Crypto Currency Thread (Vol.2)
Discussion
Condi said:
This isn't worth replying to, it's all been covered before. Bitcoin is a terrible store of value (too volatile, as you say), has totally failed as a currency (nobody prices anything in Bitcoin, they price in Dollars or Pounds, payments are not made in Bitcoin but converted to FIAT as the seller doesn't want to hold Bitcoin, see point about it being a terrible store of value), and the fantastic utopia you want to believe in where anyone can do anything seamlessly across borders ignores all the practical real politik/real world reasons why we don't already have such things. It is very useful for governments to float/manipulate their currencies, the Euro is a great example of what happens when that can't occur and while it is great for going on holiday with, it only survives thanks to billions of Euros being loaned to Greece when they were not able to devalue their currency to levels it needed to be.
Even your example about sending £50 to someone in Nigeria is wrong, they have a very well developed payment system relying on mobile phone numbers instead of bank accounts, and so it would be perfectly possible to send them £50. Move over, if they have an internet connection to receive Bitcoin, why wouldn't they have a bank account?! The whole reason they developed payment via mobile number is that you can do it without even an internet connection, using a very basic mobile signal.
Wrong on every account.Even your example about sending £50 to someone in Nigeria is wrong, they have a very well developed payment system relying on mobile phone numbers instead of bank accounts, and so it would be perfectly possible to send them £50. Move over, if they have an internet connection to receive Bitcoin, why wouldn't they have a bank account?! The whole reason they developed payment via mobile number is that you can do it without even an internet connection, using a very basic mobile signal.
Could you please answer the question I asked you?
Scootersp said:
Well this is all my personal opinion, but as it's a human coding creation, I don't believe it can be unique? I accept it has a secure blockchain and seemingly rock solid security and as all Bitcoin is on the ledger and this gives a value/trust element to users of the system.
"The network effect" I hear of often, check the various posts from below, it's seemingly the mass adoption that has secured Bitcoin it's position.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/sfnyb0/w...
https://casebitcoin.com/critiques/bitcoin-can-be-c...
[i]"Crypto currencies are not scarce, but bitcoins on the bitcoin network are. Anyone can indeed clone the open-source bitcoin codebase at any time, and launch their own coin, but they can't clone the acceptance, name recognition, and security that only the bitcoin network enjoys. People have been cloning bitcoin since 2011, yet no clone has come close to matching bitcoin's marketcap and network effect.
As an internet protocol for money and a store-of-value, bitcoin enjoys extremely strong network effects. The lock-in created by thousands of businesses, and millions of users & investors, who have a vested interest in bitcoin specifically is extremely difficult to overcome. This is akin to what we've seen with base-level internet protocols over the past 50 years. Foundational technologies like tcp/ip and smtp have dominated for decades, despite their technical flaws and emergence of countless competitors. They are simply too ingrained in the internet ecosystem to unseat, and developers and businesses choose to build on top of them instead. Bitcoin is proving similar."[/i]
So it perhaps has a uniquely large and dedicated/ingrained following and the benefits that brings, but is not the only digitally scarce asset? Even it's scarcity was pre-set by the creator and so to me that's a created/decided scarcity?
So what you are saying is that people have been trying for 16 years to come up with something that equals or is better than BTC, but nobody has managed?"The network effect" I hear of often, check the various posts from below, it's seemingly the mass adoption that has secured Bitcoin it's position.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/sfnyb0/w...
https://casebitcoin.com/critiques/bitcoin-can-be-c...
[i]"Crypto currencies are not scarce, but bitcoins on the bitcoin network are. Anyone can indeed clone the open-source bitcoin codebase at any time, and launch their own coin, but they can't clone the acceptance, name recognition, and security that only the bitcoin network enjoys. People have been cloning bitcoin since 2011, yet no clone has come close to matching bitcoin's marketcap and network effect.
As an internet protocol for money and a store-of-value, bitcoin enjoys extremely strong network effects. The lock-in created by thousands of businesses, and millions of users & investors, who have a vested interest in bitcoin specifically is extremely difficult to overcome. This is akin to what we've seen with base-level internet protocols over the past 50 years. Foundational technologies like tcp/ip and smtp have dominated for decades, despite their technical flaws and emergence of countless competitors. They are simply too ingrained in the internet ecosystem to unseat, and developers and businesses choose to build on top of them instead. Bitcoin is proving similar."[/i]
So it perhaps has a uniquely large and dedicated/ingrained following and the benefits that brings, but is not the only digitally scarce asset? Even it's scarcity was pre-set by the creator and so to me that's a created/decided scarcity?
Which kind of proves the point that BTC is the only truly scarce digital asset, no?
The pre-set scarcity by Satoshi (21 million) is one of the strong features of BTC because this means it can not be inflated. Ever.
And please provide some examples of other scarce digital assets.
ERIKM400 said:
Wrong on every account.
Not at all, incredibly correct on every account as it happens. If you disagree feel free to say why, just saying I'm wrong when what I've posted are indisputable facts makes it look like you have no argument other than you don't like what has been written. As for why it is important to have freely appreciating and depreciating currencies then it allows a country's economy to become more attractive to investors when it needs to be. You've clearly ignored my example of the Euro, and that currency is only shared across a relatively small number of largely similar countries. Clearly a single world currency is never going to work.
Just because you don't like inflation and debt doesn't mean its a bad thing.
ERIKM400 said:
So what you are saying is that people have been trying for 16 years to come up with something that equals or is better than BTC, but nobody has managed?
Which kind of proves the point that BTC is the only truly scarce digital asset, no?
The pre-set scarcity by Satoshi (21 million) is one of the strong features of BTC because this means it can not be inflated. Ever.
And please provide some examples of other scarce digital assets.
What I interpreted from those links is that the tech is the same, and other scarce digital assets have(?)/could be made and made even more scarce (I don't know specific examples), but they would not be better and so people stay with Bitcoin, it's the preferred one, it has the network, is uniquely popular, but not actually unique? So you might be say it's the only viable scarce digital asset? Which kind of proves the point that BTC is the only truly scarce digital asset, no?
The pre-set scarcity by Satoshi (21 million) is one of the strong features of BTC because this means it can not be inflated. Ever.
And please provide some examples of other scarce digital assets.
"Pre-set scarcity by Satoshi" I have a problem with pre-set/determined scarcity, the scarcity being a decision? When you create things you can play around with scarcity, alter the supply as you wish try and encourage demand due to the rarity, If he'd set 1 million would the bitcoin price today be where it is, it would have been over 20 times as scarce?
It's perhaps scarce now but Satoshi, they say might have mined up to nearly 1/20th of all the Bitcoin at a low low fiat input price, perhaps he deserves it for his genius but I don't think the answer to fiat is something that you don't have work to gain, you just buy and wait? Bitcoin can work as a stable transacting platform, but the fluctuating price and upward trend certainty vibe for all, cannot work forever, it has to have a limit.
I am happy to watch from the sidelines and see others play their cards as they see them, if they keep winning so be it, the courage of their convictions to go for it, is like mine not too, no one horse wins all the races, I sit this out as it just never feels right to move in. Just like I suspect you'd never move into metals regardless of the future price action there, you'll stick to your crypto almost come what may?
Guvernator said:
What have to been right about? A couple of coins have gone up in value due to lots of people piling in because they've seen an opportunity to make money. Thousands of other alt coins have been a total flop. The underlying technology still hasn't been widely adopted and no one knows if it will be or if it does, whether it will be in it's current form. The game hasn't fully played out yet and you are declaring yourself the victor because you've made a bit of money on crypto, mostly due to other people's greed or FOMO.
As for your other thoughts on crypto, while some of your points on the future of currency are interesting and I certainly think digital currency has it's merits, your hyperbole makes you sound like one of those conspiracy theory sociopaths, wishing for the end of the world\total collapse of the economy and society, just so you can say you were right.
Some people on this thread seem to be totally closed to the idea of crypto currency, mostly those in the finance sector and I can understand how a disruptive influence like digital currency might spook certain people, however espousing internet chat room fed propaganda about the failure of fiat currency and how crypto will be the saviour of mankind isn't the answer either. I suspect the truth of where crypto will end up lies somewhere in between those two extremes.
I work in traditional finance, whilst I think some of the arguments for BTC make a lot of sense (a lot). Pointing out it has It has 3challenges doesn't mean you are offended against its existence. As you say, DLT and is in early days and the value to remove friction from the system is colossal and that does threaten the hegemony of traditional finance (rightly so). However, there are 3 massive issues to be resolved.As for your other thoughts on crypto, while some of your points on the future of currency are interesting and I certainly think digital currency has it's merits, your hyperbole makes you sound like one of those conspiracy theory sociopaths, wishing for the end of the world\total collapse of the economy and society, just so you can say you were right.
Some people on this thread seem to be totally closed to the idea of crypto currency, mostly those in the finance sector and I can understand how a disruptive influence like digital currency might spook certain people, however espousing internet chat room fed propaganda about the failure of fiat currency and how crypto will be the saviour of mankind isn't the answer either. I suspect the truth of where crypto will end up lies somewhere in between those two extremes.
1. Price Vol, its not a store of value; its too volatile. ETFs are not a justification for widespread adoption. They are delta flat, its market risk characteristics mean its a speculative asset that can be hedged BUT not a store of value for financial institutions (and that's many hundreds of trillions business).
2. Its anonymity and ability to be used to get around AML, sanction abuse (and no amount of democracy arguments is going to usurp that) etc; means it has little regulatory support for adoption. in fact, Global political fracturing sets it back further as everyone knows who is going long it and why.
3. It challenges system hegemony. See second point. It operates outside system control, it may well be democratic, but no one in major Western economies is ever going to cede economic control. It maybe allowed to run in parallel, but they aren't letting it run loose in size. There is simply too much existing debt in the system. its 300% of global GDP, the system MUST persist. IF it fails, everything fails and the only hedge then is cans of Spam, Duracells and 5.56mm because the power went out.
Now, 3 is arguably anti-democratic. But its a fact. I think a lot of people pointing out observations aren't against BTC per-se, just not quite convinced its going to usurp FIAT (for all its failings).
OoopsVoss said:
I work in traditional finance, whilst I think some of the arguments for BTC make a lot of sense (a lot). Pointing out it has It has 3challenges doesn't mean you are offended against its existence. As you say, DLT and is in early days and the value to remove friction from the system is colossal and that does threaten the hegemony of traditional finance (rightly so). However, there are 3 massive issues to be resolved.
1. Price Vol, its not a store of value; its too volatile. ETFs are not a justification for widespread adoption. They are delta flat, its market risk characteristics mean its a speculative asset that can be hedged BUT not a store of value for financial institutions (and that's many hundreds of trillions business).
2. Its anonymity and ability to be used to get around AML, sanction abuse (and no amount of democracy arguments is going to usurp that) etc; means it has little regulatory support for adoption. in fact, Global political fracturing sets it back further as everyone knows who is going long it and why.
3. It challenges system hegemony. See second point. It operates outside system control, it may well be democratic, but no one in major Western economies is ever going to cede economic control. It maybe allowed to run in parallel, but they aren't letting it run loose in size. There is simply too much existing debt in the system. its 300% of global GDP, the system MUST persist. IF it fails, everything fails and the only hedge then is cans of Spam, Duracells and 5.56mm because the power went out.
Now, 3 is arguably anti-democratic. But its a fact. I think a lot of people pointing out observations aren't against BTC per-se, just not quite convinced its going to usurp FIAT (for all its failings).
Indeed. I've said from the very beginning it either gets regulated out of existence or gets regulated into more mainstream finance and at which point it loses a lot of it's original USPs, for example the AML/KYC side, and if that happens then why is it better than what we already have? 1. Price Vol, its not a store of value; its too volatile. ETFs are not a justification for widespread adoption. They are delta flat, its market risk characteristics mean its a speculative asset that can be hedged BUT not a store of value for financial institutions (and that's many hundreds of trillions business).
2. Its anonymity and ability to be used to get around AML, sanction abuse (and no amount of democracy arguments is going to usurp that) etc; means it has little regulatory support for adoption. in fact, Global political fracturing sets it back further as everyone knows who is going long it and why.
3. It challenges system hegemony. See second point. It operates outside system control, it may well be democratic, but no one in major Western economies is ever going to cede economic control. It maybe allowed to run in parallel, but they aren't letting it run loose in size. There is simply too much existing debt in the system. its 300% of global GDP, the system MUST persist. IF it fails, everything fails and the only hedge then is cans of Spam, Duracells and 5.56mm because the power went out.
Now, 3 is arguably anti-democratic. But its a fact. I think a lot of people pointing out observations aren't against BTC per-se, just not quite convinced its going to usurp FIAT (for all its failings).
The other thing you have to remember is that everyone who is long Bitcoin is talking their own book; the only way their investment maintains it's value is with more buyers coming in, and so it's hugely in their interests to be positive and sell the benefits (real or otherwise), in the hope of catching some passing traffic. As everyone is doing it to make a quick buck and it has no utility beside an "investment"/gambling opportunity then if it doesn't go up in value it doesn't do anything useful at all.
Bitcoin devotees have a lot of crossover with conspiracy theories and preppers for reason 3. If you are worried about hedging against a wholesale collapse of the world reserve currencies and the entire worldwide economy then Bitcoin isn't going to be the answer!
Edited by Condi on Thursday 11th April 20:32
Condi said:
Indeed. I've said from the very beginning it either gets regulated out of existence or gets regulated into more mainstream finance and at which point it loses a lot of it's original USPs, for example the AML/KYC side, and if that happens then why is it better than what we already have?
The other thing you have to remember is that everyone who is long Bitcoin is talking their own book; the only way their investment maintains it's value is with more buyers coming in, and so it's hugely in their interests to be positive and sell the benefits (real or otherwise), in the hope of catching some passing traffic. As everyone is doing it to make a quick buck and it has no utility beside an "investment"/gambling opportunity then if it doesn't go up in value it doesn't do anything useful at all.
Bitcoin devotees have a lot of crossover with conspiracy theories and preppers for reason 3. If you are worried about hedging against a wholesale collapse of the world reserve currencies and the entire worldwide economy then Bitcoin isn't going to be the answer!
Anyone who is a BTC devotee, I can kinda respect the belief and ideal. I'm not sure they were at the sharp end of the GFC and Sept 2008. A lot of people who control the global system were and they looked over the abyss; it wasn't good. A $700bn bank nearly took everyone out. That's not even G-SIB today. That's actually a strong argument for decentralised finance, but that wasnt the response. BASLE3 pushed the opposite. V-max. It made what could (maybe) be a containable private sector problem a Sovereign one (looked at US debt numbers lately?). If you have no banking sector you can't move money, the lights go out. The institutions we need to move money cease to exist because banks utility value (as movers of money), is usurped by their actual form and function that is maturity transformation and leverage extension. The utility is completely secondary. That is why SVB depositors got saved and CS got rolled into UBS. I don't want to sound mad conspiracy theorist, but do you think a bank can function on account provision / transfers or its actually doing something else to allow that to happen? If they don't make a margin call on a borrow, do people know how fast that kills them?The other thing you have to remember is that everyone who is long Bitcoin is talking their own book; the only way their investment maintains it's value is with more buyers coming in, and so it's hugely in their interests to be positive and sell the benefits (real or otherwise), in the hope of catching some passing traffic. As everyone is doing it to make a quick buck and it has no utility beside an "investment"/gambling opportunity then if it doesn't go up in value it doesn't do anything useful at all.
Bitcoin devotees have a lot of crossover with conspiracy theories and preppers for reason 3. If you are worried about hedging against a wholesale collapse of the world reserve currencies and the entire worldwide economy then Bitcoin isn't going to be the answer!
Edited by Condi on Thursday 11th April 20:32
OoopsVoss said:
Condi said:
Indeed. I've said from the very beginning it either gets regulated out of existence or gets regulated into more mainstream finance and at which point it loses a lot of it's original USPs, for example the AML/KYC side, and if that happens then why is it better than what we already have?
The other thing you have to remember is that everyone who is long Bitcoin is talking their own book; the only way their investment maintains it's value is with more buyers coming in, and so it's hugely in their interests to be positive and sell the benefits (real or otherwise), in the hope of catching some passing traffic. As everyone is doing it to make a quick buck and it has no utility beside an "investment"/gambling opportunity then if it doesn't go up in value it doesn't do anything useful at all.
Bitcoin devotees have a lot of crossover with conspiracy theories and preppers for reason 3. If you are worried about hedging against a wholesale collapse of the world reserve currencies and the entire worldwide economy then Bitcoin isn't going to be the answer!
Anyone who is a BTC devotee, I can kinda respect the belief and ideal. I'm not sure they were at the sharp end of the GFC and Sept 2008. A lot of people who control the global system were and they looked over the abyss; it wasn't good. A $700bn bank nearly took everyone out. That's not even G-SIB today. That's actually a strong argument for decentralised finance, but that wasnt the response. BASLE3 pushed the opposite. V-max. It made what could (maybe) be a containable private sector problem a Sovereign one (looked at US debt numbers lately?). If you have no banking sector you can't move money, the lights go out. The institutions we need to move money cease to exist because banks utility value (as movers of money), is usurped by their actual form and function that is maturity transformation and leverage extension. The utility is completely secondary. That is why SVB depositors got saved and CS got rolled into UBS. I don't want to sound mad conspiracy theorist, but do you think a bank can function on account provision / transfers or its actually doing something else to allow that to happen? If they don't make a margin call on a borrow, do people know how fast that kills them?The other thing you have to remember is that everyone who is long Bitcoin is talking their own book; the only way their investment maintains it's value is with more buyers coming in, and so it's hugely in their interests to be positive and sell the benefits (real or otherwise), in the hope of catching some passing traffic. As everyone is doing it to make a quick buck and it has no utility beside an "investment"/gambling opportunity then if it doesn't go up in value it doesn't do anything useful at all.
Bitcoin devotees have a lot of crossover with conspiracy theories and preppers for reason 3. If you are worried about hedging against a wholesale collapse of the world reserve currencies and the entire worldwide economy then Bitcoin isn't going to be the answer!
Edited by Condi on Thursday 11th April 20:32
disclaimer: I may be employed by one of the listed...
Bitcoin devotees know that the taxpayer bailed the banks out by printing money and now we are still bailing them out through inflation which is a stealth tax that primarily affects the poorest.
Bitcoin devotees know that saying 'Inflation isn't necessarily bad' in a massively inflationary environment ENTIRELY CREATED by central banks is ridiculous. The poorest are being hurt by the game-playing and posturing of an elite who actually don't know what they are doing!
Bitcoin devotees know that Andrew Bailey is a moron, that Janet Yellen is a moron. They have both made so many mistakes you can use them as a perfect example of why regulation and policymaking is bad and ineffective. Do you really trust that these people know what they are doing, or perhaps you simply share their delusion?
Bitcoin removes idiots like Andrew Bailey from the wheelhouse. You don't have any political or financial influence. You don't have any human error, accounting slipups, fraud, hacks. It's a perfect record, it's not owned by anyone but it can be owned by everyone. It's simply mathematical economics.
You don't get it? Fine...I think you're dumb, I think you're missing out on the biggest opportunity in history, but you do you.
Bitcoin devotees know that saying 'Inflation isn't necessarily bad' in a massively inflationary environment ENTIRELY CREATED by central banks is ridiculous. The poorest are being hurt by the game-playing and posturing of an elite who actually don't know what they are doing!
Bitcoin devotees know that Andrew Bailey is a moron, that Janet Yellen is a moron. They have both made so many mistakes you can use them as a perfect example of why regulation and policymaking is bad and ineffective. Do you really trust that these people know what they are doing, or perhaps you simply share their delusion?
Bitcoin removes idiots like Andrew Bailey from the wheelhouse. You don't have any political or financial influence. You don't have any human error, accounting slipups, fraud, hacks. It's a perfect record, it's not owned by anyone but it can be owned by everyone. It's simply mathematical economics.
You don't get it? Fine...I think you're dumb, I think you're missing out on the biggest opportunity in history, but you do you.
dimots said:
Bitcoin devotees know that the taxpayer bailed the banks out by printing money and now we are still bailing them out through inflation which is a stealth tax that primarily affects the poorest.
Bitcoin devotees know that saying 'Inflation isn't necessarily bad' in a massively inflationary environment ENTIRELY CREATED by central banks is ridiculous. The poorest are being hurt by the game-playing and posturing of an elite who actually don't know what they are doing!
Bitcoin devotees know that Andrew Bailey is a moron, that Janet Yellen is a moron. They have both made so many mistakes you can use them as a perfect example of why regulation and policymaking is bad and ineffective. Do you really trust that these people know what they are doing, or perhaps you simply share their delusion?
Bitcoin removes idiots like Andrew Bailey from the wheelhouse. You don't have any political or financial influence. You don't have any human error, accounting slipups, fraud, hacks. It's a perfect record, it's not owned by anyone but it can be owned by everyone. It's simply mathematical economics.
You don't get it? Fine...I think you're dumb, I think you're missing out on the biggest opportunity in history, but you do you.
Absolutely agree on the points above. Bernanke, Carney and every other Central Bank heads - all pretty clueless and fuelled inflation. Bitcoin devotees know that saying 'Inflation isn't necessarily bad' in a massively inflationary environment ENTIRELY CREATED by central banks is ridiculous. The poorest are being hurt by the game-playing and posturing of an elite who actually don't know what they are doing!
Bitcoin devotees know that Andrew Bailey is a moron, that Janet Yellen is a moron. They have both made so many mistakes you can use them as a perfect example of why regulation and policymaking is bad and ineffective. Do you really trust that these people know what they are doing, or perhaps you simply share their delusion?
Bitcoin removes idiots like Andrew Bailey from the wheelhouse. You don't have any political or financial influence. You don't have any human error, accounting slipups, fraud, hacks. It's a perfect record, it's not owned by anyone but it can be owned by everyone. It's simply mathematical economics.
You don't get it? Fine...I think you're dumb, I think you're missing out on the biggest opportunity in history, but you do you.
However, the problem is (1) Central Banks / Governments aren't going to ditch the reserve currency for Bitcoin and let that happen.
More importantly, (2) most people are too thick to figure this stuff out to get behind Bitcoin and ditch Fiat.
dimots said:
Bitcoin devotees know that the taxpayer bailed the banks out by printing money and now we are still bailing them out through inflation which is a stealth tax that primarily affects the poorest.
Bitcoin devotees know that saying 'Inflation isn't necessarily bad' in a massively inflationary environment ENTIRELY CREATED by central banks is ridiculous. The poorest are being hurt by the game-playing and posturing of an elite who actually don't know what they are doing!
Bitcoin devotees know that Andrew Bailey is a moron, that Janet Yellen is a moron. They have both made so many mistakes you can use them as a perfect example of why regulation and policymaking is bad and ineffective. Do you really trust that these people know what they are doing, or perhaps you simply share their delusion?
Bitcoin removes idiots like Andrew Bailey from the wheelhouse. You don't have any political or financial influence. You don't have any human error, accounting slipups, fraud, hacks. It's a perfect record, it's not owned by anyone but it can be owned by everyone. It's simply mathematical economics.
You don't get it? Fine...I think you're dumb, I think you're missing out on the biggest opportunity in history, but you do you.
Put like that, yep. I get it. its not without merit. I'd probably throw the tangerine supremo in there as being more relevant than Bailey (Lagarde NOT Trump).Bitcoin devotees know that saying 'Inflation isn't necessarily bad' in a massively inflationary environment ENTIRELY CREATED by central banks is ridiculous. The poorest are being hurt by the game-playing and posturing of an elite who actually don't know what they are doing!
Bitcoin devotees know that Andrew Bailey is a moron, that Janet Yellen is a moron. They have both made so many mistakes you can use them as a perfect example of why regulation and policymaking is bad and ineffective. Do you really trust that these people know what they are doing, or perhaps you simply share their delusion?
Bitcoin removes idiots like Andrew Bailey from the wheelhouse. You don't have any political or financial influence. You don't have any human error, accounting slipups, fraud, hacks. It's a perfect record, it's not owned by anyone but it can be owned by everyone. It's simply mathematical economics.
You don't get it? Fine...I think you're dumb, I think you're missing out on the biggest opportunity in history, but you do you.
But as you know, its system constrained. As are Bailey etc. Why has the ECB all but guaranteed cuts?
I wager, we spend more on system maintenance that BTC market cap (CraigyMC) might have an opinion on that, but I always come back to the why. I believe (shoot me), but its sustain (can kick) or die. I sound like a coward.
I have had beer, apologies if it makes no sense.
g4ry13 said:
Absolutely agree on the points above. Bernanke, Carney and every other Central Bank heads - all pretty clueless and fuelled inflation.
However, the problem is (1) Central Banks / Governments aren't going to ditch the reserve currency for Bitcoin and let that happen.
More importantly, (2) most people are too thick to figure this stuff out to get behind Bitcoin and ditch Fiat.
See no2 is why you lose, time again.However, the problem is (1) Central Banks / Governments aren't going to ditch the reserve currency for Bitcoin and let that happen.
More importantly, (2) most people are too thick to figure this stuff out to get behind Bitcoin and ditch Fiat.
No one is too thick, its a risk adjusted decision. You think its worth throwing the dice, history and the system says its NOT without epic downside. Its NOT idiosyncratic, its digital.
OoopsVoss said:
Anyone who is a BTC devotee, I can kinda respect the belief and ideal. I'm not sure they were at the sharp end of the GFC and Sept 2008. A lot of people who control the global system were and they looked over the abyss; it wasn't good. A $700bn bank nearly took everyone out. That's not even G-SIB today. That's actually a strong argument for decentralised finance, but that wasnt the response. BASLE3 pushed the opposite. V-max. It made what could (maybe) be a containable private sector problem a Sovereign one (looked at US debt numbers lately?). If you have no banking sector you can't move money, the lights go out. The institutions we need to move money cease to exist because banks utility value (as movers of money), is usurped by their actual form and function that is maturity transformation and leverage extension. The utility is completely secondary. That is why SVB depositors got saved and CS got rolled into UBS. I don't want to sound mad conspiracy theorist, but do you think a bank can function on account provision / transfers or its actually doing something else to allow that to happen? If they don't make a margin call on a borrow, do people know how fast that kills them?
Same, and I think 'people' in general have no idea, their is a gulf between for example, you and DA, and me, I follow some of it and know the general terms, some cause and effect but the vast vast majority of even the very well educated know far less about the financial system than even me. All the things you mention will have created headlines, but it'll be read and glazed over, not many even think there is a chance a bank they've never heard of in America could cause another financial crisis. Even if they did then the last financial crisis "wasn't so bad" for most so meh, no biggie the guys in charge will pull some levers, provide some money/support and on we go?These few similar threads on here, have largely the some group of contributors, perhaps a lot more read them but it's just not on most peoples radar? Their life finance wise is just money in, money out, save a bit, or borrow a bit, every month.
Given that the 'events' are continually sorted out with the minimum noticeable fallout, and there is never any talk about how serious it might have otherwise been, as that would likely cause more issues, you can understand why people are so detached/unaware? My concern. knowing the little I do and observing these events. is that eventual 'what if', what if that institution can't be supported, those deposits protected, the borrowing increased etc......my logic says to me that it's how long not if, can the cracks always be papered over well enough.
OoopsVoss said:
g4ry13 said:
Absolutely agree on the points above. Bernanke, Carney and every other Central Bank heads - all pretty clueless and fuelled inflation.
However, the problem is (1) Central Banks / Governments aren't going to ditch the reserve currency for Bitcoin and let that happen.
More importantly, (2) most people are too thick to figure this stuff out to get behind Bitcoin and ditch Fiat.
See no2 is why you lose, time again.However, the problem is (1) Central Banks / Governments aren't going to ditch the reserve currency for Bitcoin and let that happen.
More importantly, (2) most people are too thick to figure this stuff out to get behind Bitcoin and ditch Fiat.
No one is too thick, its a risk adjusted decision. You think its worth throwing the dice, history and the system says its NOT without epic downside. Its NOT idiosyncratic, its digital.
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.
And the people who you describe as being shafted by the current system are too busy worrying about how to go about their daily life than thinking deeply about whether centralised or decentralised currency is better!
And the people who you describe as being shafted by the current system are too busy worrying about how to go about their daily life than thinking deeply about whether centralised or decentralised currency is better!
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.
And the people who you describe as being shafted by the current system are too busy worrying about how to go about their daily life than thinking deeply about whether centralised or decentralised currency is better!
Is that end thread?And the people who you describe as being shafted by the current system are too busy worrying about how to go about their daily life than thinking deeply about whether centralised or decentralised currency is better!
dimots said:
Bitcoin devotees know that Andrew Bailey is a moron, that Janet Yellen is a moron. They have both made so many mistakes you can use them as a perfect example of why regulation and policymaking is bad and ineffective. Do you really trust that these people know what they are doing, or perhaps you simply share their delusion?
I'll see your Andrew Bailey and raise you a Sam Bankman-Fried. Not delusional at all, no sir.g4ry13 said:
The average person is too easily distracted by mindlessly scrolling through instagram, watching Love Island and standing in line for the latest iPhone. They're not going to think about how they're getting shafted and revolt against the existing monetary system.
You aren’t some higher power chap.Do you still live with your parents?
Huge crossover between folk on here and conspiracy theory types IMO.
Edited by okgo on Friday 12th April 12:15
Condi said:
Not at all, incredibly correct on every account as it happens. If you disagree feel free to say why, just saying I'm wrong when what I've posted are indisputable facts makes it look like you have no argument other than you don't like what has been written.
As for why it is important to have freely appreciating and depreciating currencies then it allows a country's economy to become more attractive to investors when it needs to be. You've clearly ignored my example of the Euro, and that currency is only shared across a relatively small number of largely similar countries. Clearly a single world currency is never going to work.
Just because you don't like inflation and debt doesn't mean its a bad thing.
I have given you arguments and examples why I am pro BTC.As for why it is important to have freely appreciating and depreciating currencies then it allows a country's economy to become more attractive to investors when it needs to be. You've clearly ignored my example of the Euro, and that currency is only shared across a relatively small number of largely similar countries. Clearly a single world currency is never going to work.
Just because you don't like inflation and debt doesn't mean its a bad thing.
You just say "not true" and "don't believe this" without explaining anything.
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 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
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff