Bitcoin and Crypto Thread

[chance vought]

looks like an interesting security solution

Vora - The bitcoin fortress for sovereign individuals

Extreme security, total privacy, and absolute sovereignty — because your wealth deserves a solution free of compromises.

vora.io

THE Bitcoin Podcast • SECURING YOUR BODY & BITCOIN FOR THE HYPERBITCOINIZED FUTURE | Erik Cason & Jesse Posner (Vora) • Listen on Fountain

"You wouldn't buy a hundred dollars safe off of Amazon and put a million dollars in it. But that's kind of what Bitcoiners are doing with their hardware wallets." On this episode of THE Bitcoin Podcast, Erik Cason and Jesse Posner, founders of Vora, join Walker to discuss Bitcoin...

fountain.fm

 

[Blade Runner]

Post better, or not at all.

I've posted more information and actionable information to boot on this thread alone than most posters have on the entire forum, scorp

A full hard money standard (such as Bitcoin standard or classical gold standard) limits the amount of deficit spending that governments can do and limits the funding for wars. There is plenty of history you can read that explains this quite well. Fiat exacerbates the boom bust cycle. This is all Austrian economics 101.

Yes, Lyn Alden spells this out. She's stupid though, right? Or you can just call her names and dismiss her because she's the emotional one, right?

Why or how is crypto so infallible against fiat or holding precious metals exactly?

It's not, and infallible has nothing to do with any of this. PMs can do OK, they just won't do as well as BTC and they are horrible for the digital age and insurance policies against bad governments, see below.

I like precious metals, but in a tumultuous fourth turning environment, they are nearly impossible to secure or transport. Even the tried and true prison wallet won't get it across a border.

I wonder if that'll sink in after we've told them that for the 1000th time.

 

[scorpion]

You keep acting as if the fact that hard money is not flexible in regards to expanding and contracting is a bug and critical flaw of hard money. It is not a bug its a feature.

Similarly, the fact that fiat can expand and contract is not a bug - it's a feature. As I've said before, your myopic focus on fiat itself misses the point. Currency is not the most important facet of an economy, and has no value in and of itself. Currency is not wealth; currency is the means by which real wealth is created through productive investment, trade and the application of human labor. Money is a social fiction which allows the economy to function, and has no other use. Therefore, the best form of money is one that provides the greatest incentives and structures to facilitate economic growth and investment.

A full hard money standard (such as Bitcoin standard or classical gold standard) limits the amount of deficit spending that governments can do and limits the funding for wars.

This is nonsense; wars (including total wars) have been waged since time immemorial and far pre-date the invention of fiat. Further, we had two world wars that occurred before the 1971 closing of the gold window, when the USD was still convertible to gold. We haven't had a war on that level since. There is simply no causative link between fiat currency and governments choosing to wage wars.

I don't have time to explain the whole history of money, fiat and banking crises in this thread.

Most banking crises pre-date the creation of central banking. Indeed, central banking was created largely to put an end to the ruinous banking crises that regularly plagued the country throughout the nineteenth century. Has it worked perfectly and without drawback? Of course not. But there is no perfect system. A gold standard is not perfect. Fiat is not perfect. And a theoretical Bitcoin standard would certainly not be perfect, either.

Always heretofore he possessed an
equalizer. If government finances weren’t run according to his idea of soundness he had an individual
right to protect himself by obtaining gold.

Individuals can still protect themselves from fiat debasement by obtaining gold and other hard assets. What's the problem? Remember, the point of fiat currency is not that it should be hoarded under one's bed - it is literally designed to be spent, to be deployed into the economy to facilitate trade and investment. The fact that fiat gradually inflates is intended, and is a function of the money supply (debt) expanding along with a growing economy. There is a reason that the gold standard was abandoned and why no country uses it today - because it simply did not function as well as a modern fiat system does.

I've posted more information and actionable information to boot on this thread alone than most posters have on the entire forum, scorp

No one has any issue with your opinions on any topic, myself included. Your contributions are always appreciated. Please just remember to be respectful when engaging with your fellow posters, and don't insinuate that they are stupid simply because they disagree with you. It degrades the quality of the discussion.

looks like an interesting security solution

https://www.cryptopolitan.com/irs-thousands-bitcoin-users-warning-letters/

Did you receive one of these letters? I remember awhile ago warning you not to take the IRS lightly. They will come after you eventually, and they will not be impressed by any sort of novel legal arguments about sovereign citizenship and not owing them taxes on capital gains. You flout them at your peril.

 

[Australia Sucks]

There is a reason that the gold standard was abandoned and why no country uses it today - because it simply did not function as well as a modern fiat system does.

Wrong. The gold standard was abandoned because worked too well and it would not support unlimited deficits. Politicians do not like having discipline imposed on them.

 

[Australia Sucks]

Now imagine gold that you could store inside your skull...that is bitcoin.

Like I said before the one weakness of Bitcoin is that its not so great when internet and or electricity goes down, so a little bit of physical gold and silver as a insurance/hedge doesn't hurt. But you need to position size it accordingly. My Bitcoin position is 10 - 15 times the size of my precious metals position. Its is just there to cover tail risks.

 

[Australia Sucks]

looks like an interesting security solution

Vora - The bitcoin fortress for sovereign individuals

Extreme security, total privacy, and absolute sovereignty — because your wealth deserves a solution free of compromises.

vora.io

THE Bitcoin Podcast • SECURING YOUR BODY & BITCOIN FOR THE HYPERBITCOINIZED FUTURE | Erik Cason & Jesse Posner (Vora) • Listen on Fountain

"You wouldn't buy a hundred dollars safe off of Amazon and put a million dollars in it. But that's kind of what Bitcoiners are doing with their hardware wallets." On this episode of THE Bitcoin Podcast, Erik Cason and Jesse Posner, founders of Vora, join Walker to discuss Bitcoin...

fountain.fm

It sounds interesting and I looked at their website they have not actually released a product yet, but something to keep an eye on for sure.

 

[chance vought]

Like I said before the one weakness of Bitcoin is that its not so great when internet and or electricity goes down, so a little bit of physical gold and silver as a insurance/hedge doesn't hurt. But you need to position size it accordingly. My Bitcoin position is 10 - 15 times the size of my precious metals position. Its is just there to cover tail risks

The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that even gold doesn't work in a grid down situation. I suggest reading a novel called One Second After.

When 2 out of 3 people are dying from starvation, dehydration, disease, and hypothermia, no one wants your gold. They want your food, antibiotics, ammo, pre-1970 car....they won't have any gold to trade...if you had these things in that situation, would YOU trade them for gold??? when humanity is hanging by its fingernails, very few people have an excess of anything that they are willing to trade away.

 

[Blade Runner]

The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that even gold doesn't work in a grid down situation. I suggest reading a novel called One Second After.

This is obvious to anyone who has thought about it, as well. Most people, including many here, have extreme emotional ties to things, as they are human and insecure about quite a bit.

 

[JayR]

Today in the Deep South USA:

Deck Repair Guy: "10 percent off labor if you pay cash."
JayR: "Cool, for sure. Uh, you don't take Bitcoin by any chance, do you?"
DRG: "Nobody has asked me that before. Sure, I'll take Bitcoin."
JayR: "Really? Great!"

Tapped and kissed our devices -- deposit paid on the spot.

It's happening!

 

[scorpion]

Most people, including many here, have extreme emotional ties to things, as they are human and insecure about quite a bit.

Blade Runner finally outs himself as an advanced AI that runs on the Bitcoin block chain.

 

[Australia Sucks]

When 2 out of 3 people are dying from starvation, dehydration, disease, and hypothermia, no one wants your gold.

Gold has worked for 5000+ years despite all the chaos that has occurred in history. Through the black plague, the destruction wrought by Genghis Khan and all sorts of other things gold was still being traded. So yes if the grid goes down I still expect physical gold to be traded.

 

[Australia Sucks]

I just want to point out how being a "whole coiner" (i.e. owning at least one or more whole Bitcoins) is actually very rare and within 20 years will make you part of the rare club being in the top decile of millionaires.

Currently there are an estimated 58 million millionaires (in USD terms worldwide)

There is a cap of 21 million Bitcoin. So only enough for 36% of millionaires to own a single Bitcoin if nobody else in the world owned any bitcoin. If you assume the world eventually moves to a Bitcoin standard then each Bitcoin would be worth an enormous amount. Actually some credible estimates state that 5 million Bitcoin are lost forever due to lost keys, dead people, etc. This means that 21 million is in reality only 16 million. Which means only 28% of millionaires can own a whole Bitcoin if nobody else in the world owned any Bitcoin.

There approximately 1 million Bitcoin wallet addresses that contain more than one Bitcoin. Now of course there may be for example some people that have 3 Bitcoin spread across 10 wallet addresses and other people who own multiple Bitcoin indirectly through ETFs or Bitcoin treasury companies but I would be surprised if the total number of whole coiners currently exceeds 3 million. That number is more likely to go down than up in the future given institutional Bitcoin accumulation. Also I checked according to perplexity AI it is estimated that the number of whole coiners is no more than 500,000 due to some whole-coiners (and institutions) owning multiple wallets with more than 1 bitcoin.

That means if we eventually move to a global Bitcoin standard that being a whole coiner will put you amongst the richest 5 or 6 million people on the planet (and possibly even amongst the richest 1 million people on the planet) meaning you will be richer than 90% of millionaires on the planet. Basically in the future (in 20 or 30 years) if the world does indeed move to a Bitcoin standard being a whole coiner will make you part of the top 0.1% (aka the elites) of the worlds population financially.

Within just 10 years people won't even be talking about whole Bitcoins anymore they will just be taking about Satoshis. In 10 years time there will be conversations like this "no way dude how did you manage to end up owning 5 million Satoshis! That is crazy! You must have got into Bitcoin super early!"

I think within my lifetime owning 1 million Satoshis will become the new millionaire and it will be a big flex to own a mere 1 million Satoshis. This will occur within the next 40 years.

In Bitcoin we trust

When it comes to Bitcoin "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess"

 

[scorpion]

I just want to point out how being a "whole coiner" (i.e. owning at least one or more whole Bitcoins) is actually very rare and within 20 years will make you part of the rare club being in the top decile of millionaires.

Currently there are an estimated 58 million millionaires (in USD terms worldwide)

There is a cap of 21 million Bitcoin. So only enough for 36% of millionaires to own a single Bitcoin if nobody else in the world owned any bitcoin. If you assume the world eventually moves to a Bitcoin standard then each Bitcoin would be worth an enormous amount. Actually some credible estimates state that 5 million Bitcoin are lost forever due to lost keys, dead people, etc. This means that 21 million is in reality only 16 million. Which means only 28% of millionaires can own a whole Bitcoin if nobody else in the world owned any Bitcoin.

Bitcoin indeed possesses true scarcity, the problem is that due to the nature of Bitcoin itself as being intrinsically worthless, the fact of its scarcity alone cannot be relied on to drive its price indefinitely. At a certain price point, people will simply refuse to buy.

For example, consider the tiny city-state of Monaco, which is less than 1 square mile in size and yet which is, per capita, one of the wealthiest places in the world. As one would expect, real estate prices in Monaco are through the roof, as land is obviously extremely limited. But does that mean that real estate values in Monaco will ultimately increase exponentially to some stratospheric price point? No - because at some point, rather than pay increasingly exorbitant and unaffordable prices, people will simply opt out entirely and buy real estate somewhere else. This is because ultimately, no one has to live in Monaco. Similarly, no one has to buy and use Bitcoin, so there is a price ceiling (the value of which is unknown) at which people will refuse to participate and will seek alternative options.

Bitcoin is ultimately a fungible collectible token, a multiplayer game in which people collect Bitcoins and trade them amongst other players. The real-world economy exists entirely outside of the Bitcoin game, and thus the higher the price of Bitcoin gets, the less incentive new players have to enter the game. As for another analogy, imagine if the price of beef skyrocketed to $100 a pound. Great if you own a herd of cattle, right? Millions of people will be forced to pay you hundreds of dollars for their hamburgers. You'll become fabulously wealthy. Well, no - it's not that simple. In reality, 95% of people would simply start eating a lot more pork, chicken and fish. There is not sufficient demand for $100/lb. beef to maintain such a price point, and as demand inevitably collapsed in the face of such prices, supply would increase massively, driving the price back down to an equilibrium level.

Now, if these natural supply and demand forces are at play for inelastic goods with intrinsic value like land and food, imagine how much more they apply for a completely elastic good with zero intrinsic value such as Bitcoin. No one needs Bitcoin for anything, so if the price gets too high, demand for it will completely evaporate, severely constraining its upside.

 

[Australia Sucks]

no one has to buy and use Bitcoin,

That is debatable. If Bitcoin eventually becomes the global monetary standard then all money is de-facto backed by Bitcoin and everybody will either directly or indirectly use Bitcoin whether they like it or not. Of course if Bitcoin does not become the global monetary standard and global monetary reserve currency then yes it will eventually hit a price ceiling just as you explained.

 

[Judoka]

No one needs Bitcoin for anything, so if the price gets too high, demand for it will completely evaporate, severely constraining its upside.

I'm not a Bitcoin supporter but I don't think this is how it works. It's not like beef where you need to certain number of ounces to make a meal. Bitcoin works the same whether you want to send a few thousand satoshis or a few thousand Bitcoins.

 

[scorpion]

If Bitcoin eventually becomes the global monetary standard then all money is de-facto backed by Bitcoin and everybody will either directly or indirectly use Bitcoin whether they like it or not.

Sure, but that's an 'if' big enough to land a jumbo jet on. I know you all see this as an inevitability, but I don't think you understand just how radical a concept that is. The idea that powerful nation states would voluntarily give up control of issuing their own currencies is literally about as likely as them voluntarily disarming and disbanding their military and intelligence apparatuses entirely.

I'm not a Bitcoin supporter but I don't think this is how it works. It's not like beef where you need to certain number of ounces to make a meal. Bitcoin works the same whether you want to send a few thousand satoshis or a few thousand Bitcoins.

Right, but unlike beef, you literally don't need Bitcoin for anything. Just like you can substitute chicken for beef, you can substitute any number of things for Bitcoin - as a currency you could use cash, venmo, stablecoins, other cryptos, credit cards, etc... As an investment you could buy stocks, bonds, real estate, gold, etc... If you want to gamble on price you can buy shitcoins, options/futures, do sports betting, etc...

At a certain price point, people will look at Bitcoin and think, "All the big money has already been made, why would I want to buy this when I can buy 'XXX' instead?"

Maxis like to portray Bitcoin as a unique discovery akin to fire or electricity rather than as a piece of software or a financial fad that will come and go. They could be correct, of course, but I think this assessment will ultimately prove catastrophically wrong, and will be regarded historically with a great deal of amusement and disbelief.

 

[Australia Sucks]

The idea that powerful nation states would voluntarily give up control of issuing their own currencies

It will not be voluntarily. It will be game theory forcing their hand. If other countries (early adopters) adopt the Bitcoin standard and you don't then all the capital will flow into the countries on a bitcoin standard and you will get left behind. Capital prefers a to invest in a country with sounder money all else being equal. Its why countries with really weak currencies typically do not get much foreign investment whereas countries like USA, Singapore, Switzerland etc get a lot more foreign investment capital.

Its like when gun powder was adopted worldwide. Any country that did not use it got conquered by those who did.

All governments will submit to the might of Bitcoin eventually or become a derelict and impoverished shit hole. Eventually game theory will make the decision for countries between either adopt Bitcoin or impoverish your country.

 

[chance vought]

There is no such thing as intrinsic value. All value is subjective.

 

[scorpion]

It will not be voluntarily. It will be game theory forcing their hand. If other countries (early adopters) adopt the Bitcoin standard and you don't then all the capital will flow into the countries on a bitcoin standard and you will get left behind. Capital prefers a to invest in a country with sounder money all else being equal. Its why countries with really weak currencies typically do not get much foreign investment whereas countries like USA, Singapore, Switzerland etc get a lot more foreign investment capital.

With respect, you seem to be repeating buzzwords (in this case, 'game theory') without possessing any understanding of what they mean, and certainly without demonstrating how they might actually come in to play. You can say all you want something like, "Game theory dictates that Bitcoin will eventually be adopted by all countries, because it's a stronger currency," and then rest smugly as if the argument has been settled, but it simply hasn't - it hasn't even been properly introduced.

Can you even begin the articulate the mechanism by which you propose Bitcoin would replace the sovereign currencies of major countries like the U.S., China, Russia and the combined E.U.? You say that "Bitcoin is a sounder money" as if this is a statement of absolute fact, and not (as it actually is) an article of faith put forward by a zealous Bitcoin maxi.

The idea that the major economies of the world - attached at the hip, I will remind you, to the major militaries of the world and the major political powers of the world - would surrender economic sovereignty to the likes of Michael Saylor and other assorted Bitcoin HODLers is so far-fetched as to be utterly risible. This is simply not how the world works, on a social, practical or economic level.

Finally, even if the (unbacked and unproven) assertion that "Bitcoin is the soundest money" was admitted to be true, this still does nothing to make a game theory case for its universal adoption. This is due to the fact that developing countries can never compete with more established countries when forced to utilize the same currency. They must be able to issue their own currency at a discount to the prevailing world currencies in order to attract investment and make their exports affordable. The universal adoption of Bitcoin as a global currency would, at best, relegate most of the world to a permanent state of poverty, as they would have no way of attracting investment and building up their domestic production. Having the most valuable/soundest currency is not the most important thing for a sovereign country and its economy - maintaining flexibility, independence and control are. You continually fixate on fiat and its value and ignore the myriad of other important economic factors I've been harping on, which are the actual drivers of national wealth and productivity.

 

[analyst_green]

Bitcoin indeed possesses true scarcity, the problem is that due to the nature of Bitcoin itself as being intrinsically worthless, the fact of its scarcity alone cannot be relied on to drive its price indefinitely. At a certain price point, people will simply refuse to buy.

For example, consider the tiny city-state of Monaco, which is less than 1 square mile in size and yet which is, per capita, one of the wealthiest places in the world. As one would expect, real estate prices in Monaco are through the roof, as land is obviously extremely limited. But does that mean that real estate values in Monaco will ultimately increase exponentially to some stratospheric price point? No - because at some point, rather than pay increasingly exorbitant and unaffordable prices, people will simply opt out entirely and buy real estate somewhere else. This is because ultimately, no one has to live in Monaco. Similarly, no one has to buy and use Bitcoin, so there is a price ceiling (the value of which is unknown) at which people will refuse to participate and will seek alternative options.

Bitcoin is ultimately a fungible collectible token, a multiplayer game in which people collect Bitcoins and trade them amongst other players. The real-world economy exists entirely outside of the Bitcoin game, and thus the higher the price of Bitcoin gets, the less incentive new players have to enter the game. As for another analogy, imagine if the price of beef skyrocketed to $100 a pound. Great if you own a herd of cattle, right? Millions of people will be forced to pay you hundreds of dollars for their hamburgers. You'll become fabulously wealthy. Well, no - it's not that simple. In reality, 95% of people would simply start eating a lot more pork, chicken and fish. There is not sufficient demand for $100/lb. beef to maintain such a price point, and as demand inevitably collapsed in the face of such prices, supply would increase massively, driving the price back down to an equilibrium level.

Now, if these natural supply and demand forces are at play for inelastic goods with intrinsic value like land and food, imagine how much more they apply for a completely elastic good with zero intrinsic value such as Bitcoin. No one needs Bitcoin for anything, so if the price gets too high, demand for it will completely evaporate, severely constraining its upside.

While you're not wrong, the same argument can be made for the US dollar or any fiat currency. People have alternative options.