Bitcoin and Crypto Thread

[chance vought]

It certainly matters what the broader population thinks if your aim is mass adoption. It also matters if your goal is passing legislation for a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, which becomes increasingly unlikely if Bitcoin is politically tied to Trump.

Why would gold go to zero even if Bitcoin continues to appreciate indefinitely? That makes absolutely no sense. People would be buying up gold to turn into jewelry long before its value ever reached zero. Conversely, there is literally no floor underneath the price of Bitcoin or any other crypto, since they have no underlying real-world application.

real world application: money

No, people actually do make that argument all the time. You're making it right now, in fact, because that's essentially what you're saying when you claim that Bitcoin is the greatest money ever invented. Why? Because the 21 million limit is literally the only thing differentiating Bitcoin from every other shitcoin on the market. The fact that it is strictly limited in supply is the only reason you can claim it has any value in the first place, which is in turn the only thing that makes it function as a perfect form of money (in your view).

limited supply, transportability, divisibility, ease of custody, low cost of ownership

What is money? Money is not paper, gold, or anything in particular. It is a ledger that keeps track of who has provided value to society. It allows strangers to demand each other's time, in a cooperative and mutually beneficial way. Fiat is a corrupted form of money, but it still is a ledger that mostly keeps track of that (bankers and government parasites not withstanding). 95% of fiat money isn't in the form of physical notes or coins - it is simply a highly centralized electronic ledger, subject to the corruption that centralization leads to.

Bitcoin is simply a ledger - the absolute genius feature of which is triple-entry accounting: double entry accounting with timestamps (which solves the double spend problem of a decentralized ledger).

 

[scorpion]

transportability, divisibility, ease of custody, low cost of ownership

Bitcoin absolutely has these properties - but so does every other crypto. Thus, they cannot be the reason that Bitcoin is perceived to have value over and above any random shitcoin. The only thing that makes Bitcoin unique is its brand name, its network effect (popularity) and its limited supply of 21 million coins (although this property could also be copied by any other crypto). In other words, it's not the technology itself that provides value, it's entirely peoples' perceptions and beliefs about it.

 

[chance vought]

Bitcoin absolutely has these properties - but so does every other crypto. Thus, they cannot be the reason that Bitcoin is perceived to have value over and above any random shitcoin. The only thing that makes Bitcoin unique is its brand name, its network effect (popularity) and its limited supply of 21 million coins (although this property could also be copied by any other crypto). In other words, it's not the technology itself that provides value, it's entirely peoples' perceptions and beliefs about it.

Bitcoin is the most decentralized and thus the most immutable. Is also has by far the most powerful computer network by at least 1000x, and is that much more secure than crypto.

These are crucial properties that crypto cannot duplicate.

Proof of work is what makes it real and ties something digital to the laws of nature - what typically can be infinitely copied is made perfectly scarce.

If only one person controls the ledger, at no cost for the privelege, you have Trump coin, or the Federal Reserve. If no one controls it — only those who choose to expend energy, at a cost, to provide security — that is bitcoin.

 

[PurpleUrkel]

I yawn as we rehash the same statements that those of us who know what BTC have already debunked at least 10 times on this thread.

You don't know what bitcoin is. Bitcoin is nothing and so you know nothing about nothing. Bitcoin is nothing without electricity, bitcoin is nothing without the internet, bitcoin is nothing without nerds and gamblers to claim that it is something. Bitcoin is nothing if you lose the pass key to your hot pocket. Bitcoin is nothing unless you were an early adopter that bought 10 coins at $100 each and sold them recently at 100K, converted the cash into gold bars and now have a million dollars in gold bars buried in the woods out of the reach of thieves and the governnent. For 50 Cent bitcoin is something, for late adopters like yourself it is nothing. Possession is 9/10ths of the law, and if you don't have physical possession of an asset then you have nothing. Bitcoin is not physical, therefore it is nothing. Bitcoin is a state of mind, and the human mind is subject to change without notice.

You use these words because you try to fool others and yourself into maintaining this charade that the market is wrong after 16 years.

A whole 16 years? You're the one trying to fool others, because your imaginary Bitcoin goes down in value if you don't convince others to buy into this elaborate group think charade.

It has value because of all of the things I've said above, which include being the greatest money ever invented/discovered to this point in human history.

How can this be known if it's only 16 years old?

The correct answer is "gold is the greatest money ever invented/discovered to this point in human history." Everything you see of importance in the world from Michaelangelo's David to The Hoover Dam were built using gold as payment. All Bitcoin has done in 16 years is allow dark arts thieves to shut down the Colonial Pipeline for 3 days and allow a few outlier geeks to get rich by doing nothing.

 

[Samseau]

While it is wise to invest in oneself, it is not to make money.

Making money has very little to do with talent or hard work. Hard work goes completely unrewarded in today's day and age. Making money is mostly luck.

My great-grandfather supported a family of six, ran a business, and bought a house, by making hats. My grandfather supported a family of five and made millions of dollars by selling paint.

Try doing either of those things today. My ancestors were in the right place at the right time, got lucky, and made it big. It's that way for everyone. Hard work is the least important component - although it is necessary to some degree. Hard work is easy if you know you'll make bank. Most men are capable of working hard for the right incentives.

Therefore, I don't blame others for trying to make money with the bitcoin scam. The entire economy is a scam, where hard work is no longer rewarded, so it makes sense to go for the biggest scam.

I do agree with traditional wisdom, however, to invest in oneself - but not because it makes money. Chances are, investing in yourself won't make much money. That's why so many wealthy people are just fat, chubby corporate slaves - they invest nothing into themselves, and give all their time to the corporation to make money. They literally trade off their health for wealth, a lousy trade, but it works to some degree.

No, the reason to invest in yourself is that it's the one thing the government cannot take from you. Knowledge, health, and peace of the soul are priceless. No amount of inflation can take away skills, wisdom, or strength that you've invested into yourself. That is why it is the superior investment, but whether or not it makes you money is just a bonus, really.

I've not known a single person who was merely rewarded for hard work. Everyone I know with money got extremely lucky in one fashion or another. 100% of them, which is a harsh condemnation of our society. The vast majority of men are poor, which is why they cannot afford children.

 

[Blade Runner]

So you think btc is established after 16 years but gold can go to zero after 6000 years?

I'll reply to this first, and alone. I wouldn't use the word "established" for BTC because for me that word should be reserved for when it fully matures (when its value is closer to its maximal value and thus its volatility has significantly decreased). Also, gold doesn't have to actually hit zero in our lifetime (I'm not making that claim) to be going to zero vs BTC, which is happening.

 

[Blade Runner]

No, people actually do make that argument all the time. You're making it right now, in fact, because that's essentially what you're saying when you claim that Bitcoin is the greatest money ever invented. Why? Because the 21 million limit is literally the only thing differentiating Bitcoin from every other shitcoin on the market. The fact that it is strictly limited in supply is the only reason you can claim it has any value in the first place, which is in turn the only thing that makes it function as a perfect form of money (in your view).

Chance has already responded to this, but it repeats the same thing you've said forever, which seemingly is to always stress one thing, instead of the totality of the argument. BTC and its network are quite literally backed by energy. Your denying that all good money is in some way backed by energy, as is life, is beyond weird - but it's because you have some emotional reason at this point to keep denying what BTC is. I don't know why that is, but my guess is that you don't like the fact that it's been successful and think you are too late. The sad reality is that you still aren't late, and can still benefit from BTC, but your ego won't allow you to. It's one of the reasons I actually continue to post, so that people can understand that they are still early and realize the benefits of the network, which transfers value that can't be confiscated.

You don't know what bitcoin is. Bitcoin is nothing and so you know nothing about nothing.

That's strange logic, beyond being a tautology. It'd be more helpful if you just said you don't understand BTC, which is something you've said before. Since I do understand BTC, I will benefit in every way.

Bitcoin is nothing without electricity, bitcoin is nothing without the internet, bitcoin is nothing without nerds and gamblers to claim that it is something.

Life is nothing without energy. You make exactly zero points here.

How can this be known if it's only 16 years old?

Because it has properties that you can see, verify, trust and understand. Paradoxically, if you know how the network works, you then realize that you don't need to trust anything, which is the point of BTC in fact.

Making money has very little to do with talent or hard work. Hard work goes completely unrewarded in today's day and age. Making money is mostly luck.

You're speaking from within this system, and ironically it's (largely) true, but it proves the point on why BTC is so important, moral and useful. Only in the fiat world can money not have as much to do with actual work or value.

No, the reason to invest in yourself is that it's the one thing the government cannot take from you.

The government can't take BTC from the royal you either, another point of ours.

I've not known a single person who was merely rewarded for hard work.

I have, but this again proves the point of why BTC is so important.

 

[scorpion]

BTC and its network are quite literally backed by energy.

Maxis often make this claim, but it's complete nonsense. Bitcoin is not backed by energy, rather it is extracted through the wasteful expenditure of energy. Claiming that Bitcoin is backed by energy is like claiming that the old demonic Aztec religion was "backed by human life" (aka human sacrifice). A currency directly backed by gold can be readily exchanged for gold. A currency like the dollar, which is de facto backed by oil, can be exchanged for oil. Bitcoin cannot be exchanged for energy. You can certainly use energy to extract Bitcoin, but Bitcoin cannot be said to represent a store of energy, because the energy it represents was wasted in its extraction. In other words, every kilowatt hour spent mining Bitcoin is a sunk cost that can never be recovered and which has no present or future value.

the network, which transfers value that can't be confiscated.

I agree that the network is in some sense invincible and unassailable. But the fact that Bitcoin has a public ledger still makes it vulnerable. There are dangers besides direct confiscation, most obviously by controlling the on and off ramps and by blacklisting addresses.

You accuse me of having an emotional antagonism towards Bitcoin, but all my criticisms are all very fair and reasonable. I think you have an extreme philosophical bias in favor of Bitcoin, in addition to an emotional attachment and a personal financial stake, which combine to make you far less objective in your analysis than you think you are. In other words, you believe what you want to believe. And to be fair, this seems to have worked out pretty well for you so far. But I don't think it will for much longer.

Bitcoin's biggest weakness is that it has no direct connection to the real world. It's basically just a multiplayer computer game that is currently popular and which many people enjoy playing. But ironically, the more valuable Bitcoin becomes, the less incentive new players have to join the game. Why should anyone pay $100k for a Bitcoin just to join your game? The only reason is because they believe they'll be able to keep playing and sell it to someone else. But at some point people are simply going to lose interest in favor of another similar game.

 

[chance vought]

Bitcoin's biggest weakness is that it has no direct connection to the real world. It's basically just a multiplayer computer game that is currently popular and which many people enjoy playing. But ironically, the more valuable Bitcoin becomes, the less incentive new players have to join the game. Why should anyone pay $100k for a Bitcoin just to join your game? The only reason is because they believe they'll be able to keep playing and sell it to someone else. But at some point people are simply going to lose interest in favor of another similar game.

The more valuable it becomes, the more attractive it is to more people. A $10 billion asset is not useful to large corporations, wallstreet, or nation states. A $10 Trillion asset is.

The more valuable bitcoin becomes, the more pools of capital it will attract.

 

[Based_Christian_Dude]

Did Ross Ulbricht get pardoned yet?

 

[JayR]

Did Ross Ulbricht get pardoned yet?

I think Trump's going to sign a stack of EO's on stage in the post-inauguration party in the big arena which is just getting started now. I'm hoping one of them is the Ross pardon, but I have not heard any confirmation that he's going to follow through on the promise and do it.

 

[scorpion]

A $10 billion asset is not useful to large corporations, wallstreet, or nation states. A $10 Trillion asset is.

I'm curious why you think a $10 trillion Bitcoin would be any more useful to these entities than gold (currently an $18.5 trillion dollar asset). Gold serves literally every function that Bitcoin does in terms of acting as an inflation hedge, being outside of centralized control and having a limited supply. It obviously does not have the properties of software like Bitcoin in terms of portability and whatnot, but in exchange it has the advantages of much, much more established pedigree and physical existence as a useful commodity, both of which realistically give it a much more stable value than Bitcoin.

And yet for all that gold has going for it, large corporations, Wall Street and nation states don't really have much practical use for it these days. It's basically a relic of a bygone era. So I'm honestly curious what actual function you think Bitcoin will be providing for governments and large corporations, functions which could practically be served already by gold, but which currently no one seems to be very concerned about. Why don't you see activist shareholders pushing corporations to acquire gold reserves on their balance sheets? Why not reserves of Pokemon cards? What practical difference is there from the U.S. Government buying billions of dollars worth of gold in World of Warcraft versus buying billions of Bitcoin? How does either actually serve toward any geopolitical or financial strategic advantage, given that neither have any actual existence or relevance to the real world or economy?

 

[Australia Sucks]

I'm curious why you think a $10 trillion Bitcoin would be any more useful to these entities than gold (currently an $18.5 trillion dollar asset). Gold serves literally every function that Bitcoin does in terms of acting as an inflation hedge, being outside of centralized control and having a limited supply. It obviously does not have the properties of software like Bitcoin in terms of portability and whatnot, but in exchange it has the advantages of much, much more established pedigree and physical existence as a useful commodity, both of which realistically give it a much more stable value than Bitcoin.

And yet for all that gold has going for it, large corporations, Wall Street and nation states don't really have much practical use for it these days. It's basically a relic of a bygone era. So I'm honestly curious what actual function you think Bitcoin will be providing for governments and large corporations, functions which could practically be served already by gold, but which currently no one seems to be very concerned about. Why don't you see activist shareholders pushing corporations to acquire gold reserves on their balance sheets? Why not reserves of Pokemon cards? What practical difference is there from the U.S. Government buying billions of dollars worth of gold in World of Warcraft versus buying billions of Bitcoin? How does either actually serve toward any geopolitical or financial strategic advantage, given that neither have any actual existence or relevance to the real world or economy?

Gold is not convenient for settlement of international trade because its too slow and costly transport and store. And if you look at history the physical risks to gold are enormous. Sir Francis Drake (and other English pirates) stole a lot of Spanish gold that was moved around by boats which was an important factor in England's rise to prominence and Spain's downfall.

Even in more recent history for example in 2013 it took 4 years for Germany to get their 300 tonnes of gold back from USA.

Germany completes return of 300 tons of reserve gold from US

Germany's central bank has completed an effort to bring home 300 tons of gold stashed in the United States, part of a plan to repatriate gold bars kept abroad during the Cold War.

apnews.com

If you rely on paper gold (derivatives) because its easier to trade/settle then there is a lot of fraud going on in that market with far more paper gold than physical gold so if you actually try to settle on a large scale you may not be able to actually receive the physical gold when push comes to shove.

Gold has its place by the way but central banks don't want to only have gold on their balance sheets for all of the above reasons they need to add other assets to the mix. This is where Bitcoin comes in. If you are Russia in your portfolio mix of reserve assets would you rather have Bitcoin complementing your gold holdings or Chinese Yuan which can easily be debased?

 

[PurpleUrkel]

Gold is not convenient for settlement of international trade...

Nonsense. There is a difference between reading books on financial theory and practice. Trying to argue that bitcoin is better than gold by saying "gold is hard to transport" is pure BTC-cultist copium. When the electric grid goes down and the coming war against AI ensues which will include having to shut down the internet for long periods of time to stop AI from "spreading," bitcoin will be useless.

Bitcoin is cool for sure and I'm glad you're doing well with it but as a long term financial strategy it is a dead end. There are too many things that can go wrong with such a complicated system reliant on such vast, wasteful quantities of electricity. The guy who lost 750 million worth of BTC on a hardrive and has now been crawling through trash dumps on his hands and knees for years looking for it is just one example. At least the gold that was lost at sea hundreds of years ago still has a chance at being recovered.

Gold has a track record that can't be argued against... "But nonetheless she persisted."

 

[holgerdanske]

When the electric grid goes down and the coming war against AI ensues which will include having to shut down the internet for long periods of time to stop AI from "spreading," bitcoin will be useless.

Nobody who is sane here plans their financial life on such an outlandish scenario. Over the course of my life I've seen a long list of doomsayers come and gone. Every single one of them were either completely wrong or completely wrong on the timing.

All I know is that my BTC is worth a s...tload of Dollars now and if I want I can sell it tomorrow and odds have it I will be able to sell it in 10 years. But you do you, keep stacking those bullets, bullions, and MRE rations ;-)

 

[Blade Runner]

Maxis often make this claim, but it's complete nonsense. Bitcoin is not backed by energy, rather it is extracted through the wasteful expenditure of energy. Claiming that Bitcoin is backed by energy is like claiming that the old demonic Aztec religion was "backed by human life" (aka human sacrifice). A currency directly backed by gold can be readily exchanged for gold. A currency like the dollar, which is de facto backed by oil, can be exchanged for oil. Bitcoin cannot be exchanged for energy. You can certainly use energy to extract Bitcoin, but Bitcoin cannot be said to represent a store of energy, because the energy it represents was wasted in its extraction. In other words, every kilowatt hour spent mining Bitcoin is a sunk cost that can never be recovered and which has no present or future value.

The network is literally secured through energy, and the double spend problem solved via exactly the same mechanism. Claiming BTC is backed by energy is claiming the truth, that is, reality. Gold can't be exchanged for energy, and it also represents a store of energy, that's the point of it. Was energy wasted in gold extraction? I've pointed out over a long time how everything people who don't like BTC, for no good reason, apply in their criticisms, they don't apply to gold. It's a clown show of logic or consistency, over and over.

There are dangers besides direct confiscation, most obviously by controlling the on and off ramps and by blacklisting addresses.

There are dangers and risks to everything in life. It's another non point you all make. If you need to leave a country, which would be a great use case and priority for all the doom sayers, confiscation risk is worst for gold, and best for BTC. But you won't point that out, because it shows how BTC is yet again, a better asset. Let me count the ways while you ignore them. That's what I do.

You accuse me of having an emotional antagonism towards Bitcoin, but all my criticisms are all very fair and reasonable. I think you have an extreme philosophical bias in favor of Bitcoin, in addition to an emotional attachment and a personal financial stake, which combine to make you far less objective in your analysis than you think you are.

They aren't fair or reasonable, or I wouldn't object to them, and more importantly, show how they don't even make sense, time and time again.

Think of it. If you are fair and reasonable, you'd realize that the asset I claim to be what it is, is also understood by the market to be increasingly valuable. You kick against the goads and are year over year, increasingly wrong. Now who is fair and reasonable? Nothing about your assessment, or the perceived value of BTC, has been ever going in your direction since we've been debating this. But I'm the one is out on the limb? It's funny.

In other words, you believe what you want to believe.

No, as I've said above, I have all the reasons to actually continue to believe, and continually be supported. If anything is a belief, it's yours, since even if you think this is "just a trade" you're also on the wrong side of that. You haven't been right about anything, so yours is the "belief", if anything is.

And to be fair, this seems to have worked out pretty well for you so far.

Correct.

But I don't think it will for much longer.

Wrong.

But ironically, the more valuable Bitcoin becomes, the less incentive new players have to join the game.

Wrong again.

The only reason is because they believe they'll be able to keep playing and sell it to someone else.

Like every other asset of all time. Wrong again.

Gold serves literally every function that Bitcoin does in terms of acting as an inflation hedge, being outside of centralized control and having a limited supply.

Put another tally in the wrong category.

It's basically a relic of a bygone era.

Hey, you finally stumbled on an accurate statement. But if it's a relic, what makes you hate BTC so much, since we've demonstrated that its characteristics are precisely why gold is a relic?

Trying to argue that bitcoin is better than gold by saying "gold is hard to transport" is pure BTC-cultist copium.

We can always count on Urkel to get more things wrong (about BTC at least).

Nobody who is sane here plans their financial life on such an outlandish scenario.

These guys set records for meaningless points. Hey guys, in the .00001% chance life becomes unbelievable bad or sucky, I might have something in my possession that makes things 1% better! Yay!

It's funny they haven't realized how silly all this is, both after we've told them, and after having years to think about it and all the other doom nonsense.

 

[Australia Sucks]

Like every other asset of all time. Wrong again.

Not 100% true. Value producing assets which generate cash flow (dividends, rent) etc it could be argued that people buy them (at least theoretically) for the cash flow rather than the ability to sell to others at a higher price which is the case with commodities such as gold, silver, oil, copper, Bitcoin, etc.

The second point to this is that obviously a large percentage of buyers of commodities buy them to consumer/use the commodity (e.g. copper to make electronics) which is obviously not the case with Bitcoin being an digital asset.

But yes I agree for the most part when it comes to investment people generally buy assets because they think they can sell it at a higher price in the future.

 

[Blade Runner]

Value producing assets which generate cash flow (dividends, rent) etc it could be argued that people buy them (at least theoretically) for the cash flow rather than the ability to sell to others at a higher price which is the case with commodities such as gold, silver, oil, copper, Bitcoin, etc.

As has been shown mathematically already, the forced tax events that one gets by having to declare dividends renders them worse investments than other "growth" stocks, which in a way, those same commodity stocks would be if they didn't pay the dividend. You wouldn't trade dividends and/or forced sales for something you didn't also expect to appreciate over time, proving my point. If you think about it, and you were older for example and didn't want to have as much risk (thus buying the dividend stock), you'd just buy bonds.

 

[Blade Runner]

which is obviously not the case with Bitcoin being an digital asset.

This is the other thing that's hard for most traditional thinkers to understand about BTC. It's a commodity in the sense that it doesn't have an original issuer (let's say like shitcoins or other securities), but since it's the best money, it is subject to extreme interest, emotion and trading - thus its volatility. That's why I say, as it matures, this feature will decrease necessarily. What happens as it matures is that people increasingly understand it and/or accept it, since so many others have - even if they still don't understand it. As we say, it doesn't matter what you think or I think about it (even though it does since right now chance and I, and others, see what it is), you will bend the knee to BTC, there is no way around it.

 

[scorpion]

you will bend the knee to BTC, there is no way around it.

We've officially reached the point in the cycle where Bitcoin maxis are so euphoric they start talking like comic book supervillains.