflation as theft but that is what it is. But perhaps as long as one can pay one's "monthlies" and is distracted by the panem et circenses of reality TV or football or whatever, we carry on not caring that our way of life is sustained by the other half of the world living in poverty or under the boot of military brutality.
I'm not sure why "one stroke of a pen" is the weapon you think it is. What are sanctions backed by? Violence. That is what backs the USD, not sanctions, not words, not a pen. It is the real threat of invasion or deposition of a ruler. I'm not sure this is a very moral way to conduct ourselves. If I'm utopian for wanting a so-called liberal society to adhere to a higher set of values, so be it.
Condi said:
Your assumption that recognising it as a commodity is a key step towards using it as a currency is stretched at best. Bitcoin had to be "something". Crypto couldn't exist outside of the regulatory system forever, by categorising them as a security or commodity simply means it comes under the jurisdiction of the CFTC or SEC respectively.
Anyone who understands geo-politics will know the greatest asset the US has is it's control of the US Dollar. The sanctions regimes it can enforce are far far more efficient than anything their military might will achieve. One stroke of a pen in Washington and an entire country can be pretty much ostracised from the Western world. There is no way in hell that any US president is going to give away that power.
To me people who think like this live in some socialist, unregulated utopia, but it's always difficult to connect that to reality. It's all very well not wanting government oversight, but then when something like FTX happens (or any of the other scams), then people want enforcement of rules and the people responsible to be in jail. You can't have it both ways - the financial system has rules and regulations to protect people and to ensure business is done in an orderly fashion. If you don't want that then fine, but the rules benefit the vast vast majority of people and that is why they exist.
WTF are you on about? FTX scammed greedy corpo investors who wanted in on the crypto boom without having a clue about what they were investing in. It has dick all to do with crypto really.Anyone who understands geo-politics will know the greatest asset the US has is it's control of the US Dollar. The sanctions regimes it can enforce are far far more efficient than anything their military might will achieve. One stroke of a pen in Washington and an entire country can be pretty much ostracised from the Western world. There is no way in hell that any US president is going to give away that power.
To me people who think like this live in some socialist, unregulated utopia, but it's always difficult to connect that to reality. It's all very well not wanting government oversight, but then when something like FTX happens (or any of the other scams), then people want enforcement of rules and the people responsible to be in jail. You can't have it both ways - the financial system has rules and regulations to protect people and to ensure business is done in an orderly fashion. If you don't want that then fine, but the rules benefit the vast vast majority of people and that is why they exist.
You literally have no idea what you are talking about even after having years and years to educate yourself. You long for bitcoin to fail, but you don't understand that it's here for ever and it's getting stronger every day. Bitcoin is a NEW TYPE OF MONEY and it is decentralised and lies outside of government control. Comparing it to regulated government currencies is pointless, because it's not one.
Harris_I said:
I'm not sure why "one stroke of a pen" is the weapon you think it is. What are sanctions backed by? Violence. That is what backs the USD, not sanctions, not words, not a pen. It is the real threat of invasion or deposition of a ruler. I'm not sure this is a very moral way to conduct ourselves. If I'm utopian for wanting a so-called liberal society to adhere to a higher set of values, so be it.
Sanctions are not backed by military might, but by the legal system. The threat of fines and jail time on companies which do not obey them. While countries are sanctioned, it is the businesses which they work with which are the key to making those sanctions work - if your business uses the USD for any part of any of it's transactions then the US legal system can enforce the sanctions, as they can with any company using the USD which works with said company. Are North Korea or Iran in danger of being invaded? No, not at all, but it has been effectively cut off from the Western economies by enforcement of US sanctions which prevent companies doing business with them. As I say, the US would be utterly stupid to do away with the Dollar as it is by far their greatest geo-political tool.
dimots said:
Comparing it to regulated government currencies is pointless, because it's not one.
Indeed, it is but a conduit for criminal activities, and a fairly poor one at that, a huge consumer of energy for very little social or economic benefit, although I do accept now it has stopped fluctuating in value quite so much it may have some use as a store of value, and a hedge against inflation for economies which are subject to higher than usual inflation (obviously, because the price is quoted in USD then the hedge against inflation is only relative to the inflation the USD experiences). However, as a currency, it has clearly failed. At least when it started you could buy a pizza with it, now you can't even do that! Is Tesla still accepting Bitcoin? No. Is anyone accepting Bitcoin? No. (Yes, there are payment providers which will change your bitcoin to FIAT and pay in that, however the receiving company is pricing it's products in fiat and receives fiat from the payment provider. For example, as per earlier in this thread, Ferrari is not accepting Bitcoin, Ferrari are simply allowing someone to pay via a payment provider which will change bitcoin to Euros, which is entirely different).
Harris_I said:
I'm not sure why "one stroke of a pen" is the weapon you think it is. What are sanctions backed by? Violence. That is what backs the USD, not sanctions, not words, not a pen. It is the real threat of invasion or deposition of a ruler. I'm not sure this is a very moral way to conduct ourselves. If I'm utopian for wanting a so-called liberal society to adhere to a higher set of values, so be it.
Amen.Condi said:
Sanctions are not backed by military might, but by the legal system.
For someone "who understands geopolitics", it is touchingly naive that you actually believe this.No sanctions work unless the ultimate motivator to comply is violence. A legal system is a means of enabling that violence. A legal system doesn't have to be morally right, it just has to have the backing of the physically strongest party to give it effect.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff