Bitcoin and Crypto Thread

[Northern Pilgrim]

Yeah but

You know, this is peak clown world as you have been wrong on every one of your predictions thus costing several men around here (including yourself) lots of money. The odd part is that I, "The guy who doesn't understand money," was right, bitcoin is jew controlled trash and the future is in 3-dimensional objects (timbered land with swift flowing creeks) and collectibles.

Anthony Scaramucci's son just bought Logan Paul's top rated Pokemon Card for 16.5 million dollars, saying this in the process:

"I just will say that if you believe in currency debasement, which our family does, this is a frontier that has a liquidity mismatch... Bitcoin and gold are well exposed, but the world of collectibles, the prices are going up for a reason."

In addition, and on that note, the oldest known pair of wearable Levis just sold for 250K so it looks like you Bitcoin Bros have been on the wrong side of the "coin" on this one. You should have, like myself, invested in collectibles, not sh*tcoin.



Correction, the value of this collection is now at about 200K, more than double it was last year.

The problem with that is you have to actually SELL the Levis to realize the value. With bitcoin you would have to also SELL to realize the losses.
So both sides in here are basically arguing with a brick wall.

Personally, I can see the merit of both but hold more of a 3rd position.As some have said, if your portfolio consists of at least say 5-10% bitcoin, same for self held precious metals and stocks, why not invest a few grand every year in quality tools and such from the local pawn shop as Purp has suggested? If you can get out of town into a rural property and build it into a survival type location, why not?
Why not do this AND bitcoin?

 

[chance vought]

You know, this is peak clown world as you have been wrong on every one of your predictions thus costing several men around here (including yourself) lots of money. The odd part is that I, "The guy who doesn't understand money," was right, bitcoin is jew controlled trash and the future is in 3-dimensional objects (timbered land with swift flowing creeks) and collectibles.

I think you mean currency, not money. Dollars are no longer money: the base layer of dollars is government debt; not gold, not anything else. A promise to pay in the future. Pay what, exactly? Dollars printed in the future, that are backed by more promises to pay in the future. That isn't money.

Could I trade my bitcoin for less cuckbucks now, vs 4 months ago? Yes, but WHY WOULD I??? No one who has ever held bitcoin has lost money UNLESS THEY SOLD IT. It's all so tiresome, the same points are brought up over and over again. You and @scorpion are afraid of market volatility, that's fine, but that doesn't mean bitcoin doesn't work or won't work. Bitcoin isn't volatile: fiat is: see chart below.

Correction, the value of this collection is now at about 200K, more than double it was last year.

Priced in gold, though? That's the problem, we don't have money and no real way to value anything. This is what bitcoin fixes.

 

[scorpion]

The basic fallacy underlying the stance of Bitcoin maxis is this idea that, because fiat currency is flawed, Bitcoin must be a superior form of money. But this does not at all logically follow. Because "A" is imperfect, does not necessarily imply that "B" is superior to "A" just because it is different.

Fiat currency performs a totally different function than gold, stocks, Bitcoin, or other assets. It is not meant to store value over time. It is meant to be spent. Its purpose is to facilitate commercial activity and labor exchange, which are the true basis of wealth in any economy. Thus, all these comparisons and criticisms that Bitcoin maxis apply to fiat are completely and utterly irrelevant. It is a total bait and switch.

The idea that Bitcoin is "sound money" or indeed even the "most perfect form of money ever invented" is nothing more than an opinion. When maxis talk about Bitcoin operating by consensus, they are referring to the operations of the protocol itself, but what they should really be referring to is the fact that Bitcoin's value is entirely driven by consensus. It only has value if people believe it has value.

Bitcoin maxis claim this is perfectly fine, and some go so far as to state that there is no such thing as inherent value, and that all value is entirely relative. But this is flat out false. Consider this analogy: if I put a prime Mike Tyson or Jon Jones across the ring from some average journeyman fighter, the result of that matchup is a foregone conclusion. This is because the value of Tyson or Jones as a fighter is NOT relative. It is absolute and demonstrable. Now, imagine if instead of Tyson or Jones, I put one of those "no-touch" martial arts masters in the ring with regular fighter. What do you think happens next?

Obviously, the fake master will get destroyed. This is because his skills are not real and objective, they only exist via consensus in the minds of those who believe in him. Similarly, Bitcoin only has value to those who believe in it. And just like the reputation (aka value) of the fake martial artist can be destroyed in an instant when reality inevitably asserts itself, so can the reputation (value) of Bitcoin. When you have an asset whose entire value rests on a cult following, not only will its price be inherently unstable (what we have clearly observed with Bitcoin over its entire lifetime) but its ultimate destruction is already baked into the cake. It's just a matter of time.

 

[chance vought]

The basic fallacy underlying the stance of Bitcoin maxis is this idea that, because fiat currency is flawed, Bitcoin must be a superior form of money. But this does not at all logically follow. Because "A" is imperfect, does not necessarily imply that "B" is superior to "A" just because it is different.

Bitcoin is superior across time
Bitcoin is superior across space.
do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Fiat currency performs a totally different function than gold, stocks, Bitcoin, or other assets. It is not meant to store value over time. It is meant to be spent.

It "performs a different function" because it cannot function as savings! Bitcoin can do both...we have a bifurcated system where you can't save in fiat, so have to gamble in the wallstreet casino in order to "save" ...why would someone choose fiat, that does not hold value, over something that does? Thats why it is spent: to escape from it

Its purpose is to facilitate commercial activity and labor exchange, which are the true basis of wealth in any economy. Thus, all these comparisons and criticisms that Bitcoin maxis apply to fiat are completely and utterly irrelevant. It is a total bait and switch.

Bitcoin can perform these functions without stealing from the users of it. Fiat steals from you every time you try to keep some as a buffer against uncertainty. That is why no one has savings, and everyone is on a knifes edge and we need helicopter money during covid.

The idea that Bitcoin is "sound money" or indeed even the "most perfect form of money ever invented" is nothing more than an opinion. When maxis talk about Bitcoin operating by consensus, they are referring to the operations of the protocol itself, but what they should really be referring to is the fact that Bitcoin's value is entirely driven by consensus. It only has value if people believe it has value.

All value is ordinal, and subjective.
Individuals can ordinally rank what they desire...the "market" or group cannot. Individuals can value something relative to something else.

Bitcoin maxis claim this is perfectly fine, and some go so far as to state that there is no such thing as inherent value, and that all value is entirely relative. But this is flat out false. Consider this analogy: if I put a prime Mike Tyson or Jon Jones across the ring from some average journeyman fighter, the result of that matchup is a foregone conclusion. This is because the value of Tyson or Jones as a fighter is NOT relative. It is absolute and demonstrable. Now, imagine if instead of Tyson or Jones, I put one of those "no-touch" martial arts masters in the ring with regular fighter. What do you think happens next?

Mike Tyson is not a market good. Make an analogy using 2/market goods.

Obviously, the fake master will get destroyed. This is because his skills are not real and objective, they only exist via consensus in the minds of those who believe in him. Similarly, Bitcoin only has value to those who believe in it. And just like the reputation (aka value) of the fake martial artist can be destroyed in an instant when reality inevitably asserts itself, so can the reputation (value) of Bitcoin. When you have an asset whose entire value rests on a cult following, not only will its price be inherently unstable (what we have clearly observed with Bitcoin over its entire lifetime) but its ultimate destruction is already baked into the cake. It's just a matter of time.

Why do people value fiat, then. Where is the so called intrinsic value?

 

[Blade Runner]

You know, this is peak clown world as you have been wrong on every one of your predictions thus costing several men around here (including yourself) lots of money.

No it didn't. You can't even come up with one claim, or shred of evidence, since I'm a hodler. I've said repeatedly that even though I've guessed where it would go, the only thing that matters if if you put money down on those time limits, and I did not. So stop lying.

You should have, like myself, invested in collectibles, not sh*tcoin.

All time classic clown world stuff here.

because fiat currency is flawed, Bitcoin must be a superior form of money.

Do you even pay attention to anything we write or do you just keep making things up because it's fun to you/you have no real argument. We've not made that argument once. Fiat is flawed. Period. BTC has characteristics that make it superior money, that's what we have said. For the 50th time. You're just making stuff up, stop it.

Bitcoin maxis claim this is perfectly fine, and some go so far as to state that there is no such thing as inherent value, and that all value is entirely relative.

I've literally repeated this argument also, and again you re-state something incorrectly. Are you even aware of this? Are you intentionally doing it or just lack reading comprehension? I think this at least the third time you've said it. So for the 4th or 5th time:

Humans assign value to things. Is this value based on nothing? NO, it is based on the characteristics of said thing, mainly its utility. Just like oil. Just like gold. The utility of those may go away for reasons we've stated, but that will take time since they are currently still considered quite useful.

Thats why it is spent: to escape from it

He has to know this. That's why the argument keeps being repeated and makes no sense.

Why do people value fiat, then. Where is the so called intrinsic value?

We've outed them thousands of times on this thread for holding certain things to a standard (BTC) that they don't hold to others (gold, fiat). Another example is right here.

 

[Blade Runner]

By the way, I believe that BTC will maybe have a bull run in this "winter" market, but about a week if that, but then we're moving down again for some more pain. I don't think the pain really goes away until the latter part of the year. So don't say I don't predict it going down, either. And don't say I lose money unless you're going to say I make money when it goes down, too (if that happens with this prediction - bad March April probably with continue chop through Q2-3).

 

[scorpion]

Quoting myself:

The basic fallacy underlying the stance of Bitcoin maxis is this idea that, because fiat currency is flawed, Bitcoin must be a superior form of money.

Is everyone following? Ok great, so far so good. Let's see how Blade Runner responds.

Do you even pay attention to anything we write or do you just keep making things up because it's fun to you/you have no real argument. We've not made that argument once.

Ok, so according to Blade Runner, he has never made this argument once!

THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE IN HIS POST:

Fiat is flawed. Period. BTC has characteristics that make it superior money, that's what we have said.

Are you intentionally doing it or just lack reading comprehension?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

QED

 

[JayR]

You should have, like myself, invested in collectibles, not sh*tcoin.

During a conversation about the collectability of early issues of Bitcoin magazine, a guy at my local meetup told me that the 2nd issue of Wired Magazine from May 1993 is going for $50K. Having been a Wired subscriber/collector since the premier issue up until woke Conde Nast bought them, I raced home to my bookshelf..... BOOM!



I sent it off to a grading company and it came back as an 8.0/10. Haven't sold it yet, but plan to do so soon after a bit more research on how to get the best price. The ironic twist? It's the "Privacy" issue, and the ridiculous price is apparently due to demand by.... Bitcoiners!

I also have a drawer full of vintage Levi's I need to admit will never fit me again. I wonder how much those are worth??

 

[Blade Runner]

Pot. Kettle. Black.

QED

Do you understand language? It's rather amazing to me. Do I really have to spell this out. Can another tell this man, since I can't get through to him, what he doesn't understand?

Do you understand syntax, and what the words because, must, etc mean?

 

[scorpion]

Do you understand language? It's rather amazing to me. Do I really have to spell this out. Can another tell this man, since I can't get through to him, what he doesn't understand?

Do you understand syntax, and what the words because, must, etc mean?

Can you actually make an argument and not just fall back on "we've explained this a hundred times already!" or "you just don't understand"?

Because I'm not sure if you've noticed, but that's about all you ever say in these threads. @chance vought, to his credit, provides detailed explanations of his thinking when challenged (even though I usually disagree, his posts actually contain arguments and ideas). You just belly ache about how no one understands or that you've already explained things. To be honest I don't even know why you bother posting when you clearly have nothing to say.

 

[Australia Sucks]

The basic fallacy underlying the stance of Bitcoin maxis is this idea that, because fiat currency is flawed, Bitcoin must be a superior form of money. But this does not at all logically follow. Because "A" is imperfect, does not necessarily imply that "B" is superior to "A" just because it is different.

You are just rehashing old arguments that have already been addressed but I will provide a brief summary here:
Nobody claimed that Bitcoin is good simply because its not fiat.

Bitcoiners claim that Bitcoin is a superior form of money because:

-It has a finite and fixed supply cap of 21 million (unlike fiat which can be created in unlimited amounts). Gold is relatively limited in supply but if the price goes high enough they can ramp up gold mining.

-It is censorship resistant (unlike digital fiat where they can shut down or freeze your bank accounts or ban certain transactions). Physical gold is censorship resistant but hard to move across borders.

-It is easy to transport unlike physical gold or large amounts of physical cash (especially across borders). Digital fiat in traditional banking system can be slow and expensive for international transfers. Stable coins are easy to transport but they lack censorship resistance or a finite supply.

-It is highly divisible (1 Bitcoin has 100 million satoshis). Fiat is also highly divisible but physical metals are not due to mintage costs. A 1 gram gold bar has a crazy high premium to spot.

-It is easy to verify due to the blockchain. Often if you sell physical gold it may sometimes need to be scanned by an XRF machine or assayed. Also physical fiat often has counterfeiting risk and this is not just a theoretical inconvenience. Firstly in some third world currencies cash counterfeiting is common. Secondly even with older U.S. dollar notes (which have fewer security measures) a lot of currency exchange places in foreign countries won't accept it. It happened to me once on holidays when I took U.S. notes to exchange for local currency some of the notes that were older they would not accept. All of this produces friction in terms of commerce.

 

[Australia Sucks]

It only has value if people believe it has value.

For people who are de-banked or living in countries like Iran or Venezuela with sanctions and capital controls is having the ability to transact (which Bitcoin provides them with) not an inherently valuable service? Where in the absence of Bitcoin they would not be able to send or receive money easily.

 

[Australia Sucks]

Because I'm not sure if you've noticed, but that's about all you ever say in these threads.

The problem is you keep forcing everyone to repeat themselves many times. You make an assertion and then we address it then a few pages later you make the same assertion as if the previous conversation never happened.

 

[chance vought]

The problem is you keep forcing everyone to repeat themselves many times. You make an assertion and then we address it then a few pages later you make the same assertion as if the previous conversation never happened.

It stems from the ego protecting itself, which all of us deal with. Understanding bitcoin means accepting that a huge number of things that you believed before are simply not true. The self must change but the ego fights it...probably by design or we would all be schizo basket-cases.

That's why Jeff Booth named his company Ego Death Capital

 

[chance vought]

 

[Blade Runner]

To be honest I don't even know why you bother posting when you clearly have nothing to say.

scorp, as AS said, you literally state the same things over and over after we've repeated the answers at least 3x

He then repeated what we've said as a summary. Now, if on subsequent pages you ask again what/why/how, what do you expect us to say?

you also hear/read the argument, which is quite simply, fiat has THESE characteristics most of which are awful regarding the topic of money, but they are in place because elites and government are able to benefit them, since they are manipulable and can be just created out of thin air. OK, got it?

If we then re-hash why BTC, which has other properties, principles, hard money attributes, ETC that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FIAT BEING GOOD, BAD, ETC

You then state that we say BTC is good because fiat is bad. Do you honestly not know that that has nothing to do with anything, is not what we are saying, nor is anything we have ever said? It's literally the definition of mental retardation to suggest so, let alone over and over

AGAIN

Fiat is its own thing
Bitcoin is its own thing

Fiat sucks, debases people, steals their work/energy/time

BTC does not

Read that 100x. If you are still confused, just keep working for fiat. But stop justifying that

 

[chance vought]

FWIW I'm not opposed to a little re-hashing of ideas every 100 pages or so

 

[chance vought]

 

[scorpion]

You are just rehashing old arguments that have already been addressed but I will provide a brief summary here:

Thank you.

-It has a finite and fixed supply cap of 21 million (unlike fiat which can be created in unlimited amounts). Gold is relatively limited in supply but if the price goes high enough they can ramp up gold mining.

Bitcoin's hard cap makes it (theoretically) attractive as a store of value/collectible, yet at the same time it is this same property that makes it wholly unsuitable as a currency in a modern economy. Maxis constantly pull this bait and switch where they attribute Bitcoin the virtues of both a currency and a store of value, but the two roles are mutually exclusive. And before you say, "Not true, gold was the first money and both a currency and store of value," may I remind you there were very good, practical reasons we switched over to paper "backed" by gold and then fractionalized. Inflation is not a good thing, but deflation is even worse. It's like the difference between being overweight or starving to death. Currency is the lifeblood of the economy, and the economy is what keeps us all alive.

-It is censorship resistant (unlike digital fiat where they can shut down or freeze your bank accounts or ban certain transactions). Physical gold is censorship resistant but hard to move across borders.

This is cope. Because Bitcoin is a public ledger, all transactions can be easily traced, and wallets can be blacklisted. Any Bitcoin held on exchanges can be seized/frozen. At best, you might be able to protect Bitcoin held in cold storage from confiscation. But you couldn't transact with it or convert it to fiat. And then there's always the old-fashioned wrench attack.

-It is easy to transport unlike physical gold or large amounts of physical cash (especially across borders). Digital fiat in traditional banking system can be slow and expensive for international transfers. Stable coins are easy to transport but they lack censorship resistance or a finite supply.

Speed is not everything, and our fiat banking system is plenty fast for most purposes. Lack of speed/friction allows for increased security and fraud protection, which Bitcoin totally lacks.

-It is highly divisible (1 Bitcoin has 100 million satoshis). Fiat is also highly divisible but physical metals are not due to mintage costs. A 1 gram gold bar has a crazy high premium to spot.

This is meaningless.

-It is easy to verify due to the blockchain. Often if you sell physical gold it may sometimes need to be scanned by an XRF machine or assayed. Also physical fiat often has counterfeiting risk and this is not just a theoretical inconvenience. Firstly in some third world currencies cash counterfeiting is common. Secondly even with older U.S. dollar notes (which have fewer security measures) a lot of currency exchange places in foreign countries won't accept it. It happened to me once on holidays when I took U.S. notes to exchange for local currency some of the notes that were older they would not accept. All of this produces friction in terms of commerce.

This is also fairly meaningless.

For people who are de-banked or living in countries like Iran or Venezuela with sanctions and capital controls is having the ability to transact (which Bitcoin provides them with) not an inherently valuable service? Where in the absence of Bitcoin they would not be able to send or receive money easily.

USD stablecoins serve this purpose much better than Bitcoin does, which is why there is huge demand for them. Look at the failed Bitcoin experiment in El Salvador to see how much demand for Bitcoin actually exists among normal people (almost none).

The problem is you keep forcing everyone to repeat themselves many times. You make an assertion and then we address it then a few pages later you make the same assertion as if the previous conversation never happened.

This thread is over five years (maybe even ten years?) old, and dates back to the RVF days. The idea that we all won't be repeating arguments at some point is absurd. If you object to repetition in such an old thread, we might as well just close and lock it. Also, it seems we spend a good deal of time talking past each other, which is unfortunate but inevitable.

scorp, as AS said, you literally state the same things over and over after we've repeated the answers at least 3x

See above.

Fiat is its own thing
Bitcoin is its own thing

Fiat sucks, debases people, steals their work/energy/time

BTC does not

Agree. Fiat and Bitcoin are two different things, and I contend that they serve two different purposes. I can totally get on board (theoretically) with the idea of Bitcoin as the ultimate inflation hedge/store of value. This argument makes sense. With a limited supply of Bitcoin and an unlimited supply of fiat, it seems logical that the price of Bitcoin will simply keep increasing ad infinitum. I understand this. You keep saying that I don't understand, but I understand your argument perfectly. I simply disagree that this is going to happen, not on the grounds that the argument is illogical, but on the grounds that I believe that at some point, for one reason or another (there are many potential reasons) people are simply going to lose interest in Bitcoin and buy something else for store of value purposes.

Further, even if I am wrong on this point and Bitcoin does continue to succeed for decades (and millennia according to chance vought!) to come, there is simply no way that Bitcoin can ever replace fiat in the economy. As you just said yourself, fiat is its own thing and Bitcoin is its own thing. So why do you all say that Bitcoin can replace fiat? That's like saying that a hammer can replace a crescent wrench. These are two different things entirely. An exclusively Bitcoin-based economy with no other currency would be a complete and utter disaster: its deflationary nature, lack of security and fraud protection, difficulty to use, and limited transaction volume make it totally unsuitable for this purpose. Fiat-based economies would wildly outcompete Bitcoin economies in terms of economic growth (if you assert otherwise, please explain why no current economy has a gold-based currency).

Bitcoin maxis understand the flaws of fiat, they just can't admit that Bitcoin has serious flaws of its own. Nor can they admit that fiat possesses virtues (namely its flexibility/scalability - being debt-based, the money supply expands and contracts directly in proportion to economic activity). Maxis also can't wrap their heads around the idea that most people will never think like them, and regard Bitcoin as inherently valuable due to its unique properties. The reason most people own Bitcoin now is simply for speculative purposes. There is no widespread belief in Bitcoin, nor will there ever be. And I contend that eventually the Bitcoin fad will slowly die off and fade into total irrelevance.

 

[chance vought]

Thank you.

Bitcoin's hard cap makes it (theoretically) attractive as a store of value/collectible, yet at the same time it is this same property that makes it wholly unsuitable as a currency in a modern economy. Maxis constantly pull this bait and switch where they attribute Bitcoin the virtues of both a currency and a store of value, but the two roles are mutually exclusive. And before you say, "Not true, gold was the first money and both a currency and store of value," may I remind you there were very good, practical reasons we switched over to paper "backed" by gold and then fractionalized. Inflation is not a good thing, but deflation is even worse. It's like the difference between being overweight or starving to death. Currency is the lifeblood of the economy, and the economy is what keeps us all alive.

Fiat inflation keeps the current system, based on debt slavery, alive (on life-support anyway). It will die. Punishing savers, and rewarding debtors, is why we have clown world (mis-allocation of capital financing gender studies degrees). The current system will die, with or without Bitcoin.

“Deflation bad” is just Keynesian garbage fed to university students to justify money printing. Debtors get screwed when there’s deflation. Who is in the most debt, you ask? Governments and banks. Who then prints the debt into money in order to fund economists like Paul Krugman to gaslight you into thinking deflation is the end of the world? I wonder.

This is cope. Because Bitcoin is a public ledger, all transactions can be easily traced, and wallets can be blacklisted. Any Bitcoin held on exchanges can be seized/frozen. At best, you might be able to protect Bitcoin held in cold storage from confiscation. But you couldn't transact with it or convert it to fiat. And then there's always the old-fashioned wrench attack.

Bitcoin does not use wallets or accounts as you think of them. It has addresses. It can be used privately. It can be transacted privately, both on-chain and using e-cash (cashu) or lightning, or even physically in person, using sats cards, open dimes, and other “physical bitcoin.”, without a new entry on the ledger.

Speed is not everything, and our fiat banking system is plenty fast for most purposes. Lack of speed/friction allows for increased security and fraud protection, which Bitcoin totally lacks.

Which is great for the customer, not so great for the merchant. It works fine in a high trust environment, but there is a reason large transactions require wire transfers…if you need an escrow arrangement for using Bitcoin, that’s also a solvable problem. Pay a third party to do the transaction, for a fee, with the optionality of chargebacks. Even the guy I bought my dog from won’t take a cheque.

This is meaningless.

This is also fairly meaningless.

USD stablecoins serve this purpose much better than Bitcoin does, which is why there is huge demand for them. Look at the failed Bitcoin experiment in El Salvador to see how much demand for Bitcoin actually exists among normal people (almost none).

This thread is over five years (maybe even ten years?) old, and dates back to the RVF days. The idea that we all won't be repeating arguments at some point is absurd. If you object to repetition in such an old thread, we might as well just close and lock it. Also, it seems we spend a good deal of time talking past each other, which is unfortunate but inevitable.

See above.

Agree. Fiat and Bitcoin are two different things, and I contend that they serve two different purposes. I can totally get on board (theoretically) with the idea of Bitcoin as the ultimate inflation hedge/store of value. This argument makes sense. With a limited supply of Bitcoin and an unlimited supply of fiat, it seems logical that the price of Bitcoin will simply keep increasing ad infinitum. I understand this. You keep saying that I don't understand, but I understand your argument perfectly. I simply disagree that this is going to happen, not on the grounds that the argument is illogical, but on the grounds that I believe that at some point, for one reason or another (there are many potential reasons) people are simply going to lose interest in Bitcoin and buy something else for store of value purposes.

Further, even if I am wrong on this point and Bitcoin does continue to succeed for decades (and millennia according to chance vought!) to come, there is simply no way that Bitcoin can ever replace fiat in the economy. As you just said yourself, fiat is its own thing and Bitcoin is its own thing. So why do you all say that Bitcoin can replace fiat? That's like saying that a hammer can replace a crescent wrench. These are two different things entirely. An exclusively Bitcoin-based economy with no other currency would be a complete and utter disaster: its deflationary nature, lack of security and fraud protection, difficulty to use, and limited transaction volume make it totally unsuitable for this purpose. Fiat-based economies would wildly outcompete Bitcoin economies in terms of economic growth (if you assert otherwise, please explain why no current economy has a gold-based currency).

Bitcoin maxis understand the flaws of fiat, they just can't admit that Bitcoin has serious flaws of its own. Nor can they admit that fiat possesses virtues (namely its flexibility/scalability - being debt-based, the money supply expands and contracts directly in proportion to economic activity). Maxis also can't wrap their heads around the idea that most people will never think like them, and regard Bitcoin as inherently valuable due to its unique properties. The reason most people own Bitcoin now is simply for speculative purposes. There is no widespread belief in Bitcoin, nor will there ever be. And I contend that eventually the Bitcoin fad will slowly die off and fade into total irrelevance.

Fiat does one thing, well: salability across space. The other poorly: salability across time.

Bitcoin does the one thing Fiat does well, even better: it is borderless. You can send your own money anywhere on earth and nothing stands in the way.

Bitcoin also is vastly more salable across time. More secure property than Fiat as well.

If Fiat is an Abacus, Bitcoin is a microprocessor. Not only can the microprocessor do arithmetic even better than an abacus, it can do 10 million other things that aren’t even possible on an abacus. To include not siphoning 7% of your wealth per annum to pedo psychopaths in government and banking.