Bitcoin and Crypto Thread

[chance vought]

On the IMF website there is an article talking about this:

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications...ld-silver-monetary-stability-johannes-wiegand

Although as we all know anything written by the IMF has an agenda and needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

From the article:
Gold countries experienced severe deflation that lasted until the early 1890s. The real repercussions are more difficult to assess because comprehensive national accounts for the 1870s are lacking, but indicators such as industrial production point to a severe and long recession in several countries—in Germany, for example, the post-1873 years are known as the Gründerkrise (a period of crisis).

Later in the same article, after France settles its indemnity with Germany in silver:
The federal and regional governments brought the new gold coins into circulation simply by spending the indemnity (without withdrawing silver coins first). Hence specie circulation surged, unleashing a large (and short-lived) fiscal-monetary stimulus. The Reichstag formally adopted the gold standard in July 1873.

Hmm...the money supply in Germany surged, and a recession followed. This had nothing to do with switching from silver to gold, as the IMF () claims. "Severe deflation"....is only a problem if you don't want pay your debts.

 

[Blade Runner]

Why not just have money that never changes, while everything else changes around it? To me that is the definition of stable.

Exactly. This is why people don't understand BTC, they can't think abstractly in general when payments come from debased, unstable and centralized entities. They are demoralized, and their short circuiting of thinking shows it.

People with bad currencies will grudgingly accept their local fiat, but enthusiastically accept dollars today.

If you've ever been anywhere around the world, this is obvious. The next step in completing the thought of course is that it will happen in the US, which is also obvious, but again emotional bias renders people unable to think, because they'd rather believe the US will continue to not have this kind of problem.

Store of value comes before unit of exchange or unit of account.

Exactly.

It’s essentially a gold affinity scam now.

Yes, it's a long term rug pull. Fiat is "proof of war" as they say.

People will spend the crap money before the good. They will preferentially accept good money and try to spend the bad. There will eventually be a price penalty if you want to pay in fiat. People with bad currencies will grudgingly accept their local fiat, but enthusiastically accept dollars today.

Always.

The rich have a much larger percentage in gold (equities, real estate), that are constantly accruing the value of the poor who hold dollars.

That's the deal, especially since they can steal labor with this setup as well.

There is no reason for a litecoin, cardano, or anything. Once you discover absolute scarcity, you can’t create it again.

I've said this from the beginning. I recognized that the maxis are closer to correct on all of it, and the other stuff is just project oriented works that try to improve the base layer in different ways, so they are just jobs on top of the true/real/best money.

Once you discover the number 0, there is no rediscovering it, or improving it. You choose to use it as a tool, and benefit from it, or you choose not to use it, and don’t gain the benefits.

Great explanation of it.

I have only used SafePal and Ledger and SafePal annihilates Ledger. Worth noting is that a lot of these hardware wallets require you to use a 3rd party wallet in tandem with the hardware wallet. This is very cumbersome. With SafePal, it's all built in and is has lots of features built into it like swaps, dapps, bridging, Binance and several other exchanges. It dramatically reduces the time I spend moving coins around, swapping/exchaning, lending, DeFi etc. I plan to look at the Ngrave at some point. Also a lot of them are not air-gapped (don't need to be attached to a computer).

Thank you for the input.

Coldcard is really the gold standard of hardware wallets.

I'll look into this as well. I know you have to acquire it anonymously, or at least that's the best way, so looking into that as well, untampered.

 

[Blade Runner]

"Severe deflation"....is only a problem if you don't want pay your debts.

Nails it again.

The hand wringers hate that idea, because it disallows trickery.

 

[chance vought]

https://stacker.news

good Bitcoin discussions, news, etc, can boost posts using sats.

 

[Australia Sucks]

Yes. The user has a choice of which layer to use. Why do you need the most secure computer network in the world to transact for a $50 steak? You don't. But you have to choice to use it if you are willing to pay for it. You can't have perfect security for free. If there isn't a cost, then there is no security.

Its not a tangent. The key to understanding Bitcoin, is understanding what money is, how it came to be, and how it works. 4 years ago, I did not understand money. "...its what you know for sure that just ain't so."
Silver was always inferior to gold, as money, why? Because its stock to flow ratio was lower. It is easier to produce, and increase production, relative to the above ground supply. Gold, on a global scale, had the highest stock to flow ratio, even as technology improved. Modern banking solved gold's divisibility problem, the only reason for silver to be used. In the face of rapidly improving technology, it was the only thing we couldn't produce exponentially more of, because gold is indestructible. By the time we could use chemical processes, giant machines, and dynamite to mine it, humans had been accumulating, and never destroying gold, since the last ice age. The inflation rate never got above 2%. It was the hardest money on earth, and those who didn't join the gold network, became impoverished, had their resources taken by those with hard money. Africans sold each other into slavery for a penny's worth of glass beads. Asian and east African's real wealth extracted for a pennies worth of cowrie shells. More recently, in the 19th century, the Chinese on a silver standard, were impoverished by European powers on a gold standard. A little bit of gold could be spent to rapidly increase silver production, and inflate the Chinese out of their real goods.

Hard money wins against soft money, and will impoverish those who use softer money. Bitcoin is the hardest money there is. It's stock to flow ratio trends to infinity. 21 million divided by 0.


Truer words were never spoken.

From one aspect Bitcoin is the hardest money ever due to its limited supply and its stock to flow ratio.

However some argue that it is less hard money than gold in that it does not have intrinsic value outside of its monetary use in the way that gold does (and also other commodity based monies). If Gold is not used as money it still has industrial use and consumer use (as jewellery). Now many Bitcoiners would argue that it is a feature not a bug in that Bitcoin is the first non-fiat money to be pure monetary premium. Some argue that its better if money is pure monetary premium and has no other use as it makes it more table and less subject to commodity cycles etc.

But its a double edged sword and many Bitcoin skeptics argue that it lacks an anchor into the real world.

Arguably fiat's anchor into the real world is the legal obligation to pay taxes in your local fiat currency.

Gold's anchor is its industrial and consumer use.

For stocks - at least the profitable companies - the anchor into the real world is the cash flow generation and assets of the company. If company is listed on the stock market and its profitable if the stock keeps dropping low enough eventually somebody (private equity or a competitor or management) will buy it to extract the cash flow or flog off the assets.

For a house it has utility because you can live in it and if house prices fall low enough it makes more attractive (cheaper) to buy then rent and more people will start buying.

This is the "reflexivity" that George Soros etc talked about. Bitcoin as of yet does not have this reflexivity/anchor built into it. Now some would argue Bitcoin mining has this built into it which is true but Bitcoin mining is only worthwhile if people want the Bitcoin so its circular in a way.

 

[chance vought]

From one aspect Bitcoin is the hardest money ever due to its limited supply and its stock to flow ratio.

However some argue that it is less hard money than gold in that it does not have intrinsic value outside of its monetary use in the way that gold does (and also other commodity based monies).

Gold has a high stock to flow, in part because it had few other uses than money or wearable money. Silver is much more useful than gold for things like electronics, photography, and solar panels…intrinsic value is a meaningless term, used when people can’t explain why something is valued more than its usefulness and relative scarcity seem to warrant. The actual reason gold has a higher value than similar commodities is it’s monetary premium. Not because it’s magic, or shiny, or has other uses.

If Gold is not used as money it still has industrial use and consumer use (as jewellery). Now many Bitcoiners would argue that it is a feature not a bug in that Bitcoin is the first non-fiat money to be pure monetary premium. Some argue that its better if money is pure monetary premium and has no other use as it makes it more table and less subject to commodity cycles etc.

There are other uses for Bitcoin, as a permanent data storage system etc…but the monetary use is so valuable, eventually it will price out every other use of the block space. Essentially as you say, a 100% monetary premium. Look at every other money in history…the one with the highest monetary premium, gained that monetary premium for a reason. People were willing to bid that money above the utility value it would have if it wasn’t used as money, because it’s use as a money provided greater value than the actual good, either in exchange or storing wealth.

But its a double edged sword and many Bitcoin skeptics argue that it lacks an anchor into the real world.

Proof of work is the anchor. Gold has its own proof of work - mining. Gold is not more real or valuable because it has mass. Do e-books have mass? Or AI chat bots? Or aircraft software than allows 2 pilots to operate an aircraft that used to require 4, just 50 years ago? None of these things exist in the physical world, they are just information. Which has more intrinsic value? A shiny bar of heavy metal that you can make jewelry out of, or 20,000 lines of code that can land an airplane by itself in 0/0 visibility?

Arguably fiat's anchor into the real world is the legal obligation to pay taxes in your local fiat currency.

Maybe, I’ll have to explore this.

Gold's anchor is its industrial and consumer use.

I think it is the energy (human time) required to increase its supply, relative to its current supply.

For stocks - at least the profitable companies - the anchor into the real world is the cash flow generation and assets of the company. If company is listed on the stock market and its profitable if the stock keeps dropping low enough eventually somebody (private equity or a competitor or management) will buy it to extract the cash flow or flog off the assets.

For a house it has utility because you can live in it and if house prices fall low enough it makes more attractive (cheaper) to buy then rent and more people will start buying.

This is the "reflexivity" that George Soros etc talked about. Bitcoin as of yet does not have this reflexivity/anchor built into it. Now some would argue Bitcoin mining has this built into it which is true but Bitcoin mining is only worthwhile if people want the Bitcoin so its circular in a way.

I‘m confident people are always going to want it.

 

[Australia Sucks]

Proof of work is the anchor. Gold has its own proof of work - mining. Gold is not more real or valuable because it has mass. Do e-books have mass? Or AI chat bots? Or aircraft software than allows 2 pilots to operate an aircraft that used to require 4, just 50 years ago? None of these things exist in the physical world, they are just information. Which has more intrinsic value? A shiny bar of heavy metal that you can make jewelry out of, or 20,000 lines of code that can land an airplane by itself in 0/0 visibility?

Its a circular argument. Mining is not an end itself it merely means the supply is scarce and there is a cost of production. It does not ensure demand.

Also for people to want to mine something it either must be saleable (at a profit - back to the circular argument) or it must have utility to begin with. Therefore I do not consider this an adequate anchor into the real world. This is a supply side argument not a demand side argument.

If you have a company that produces a product at a loss because the consumer does not value it highly enough for you to charge a price above the cost of producing it and eventually that company goes bankrupt the fact that the cost of production is $1000 per widget is not an anchor into the real world if the demand/use is not there.

Ebooks have utility in that people enjoy reading a book. Even if you cannot resell the book you still derive utility from using it.

The software for pilots has ulitity because it allows airlines to save money. Even though the product is intangible the utility is tangible. If you cannot sell or trade the software you can still use it in your airplanes to save on labour costs.

with Intrinsic value/use it comes down to is you cannot trade or sell something does it still have a use to you (or to somebody else?) If nobody would buy your Bitcoin could you do something else with it? This is the main argument from the point of view of the Bitcoin skeptics.

If you do not sell your gold you can either use it as jewellery as dental implants or as a conductor metal in industry (it does still have some industrial use due to its high conductivity).

Fiat bypasses this and has no intrinsic value because as the name suggests its its use is by decree. Fiat is legal tender which is backed by the law (retailers etc must accept the local fiat currency), the military of a country and the legal obligation to pay taxes in that currency. In Australia for example taxes average around 26% of GDP in a typical year, This means that 26% of GDP must be paid to the government in Australian dollars automatically creating a large market demand for them. And Australia is only a medium tax country with many other countries having even higher taxes as percentage of GDP. Even all this in the long run as we know is not enough to prop up a dying fiat currency.

 

[chance vought]

Its a circular argument. Mining is not an end itself it merely means the supply is scarce and there is a cost of production. It does not ensure demand.

Ebooks have utility in that people enjoy reading a book. Even if you cannot resell the book you still derive utility from using it.

The software for pilots has ulitity because it allows airlines to save money. Even though the product is intangible the utility is tangible. If you cannot sell or trade the software you can still use it in your airplanes to save on labour costs.

with Intrinsic value/use it comes down to is you cannot trade or sell something does it still have a use to you (or to somebody else?) If nobody would buy your Bitcoin could you do something else with it? This is the main argument from the point of view of the Bitcoin skeptics.

If you do not sell your gold you can either use it as jewellery as dental implants or as a conductor metal in industry (it does still have some industrial use due to its high conductivity).

The utility is the fact that it is secure, transportable, unconfiscatable, and absolutely scarce. It has utility as money. Others desire it because of its utility performing the functions of money. Gold was mainly desired for its money-ness, not because it had other uses. Fiat is desired for its money-ness, not because people are afraid of the tax man.

This isn’t a circular argument. Money arises because it is something other people will desire, in exchange for other things that have utility (other than money). Money is desired because it can be traded for literally everything else, not because you could wipe your butt or heat your house with it if it stopped being money.

So yes, if no one wanted Bitcoin, it would not be money.

 

[Australia Sucks]

The utility is the fact that it is secure, transportable, unconfiscatable, and absolutely scarce. It has utility as money. Others desire it because of its utility performing the functions of money. Gold was mainly desired for its money-ness, not because it had other uses. Fiat is desired for its money-ness, not because people are afraid of the tax man.

This isn’t a circular argument. Money arises because it is something other people will desire, in exchange for other things that have utility (other than money). Money is desired because it can be traded for literally everything else, not because you could wipe your butt or heat your house with it if it stopped being money.

So yes, if no one wanted Bitcoin, it would not be money.View attachment 4566

If Gold had no other uses would it have still been desired for its moneyness? I think its a debatable question. Up until fiat almost all currencies also had some use other than money (e.g. commodities like salt, etc). The reason fiat was introduced by stealth (starting with a gold standard then debasing it) as pointed out by previous posters is because people would not have accepted it otherwise.

Even going back to Mongols paper money was forcibly imposed on the populace.

Marco Polo described the use of paper currency throughout Khubilai Khan’s Yuan dynasty:

"With these pieces of paper, made as I have described, he [Khubilai Khan] causes all payments on his own account to be made; and he makes them to pass current universally over all his kingdoms and provinces and territories, and whithersoever his power and sovereignty extends. And nobody, however important he may think himself, dares to refuse them on pain of death. And indeed everybody takes them readily, for wheresoever a person may go throughout the Great Kaan’s dominions he shall find these pieces of paper current, and shall be able to transact all sales and purchases of goods by means of them just as well as if they were coins of pure gold. And all the while they are so light that ten bezants’ worth does not weigh one golden bezant.

"Furthermore all merchants arriving from India or other countries, and bringing with them gold or silver or gems and pearls, are prohibited from selling to any one but the Emperor. He has twelve experts chosen for this business, men of shrewdness and experience in such affairs; these appraise the articles, and the Emperor then pays a liberal price for them in those pieces of paper. The merchants accept his price readily, for in the first place they would not get so good a one from anybody else, and secondly they are paid without any delay. And with this paper-money they can buy what they like anywhere over the Empire, whilst it is also vastly lighter to carry about on their journeys. And it is a truth that the merchants will several times in the year bring wares to the amount of 400,000 bezants, and the Grand Sire pays for all in that paper. So he buys such a quantity of those precious things every year that his treasure is endless, whilst all the time the money he pays away costs him nothing at all. Moreover, several times in the year proclamation is made through the city that anyone who may have gold or silver or gems or pearls, by taking them to the Mint shall get a handsome price for them. And the owners are glad to do this, because they would find no other purchaser give so large a price. Thus the quantity they bring in is marvellous, though these who do not choose to do so may let it alone. Still, in this way, nearly all the valuables in the country come into the Kaan’s possession" (Marco Polo and Rustichello of Pisa, “Book Second, Part I, Chapter XXIV: How the Great Kaan Causeth the Bark of Trees, Made into Something Like Paper, to Pass for Money over All His Country,” in The Book of Ser Marco Polo: The Venetian Concerning Kingdoms and Marvels of the East, translated and edited by Colonel Sir Henry Yule, Volume 1 (London: John Murray, 1903).​

 

[Australia Sucks]

Bitcoin has good money-ness from most aspects. But the question comes down to can something still be a good form of money if it has no use other than being money?

 

[scary_robot_music]

Bitcoin has good money-ness from most aspects. But the question comes down to can something still be a good form of money if it has no use other than being money?

I think so. Look at gold. Yes, I know it has some practical industrial uses, but mostly it just looks pretty and is fairly rare and hard to find. Everyone accepts that it's valuable, so it is. I don't think it had any practical use at all in antiquity and it's been valuable at least since then.

 

[chance vought]

Fiat is obviously useless as anything else than money (toilet paper and home heating aside.). And 95% of fiat is digital abstraction, not physical. Yet it is by far the most used money. Not because people are forced to use it, or taxed in it. People choose to use it. If it doesn’t work, they use something that does work (the Poor use cinderblocks, and the well off use foreign currency, for example, to store value). It solved the transaction speed problem of gold, which was needed when communication and transportation accelerated during the Industrial Revolution,(sale ability across space) at the expense of sale ability across time.

Bitcoin has orders of magnitude better saleability across space than gold, and again orders of magnitude better than fiat across time.

 

[chance vought]

I think so. Look at gold. Yes, I know it has some practical industrial uses, but mostly it just looks pretty and is fairly rare and hard to find. Everyone accepts that it's valuable, so it is. I don't think it had any practical use at all in antiquity and it's been valuable at least since then.

To understand this, first we must look at how money came to be. It wasn't just a light bulb moment for some King, it was a gradual, social development.

There were 2 competing theories of money's origins:
1) The commodity theory
2) The credit theory

Both of these are correct, depending on how you define what money is.

Early money was credit:
Before agriculture, people lived in tribes, that rarely exceeded a few dozen people, Dunbar's number. Everyone knew everyone else - humans are very good at facial recognition for this reason. Before we even had words, or names, we could remember who was who, because it was crucial in social cooperation for survival.
If a hunter brought a deer for the tribe, everyone in the tribe knew he contributed a great deal of his time, and effort and skill to do that. If later, that hunter became sick or injured and needed help, he had some credit with the tribe to receive their time and effort, in food and care, until he is again well enough to contribute. With a small number of people, our brains can automatically keep up with this credit system, without much effort at all (no writing, no numbers, and very early on, no language). This is how we cooperated and socially enforced a system that kept humanity alive for 100,000 years or more.

Credit works great when the people you have credit with are familiar, and will always be around until you or they die. But what if you meet someone from another tribe, across the canyon, that you may never see again. There would be no reason to share a kill, or anything, with that person because you will never see a benefit in return, and if you are yourself in need of something and encounter some stranger from a strange land, you have nothing to offer him for his help. This brings us to:

Commodity money:
There is an odd program in our brains that causes us to do something no other animal does: we collect things, like shells, or feathers, because they are interesting and pleasing. It doesn't at first glance, improve survival, or comfort. Even better to collect things that we think other humans will desire too. So if I need something from a stranger, and they are already well fed, well clothed, and have a nice spear....what can I offer? How about this shell, which is beautiful, and rare, because we are 1,000 miles from the sea. Have you or anyone from your tribe ever seen something like this? Over thousands of years, different things take on the role of money, depending on the level of civilization and the need for exchange between them, mainly after the birth of agriculture about 8,000 years ago.

Credit money in early civilizations:
After agriculture, people were able to settle in one place, and have more people in one band than the human brain can keep track of. Now numbers, and writing come along, and allow a credit system to exist. How much grain you need to provide the group, come harvest time. With numbers, and writing, credit works on a large scale, and is very efficient. But it doesn't work with the neighboring tribe. This is where commodity money comes in.

Just like now: credit money works in high trust scenarios, and is more efficient. Commodity money is used when trust is low, and is less efficient. Notes, or also fiat, is a credit money. Trust is needed that the issuer will either pay in gold, or in the case of fiat, that it will be accepted as money when you want to use it. Bitcoin and gold are commodity moneys. They are the collectible that is desired, not a promise to pay that collectible in the future.

People confuse the fact that the dollar is digital (ostensibly "backed" by oil or guns), and Bitcoin is digital, that the fact the Bitcoin is not "backed" by anything is a flaw. But it doesn't need to be, because it is rare and collectible, like all other commodity moneys were. The fact that it is rare is the other thing that is hard to grasp, being digital. Everything else we know of can be infinitely copied, for free, digitally. That may be the biggest hurdle for the Boomer generation, is grasping digital scarcity. There have been so many affinity scams since Bitcoin was invented, that many people believe that digital scarcity is NFTs and monkey jpegs that can be infinitely copied, are the same as Bitcoin.

I'm sure this was disjointed and probably only 80% accurate.
To understand Bitcoin, you must first understand what money is. To understand what money is, its helpful to study its origins. I highly recommend either The Bitcoin Standard and The Fiat Standard, by Saifdean Ammous, and/or Broken Money, by Lyn Alden.

@Australia Sucks thank you for the discussion, you are helping me hone my ideas, and I hope I'm doing the same for you. Having a long form discussion like this is difficult in meat space because so few people know enough or care enough about this subject.

 

[Blade Runner]

If Gold is not used as money it still has industrial use and consumer use (as jewellery).

This fact or reality of tangibility, again, is irrelevant regarding JUST the topic of money. Talking about something's physical qualities has something to do with its ability to function as money, but not all of it, which is why we are discussing this topic.

But its a double edged sword and many Bitcoin skeptics argue that it lacks an anchor into the real world.

Does math "lack an anchor to the real world"? It is a pure human consciousness projection with no physical state, except in the human consciousness, which interestingly means it does anchor to the real world, since humans are real.

intrinsic value is a meaningless term, used when people can’t explain why something is valued more than its usefulness and relative scarcity seem to warrant.

It's funny how true this is and how little people think about it. They usually can't or don't want to admit that value is entirely created by the human mind, sometimes for good reason (then we have to define what good is) and sometimes not (entertainment, sexual preference possibilities, etc).

but the monetary use is so valuable, eventually it will price out every other use of the block space.

When you follow it to its conclusion, it is already a fait accompli, which sadly only get us BTC proponents in more trouble, because others don't like ego in people regarding subjects they can't understand. This is a human frailty issue, though.

The software for pilots has ulitity because it allows airlines to save money. Even though the product is intangible the utility is tangible. If you cannot sell or trade the software you can still use it in your airplanes to save on labour costs.

You are making the ultimate argument for BTC here, which amuses and pleases me. Insert BTC and find out.

But the question comes down to can something still be a good form of money if it has no use other than being money?

Talk about circular questions! You just asked if the best money can be used as money! Amazing!

Everything else we know of can be infinitely copied, for free, digitally. That may be the biggest hurdle for the Boomer generation, is grasping digital scarcity.

Yes, and I wonder how many people can even think about the double spend problem (this is it) at all. With all the challenges of the modern world and population increases, I've come to the conclusion that few can think abstractly, whether genetic or not it actually doesn't matter at this point. It causes many human dilemmas because of the evil and chaotic spiritis or souls that are among us, which take advantage of most people, since most people act on instinct (like animals) instead of principle or discipline.

 

[chance vought]

. It causes many human dilemmas because of the evil and chaotic spiritis or souls that are among us, which take advantage of most people, since most people act on instinct (like animals) instead of principle or discipline.

This could be a result of human domestication, which has been happening I would argue since we changed from a dynamic, roaming, hunter society to a sedentary, agricultural, one. Humans are domesticating themselves outsourcing their brains to authority, just like we did to the animals we use: genetic enslavement.

 

[Cynllo]

All these forms of money have pros and cons. It is a pro for central bank issued fiat that governments essentially mandate its use. It doesn't matter if BTC or something else has other good qualities. That is a very hard hurdle to surmount. Most people are normies and will only get into whatever system is constructed around them. Gold trumps BTC if the power goes out, but so do tins of beans trump gold.

Also, most of the cases in favour of BTC are theoretical. The BTC price is mostly speculation. It's actual use is a fraction of market cap. Further, that it is used as money is a failing case at present. I use crypto fairly regularly and know other people who use it. No one uses BTC. No one uses Lightening. Monero has displaced BTC as the dark web currency. A lot of the time I use Tron's USDT when sending crypto payments. It's not that Tron is a great chain and will be the next money network. It's simply been around for a while, and thus, many places accept it, without having to pay a few dollars with ETH USDT. The host for this forum only accepts crypto. He only accepts Monero and Tron USDT, because that's what has gained adoption and is cheap. He doesn't accept BTC, because it doesn't make sense to because of fees. Other networks have several years of facilitating stable payments. BTC is in it's first year, and currently Stacks is too slow too gain more adoption.

If your case is - people will (or need to) use BTC, because of security, scarcity, a fair launch etc. - they're not doing so. If the case is BTC is money, it has spent the last 9 years hemorrhaging the actual use of crypto-money. If your case is BTC is money or base money, then a very free market has spent 9 years disagreeing with you.

@chance vought - On one of your comments about BTC being the only asset to have scarcity and a fair launch. This is not correct. Qubic has had a fair launch. The devs have taken no cut. The lead dev was the 3rd or 4th person to mine BTC and has 800k. He doesn't need the cash. You also mentioned BTC could be improved. The devs have had 14-15 years to do that and its still running at 7 TPS with $4-5 fees to sent a cent. They are years behind with developing an ecosystem. Maybe stuff will be built on top of BTC, but that is very early days and no one can say if BTC or something else will win there. But at the moment it's Solana and ETH L2s that are winning.

The chances that Bitcoin is the best tech to build money on are far from concrete. Qubic is a PoW chain that can handle 40m TPS with 0.2ms finality, no Tx fees, no allocation to devs. Other than adoption I don't see what is superior about BTC. I think the most likely case is BTC is the giant computer in a warehouse that took all night to print a page with huge power input. Qubic could be your old 80s desktop PC. Given the path that needs to be traversed, it's likely the ultimate base layer does not exist.

Regarding intrinsic value - this is a bit of a junk argument, as it depends on the circumstances. In the 21st C. digital abstractions can have value, in certain circumstances. That gold has intrinsic value is a bit of a junk argument. It only gives you a safety buffer if the gold standard collapses. KMPG say that if the world was on a gold standard the price of gold would need to be $20k / oz., or something like that. So in that case the price of gold is inflated 90% due to the decree of central banks. That's very similar to the argument gold bugs have against fiat.

Now the case for a digital asset being currency is much stronger. If a digital asset is the base unit for most computing and financial transactions, then both uses buttress each other. This is where things are going with crypto. Chains are the base for finance and applications. There's no major chain that is not going down both routes. And BTC is a long way behind.

As mentioned the limiting factor is the ability of chains to perform those functions. Bitcoin has currently already even lost that race, as few people use BTC as money. And it being the base layer for applications is very early and also shaky. Because Stacks isn't actually a real L2, nor are the other things built on BTC. If you are using Stacks, you are placing trust in Stacks' custody of Bitcoin. Stacks is basically a slow L1 that holds a lot of BTC. Thus as I think @Australia Sucks's pointed out, you essentially loose all this alleged security of BTC. And I don't think it's possible to build an real L2 on BTC.

You can't say that BTC is fully decentralised, as it still has devs who can edit the code. If they do something bad, people will obviously reject their fork. That's the same with other chains, which are mostly more centralised. But being more decentralised isn't a magic bluet for adoption, as BTC has been losing the actual race for use as money and has only just joined the application race.

In short, we don't have enough data as to what will eventually gain adoption. Most things around now will fail, a few will succeed and improve. Much of the case for BTC doesn't necessarily lend to adoption. And there is a lot of mumbo jumbo, like Saylor and his "cyber hornets".

 

[Cynllo]

TOPIA is on support. So long as we are not in a broader correction, good to buy here.



Maybe ZEPH too.



Both good choices for possible moonshots.

Qubic still at good levels for entry. Like ZEPH, it has no clear support line.

On Qubic, it's had a $300m cap, up from something like $10m. It's only traded on a few garbage exchanges that are very clunky. And it's doing a lot of volume on those exchanges. The sort of volume you'd normally expect for an alt on decent exchanges. The reason I mention it hit $300m while being on exchanges that you expect to find <$10m cap coins on is to illustrate the potential.

I'm not really sure where we are with the overall coin market cap. But I'm buying coins on support. Huge energy under QUBIC. The project has many rough edges. It's quite unknown, but I think when people see it does 40m TPS with POW, people are going to ape it. New exchange listings coming in a few weeks. So could have better entries before that...

 

[Blade Runner]

In short, we don't have enough data as to what will eventually gain adoption.

We have enough data to make probabilities.

I still haven't seen an argument against the base layer being the perfect combination of the trilemma, and every other "coin" "token" or "contract" can be added on top because all of them can actually duplicated at this point and put on top of the base layer. The maxi case has stood the test of time and makes the most sense, by far.

Money is different from currency. Currencies are created to be spent, and are created easily, mostly because the idea is that you don't hold on to them, which is a feature of inflationary systems. An asset or store of value is not, and does not need to be a currency. Most people miss this point. M Kratter at Bitcoin U talks about why people won't hold Monero, and makes a good argument. Like all things that aren't as good as stores of value (inflationary, not auditable, etc), no one will hold them so it becomes hot potato.

Like cash, it's the poor or middle class that have the greatest advantage by using it. We could make an entire thread on that topic. The main gist is that when you're rich enough to not worry about cash (elites), you can buy pols and be indifferent to other inflationary things, since you've already figured those traps out. It takes a LOT of effort to track cash, but it can be done. Same thing with BTC, so it doesn't matter all that much that it's technically not anonymous, or completely anonymous.

 

[chance vought]

All these forms of money have pros and cons. It is a pro for central bank issued fiat that governments essentially mandate its use. It doesn't matter if BTC or something else has other good qualities. That is a very hard hurdle to surmount. Most people are normies and will only get into whatever system is constructed around them. Gold trumps BTC if the power goes out, but so do tins of beans trump gold.

Fiat is a choice, it isn’t really forced. Once it stops working, people stop using it. Bitcoin keeps the power on…those that continue producing power will continue benefiting from Bitcoin.

Also, most of the cases in favour of BTC are theoretical.

Most use cases of nuclear weapons are theoretical. Just having the option of exiting and protecting wealth is a restraint on government.

The BTC price is mostly speculation. It's actual use is a fraction of market cap.

As a medium of exchange you are correct. But that is only a fraction of the uses of money. Store of value is what we currently need, that Bitcoin provides in an unprecedented way. First it must be collected, before it can become money. We are cave men picking up shells because they are the most unique things we’ve ever seen. Other people seem to like them, but most people have never seen one and don’t know if other people would value it, so it doesn’t have much value.

If your case is - people will (or need to) use BTC, because of security, scarcity, a fair launch etc. - they're not doing so. If the case is BTC is money, it has spent the last 9 years hemorrhaging the actual use of crypto-money. If your case is BTC is money or base money, then a very free market has spent 9 years disagreeing with you.

As a unit of exchange. That is the end state, along with unit of account. This historically takes generations.

@chance vought - On one of your comments about BTC being the only asset to have scarcity and a fair launch. This is not correct. Qubic has had a fair launch. The devs have taken no cut. The lead dev was the 3rd or 4th person to mine BTC and has 800k. He doesn't need the cash. You also mentioned BTC could be improved. The devs have had 14-15 years to do that and its still running at 7 TPS with $4-5 fees to sent a cent. They are years behind with developing an ecosystem. Maybe stuff will be built on top of BTC, but that is very early days and no one can say if BTC or something else will win there. But at the moment it's Solana and ETH L2s that are winning.

The chances that Bitcoin is the best tech to build money on are far from concrete. Qubic is a PoW chain that can handle 40m TPS with 0.2ms finality, no Tx fees, no allocation to devs. Other than adoption I don't see what is superior about BTC. I think the most likely case is BTC is the giant computer in a warehouse that took all night to print a page with huge power input. Qubic could be your old 80s desktop PC. Given the path that needs to be traversed, it's likely the ultimate base layer does not exist.

But 1 transaction recently was over 36,000 BTC for a transaction fee of $4. $1.5 Billion moved anywhere, instantly, for $4. Lightning for small amounts. L1 for large.

As mentioned the limiting factor is the ability of chains to perform those functions. Bitcoin has currently already even lost that race, as few people use BTC as money.

They are clinging to relevance by advertising various features, because they lost on being money.

You can't say that BTC is fully decentralised, as it still has devs who can edit the code. If they do something bad, people will obviously reject their fork. That's the same with other chains, which are mostly more centralised. But being more decentralised isn't a magic bluet for adoption, as BTC has been losing the actual race for use as money and has only just joined the application race.

In short, we don't have enough data as to what will eventually gain adoption. Most things around now will fail, a few will succeed and improve. Much of the case for BTC doesn't necessarily lend to adoption. And there is a lot of mumbo jumbo, like Saylor and his "cyber hornets".

Network clearance in 2022:
Visa - $222 Billion
Mastercard - $164 Billion
Bitcoin - $8.2 TRILLION

Look up how much Tron or Monero cleared for 2022 and get back to me.

 

[scorpion]

Blade Runner, chance vought and other Bitcoin maximalists continue to strike me as zealous utopians in their thinking, with a notable religious fervor underlying their arguments. I notice a clear parallel with devout believers in ideologies like Libertarianism and Communism, which are utopian systems that their proponents claim will solve all of mankind's ills. Chance vought even explicitly says that Bitcoin will usher in a golden age of humanity by forever destroying fiat currency. The problem is that, just like utopian political ideology, a utopian monetary system simply cannot exist, because human beings are the ones who will be using it, and the sin nature of humanity combined with the human will to power means that regardless of how "perfect" a system is, it will inevitably be undermined and abused to a greater and greater extent over time. Christ himself said that the poor will always be with us, and that we must render unto Caesar. There is simply no economic sanctuary or monetary utopia possible in this life, through Bitcoin or any other means.

Bitcoin proponents will object by pointing to the nature of Bitcoin rendering it immune to this sort of tampering and abuse, but I say that they simply lack either imagination or sufficient cynicism in regard to the ruthless nature of the power elite. For example, it does not matter that your Bitcoin "cannot be confiscated", because guess what can be easily confiscated? YOU. And no one wants to be physically "confiscated" and tossed in a prison cell because their internet money has been declared illegal or more likely has simply been regulated into uselessness in one manner or another.

At the end of the day, Bitcoin maximalism strikes me as nothing but wishful, utopian thinking. The criticisms BTC proponents levy at the current system are entirely valid, but their proposed solution is simply completely unrealistic. It's like identifying the very real problem of driving on icy roads by proposing that everyone instead ride flying unicorns.