Bitcoin and Crypto Thread

[Australia Sucks]

Cynllo I could not agree more with what you are saying. Bitcoin maxis like Chance just don't want to acknowledge the truth. Bitcoin has existed for 15 years and has gotten minimal traction as a medium of exchange. 15 years is ample time, If Bitcoin was a good medium of exchange it would have started gaining serious traction already but it hasn't (at least in terms of being a medium of exchange).

Also I have said it before and I will say it again. Store of value is a circle argument if there is no utility or value being stored. If Bitcoin does not function well as a medium of exchange then exactly what value are you storing exactly? You are storing the ability to store value?

With gold you are storing its industrial utility and its utility as Jewellery. Without those two forms of utility it never would have become a store of value to begin with. Any currency historically which didn't have utility such as shells had a fairly limited shelf life. Before fiat almost every currency was some kind of commodity that had intrinsic value/use (salt, cattle, cocoa beans, silver, gold, etc). Fiat started by being redeemable in gold or silver (bait and switch) otherwise it never would have been accepted.

Even physical art which is regarded as a store of value and at first glance has no utility, but upon closer inspection the utility is the enjoyment and status people get from art which has a monetary value. If you own a rare artwork you can rent it out to a hotel or office building or put it in a museum and it will generate income for you, therefore its a productive asset and has intrinsic value.

 

[scorpion]

Bitcoin has existed for 15 years and has gotten minimal traction as a medium of exchange. 15 years is ample time, If Bitcoin was a good medium of exchange it would have started gaining serious traction already but it hasn't (at least in terms of being a medium of exchange).

Truly revolutionary technologies/innovations are recognized as such immediately and quickly make a huge impact on society. The printing press, electricity, the internal combustion engine, the internet, the smartphone... no one had to sell anyone on these being incredible inventions. No one had to make the case for them, because their benefits were plainly obvious and the usefulness of the inventions was self-evident. We're on the cusp of another similar technological revolution with AI, which promises to make massive waves on society over the next decade.

This is why it's completely preposterous to listen to Bitcoin maxis tell us that Bitcoin is the greatest invention in history. Because if that were truly the case, you would not need to tell me. It would already be blindingly obvious by this point. If Bitcoin were truly as revolutionary as is claimed, its proponents would not be forced to continually hype it up and evangelize it for going on 15 years now. A beautiful woman does not need to convince anyone that she's beautiful. She just shows up and radiates beauty and everyone recognizes it. It's only the plain-looking girl who runs around telling everyone who will listen how she was once hired to do some modeling, desperately hoping to impress someone.

Bitcoin is a cult and its loudest proponents are essentially religious zealots. All of the arguments in favor of Bitcoin have been backward rationalized and are simply the window dressing for the actual underlying motivation that unites Bitcoin HODLers: the desire to become fabulously wealthy without doing any work. All of this nonsense about Bitcoin's value approaching infinity due to limited supply and becoming the future world reserve currency, blah blah... this is all transparently nothing more than the desire of the HODLer to himself become what he claims to hate: a member of the wealthy financial elite who has an unearned stranglehold on the currency.

 

[chance vought]

Truly revolutionary technologies/innovations are recognized as such immediately and quickly make a huge impact on society. The printing press, electricity, the internal combustion engine, the internet, the smartphone... no one had to sell anyone on these being incredible inventions.

Immediate? Cell phone: around since 1983…I did not have one until 2004. 21 years later.
Internet: 1973. I never used it until 1995, 22 years later, the same year that Paul Krugman claimed it would have no more effect on the economy than the fax machine.
Internal combustion engine: 1794
A few visionaries saw some of the potential of these new technologies, but most people didn’t see much of any potential. It just happened.
Even so, the revolution was not instant, it was a continuous progression. The internet in 1995, 22 years after its creation, was still a novelty, and hardly a necessity. It took another 15 years to become completely integral to society, and guess what? It is still progressing and becoming even more useful.
Bitcoin is only 15 years old.

No one had to make the case for them, because their benefits were plainly obvious and the usefulness of the inventions was self-evident. We're on the cusp of another similar technological revolution with AI, which promises to make massive waves on society over the next decade.

Only a few people can see the potential. You can’t, but I can. Maybe there is something to AI. I dont know.

This is why it's completely preposterous to listen to Bitcoin maxis tell us that Bitcoin is the greatest invention in history. Because if that were truly the case, you would not need to tell me. It would already be blindingly obvious by this point. If Bitcoin were truly as revolutionary as is claimed, its proponents would not be forced to continually hype it up and evangelize it for going on 15 years now. A beautiful woman does not need to convince anyone that she's beautiful. She just shows up and radiates beauty and everyone recognizes it. It's only the plain-looking girl who runs around telling everyone who will listen how she was once hired to do some modeling, desperately hoping to impress someone.

Don’t let your ego get in the way. New technology is never obvious. It is only obvious in hindsight. Very few people saw the potential of the internet. Or cell phones. I lived through it. I remember.

Bitcoin is a cult and its loudest proponents are essentially religious zealots. All of the arguments in favor of Bitcoin have been backward rationalized and are simply the window dressing for the actual underlying motivation that unites Bitcoin HODLers: the desire to become fabulously wealthy without doing any work. All of this nonsense about Bitcoin's value approaching infinity due to limited supply and becoming the future world reserve currency, blah blah... this is all transparently nothing more than the desire of the HODLer to himself become what he claims to hate: a member of the wealthy financial elite who has an unearned stranglehold on the currency.

You think you know my motivations because you are still stuck in the Matrix. You are thinking in fiat world.
Bitcoin will continue to do what it has done. The MSM will claim it’s dead 1000 more times. Tick tock next block.
. Wealth would be nice, but that isn’t the reason I am passionate about it. I see it as an incorruptible force of nature. Fiat is a lie, Bitcoin is truth. I do believe in honest work and adding value. Right now there are people who don’t add value. They steal my value with their dishonest weights and measures. Bitcoin changes that.

“You shall have just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin; I am the LORD your God, who brought you out from the land of Egypt.”

 

[Australia Sucks]

Chance would you care to address my point that I raised about capital gains taxes when spending Bitcoin?

Also I made a point about Bitcoin being a form of economic rent.

Also Cynllo made an excellent post on the previous page discussing the weaknesses of lightening network and how other cryptos are superior to using Bitcoin on lightening network.

 

[cosine]

Truly revolutionary technologies/innovations are recognized as such immediately and quickly make a huge impact on society.

Technologies commonly need a while to catch on as @chance vought said. Another example:

After Robert Fulton, the so-called inventor of the steam engine, mentioned his idea of a steamship to Napoleon, the French emperor exclaimed, “What, Sir? Would you make a ship sail against the wind and currents by lighting a bonfire under her deck? I pray you excuse me, I have no time to listen to such nonsense.”

Bitcoin is a cult and its loudest proponents are essentially religious zealots. All of the arguments in favor of Bitcoin have been backward rationalized

I do somewhat agree with you here. Things like art or gold or USD have value because people believe they have value. Same thing with Dutch Tulips or Beanie Babies or some other fad. Bitcoin is only useful if people adopt it and continue to. It's possible that at some point people just stop adopting bitcoin, and then it'll crash.

But with the ETF causing it to rise, and younger generations' continued embrace of crypto, it will be used.

Then the fact that energy companies are using excess solar or flare gas to mine bitcoin... it starts to re-map energy infrastructure.

You're right, people are essentially religious/cultish around it. But the cult is clearly growing!

 

[Crastinus]

The naysayers will always find a discrepancy.

The hard fact is that Bitcoin is a zero to one invention. The invention is secure, digital scarcity. Ethereal, digital, real-state. Energy, imbued into a financial, black-hole battery, that anyone can own a part of. This is a paradigm shift, and probably the creation of a new monetary elite. A digital aristocracy. The game theory is playing out right before our eyes. It is hard to see at first, but if you truly study the implications of this invention, you will start to see the monolithic colossus standing right in front of you.

In regards to the medium of exchange argument that Bitcoin is not a user friendly method of daily transaction, it's true. Bitcoin is not a good money for small daily transactions. And you should be thankful that it is not easy or cheap to spend, because that is a built-in incentive for you to only use it on important things. You wouldn't draw up a contract and sell a 2x2 corner of your back yard for a starbucks latte. And you shouldn't do it with Bitcoin either.

 

[Teedub]

Suggestion: when two individual posters start having a debate, they should take it to PMs after the first couple of exchanges. That was the policy on RVF and it makes sense.

 

[Teedub]

Bitcoin is a cult and its loudest proponents are essentially religious zealots. All of the arguments in favor of Bitcoin have been backward rationalized and are simply the window dressing for the actual underlying motivation that unites Bitcoin HODLers: the desire to become fabulously wealthy without doing any work. All of this nonsense about Bitcoin's value approaching infinity due to limited supply and becoming the future world reserve currency, blah blah... this is all transparently nothing more than the desire of the HODLer to himself become what he claims to hate: a member of the wealthy financial elite who has an unearned stranglehold on the currency.

I'll bite and I'll be 100%. I don't really care all too much about Bitcoin's revolutionary capabilities, apart from in an abstract, dissident left "stick it to the establishment" kind of sense. But I also don't have the technical knowledge about financial systems to make a case for or against. I'm in it for the profit, and I suspect most people are, despite what they say publicly. But I also do like the fact that it's something that's ridiculed and dismissed by boomer banker types, and friends, and family, yet can make you life changingly wealthly while they sit on the sidelines snarking.

In my own life, I'm already getting mumbled acknowledgements that I was "right" because I said in 2022 that people should invest. It's satisfying, in an ego sense, but I agree that for many it's not too distinct from gambling, to an extent. And, for some types they simply moved on from Warhammer and World of Warcraft and other autisitic hobbies to crypto - a semi-exclusive domain where they enjoy feeling like experts. Indeed, pick up artistry also attracted these types.

 

[chance vought]

Chance would you care to address my point that I raised about capital gains taxes when spending Bitcoin?

Yes I agree this is a problem in the United States. Even if you decide to pay your 15% long term capital gains, that is on the gains…as far as accounting goes, I don’t know. I guess make one sale a year to make the math easier. I don’t plan on spending a significant portion until it is the de facto currency. One could also move to PR.

I hate taxes and believe it is theft, and goes against Gods commandment.

When the ship is sinking, I’m not too worried about pulling a few shifts on the oars of the life boat.

Also I made a point about Bitcoin being a form of economic rent.

Rent is extracting value from a non-productive activity. In fiat world this is everywhere. Bitcoin is different because joining the network benefits you. No value is extracted: you gain value. Your internet service charges a fee, but you gain tremendous value to become part of that network, and everyone on the network benefits when you join it.

Real estate rental is mostly non-productive in 2 layers. The bank is charging rent on money it gave you at no cost. You are charging rent on a property with an inflated value, because money was created, stealing from people who earned it, driving up the cost of things like real estate. The bank does essentially 0 productive value, the rentier adds very little economic value. Yes we need short term rentals, but far more people are renting because they can’t afford to buy a house, not because they want to rent. It’s a Proof of Stake system. Having more money lets you borrow more created money, lent at rates far below inflation, stealing the value from people who produce work for it.

You are trading from money A to money B, because B is superior at being money. When early settlers switched from wampum to coinage, the economy became exponentially more efficient. Everyone benefitted. The only rent extracted was when a select few were allowed to create the money itself at no cost.

Also Cynllo made an excellent post on the previous page discussing the weaknesses of lightening network and how other cryptos are superior to using Bitcoin on lightening network.

Yes lightning is experimental and brand new. Have any of you critics used it? You are gazing at the Wright Flyer, and saying air travel won’t be possible across the Atlantic.

Lightning may not be the answer, but it shows that Bitcoin can scale, with a small security tradeoff. As I said before, there cannot be security without cost. Securing a $20 payment, or even $20000, with the equivalent of a nuclear weapon, is ludicrous. Maybe you don’t understand the level of security on L1 Bitcoin? It is literally the most secure data on the planet. You still have the option of using it to move $20, but it makes no economic sense to do so.

 

[scorpion]

Immediate? Cell phone: around since 1983…I did not have one until 2004. 21 years later.
Internet: 1973. I never used it until 1995, 22 years later, the same year that Paul Krugman claimed it would have no more effect on the economy than the fax machine.
Internal combustion engine: 1794
A few visionaries saw some of the potential of these new technologies, but most people didn’t see much of any potential. It just happened.
Even so, the revolution was not instant, it was a continuous progression. The internet in 1995, 22 years after its creation, was still a novelty, and hardly a necessity. It took another 15 years to become completely integral to society, and guess what? It is still progressing and becoming even more useful.
Bitcoin is only 15 years old.

This is a misleading and ultimately self-defeating line of argument, because Bitcoin is, as you admit yourself, an immutable "invention" and more akin to a discovery, meaning that by its very design there is little room for improvement or modification. How many people today do you see using 1983 cell phones, 1995 computers or 1800s era combustion engines? None, obviously. That being the case, there is little reason to believe that whatever virtues Bitcoin has will not be improved upon and exploited by some future technology, leaving Bitcoin as functionally useless as a Model T is today (except lacking even the collectible and nostalgic value).

Wealth would be nice, but that isn’t the reason I am passionate about it. I see it as an incorruptible force of nature. Fiat is a lie, Bitcoin is truth. I do believe in honest work and adding value. Right now there are people who don’t add value.

Bitcoin is a de-centralized accounting ledger with limited use cases. It is not a force of nature, it is not truth (Christ is truth). If you believe in honest work and adding value, why are you zealously evangelizing for a technology that, if adopted as you envision, would JUST SO HAPPEN to make you fabulously wealthy for doing nothing? That's a hell of a coincidence.

But with the ETF causing it to rise, and younger generations' continued embrace of crypto, it will be used.

It will be used for financial speculation, which is the only thing a commodity ETF is good for.

The hard fact is that Bitcoin is a zero to one invention. The invention is secure, digital scarcity. Ethereal, digital, real-state. Energy, imbued into a financial, black-hole battery, that anyone can own a part of. This is a paradigm shift, and probably the creation of a new monetary elite. A digital aristocracy. The game theory is playing out right before our eyes. It is hard to see at first, but if you truly study the implications of this invention, you will start to see the monolithic colossus standing right in front of you.

"Digital scarcity" is a nonsensical concept, as was proven with the hilariously awful NFT craze, which was so absurd that even the stupidity of the average greedy normie and a parade of hype couldn't keep it afloat. Bitcoin is literally just the crypto version of an NFT. It has nothing going for it except its brand value/name recognition. From a technological perspective, it is both lacking and infinitely replicable.

I'm in it for the profit, and I suspect most people are, despite what they say publicly.

At least you have the self-awareness and honesty to admit it. I think crypto can be a phenomenal trading opportunity for guys willing to take the risk. But I genuinely worry for guys who seem to be drunk on the Kool-Aid and lost in borderline religious delusions about crypto completely reshaping the world (while at the same time filling their pockets - how convenient!)

 

[Cynllo]

Rent is extracting value from a non-productive activity... Real estate rental is mostly non-productive in 2 layers. The bank is charging rent on money it gave you at no cost. You are charging rent on a property with an inflated value, because money was created, stealing from people who earned it, driving up the cost of things like real estate. The bank does essentially 0 productive value, the rentier adds very little economic value. Yes we need short term rentals, but far more people are renting because they can’t afford to buy a house, not because they want to rent. It’s a Proof of Stake system. Having more money lets you borrow more created money, lent at rates far below inflation, stealing the value from people who produce work for it.

Currently this also fits the crypto space quite well. Since little production happens or is facilitated by it. People produce to buy crypto, which does next to nothing (at current) and purchasing power is redistributed to people with good entries (and exits). I know that is not how people see it panning out. I don't either. But ponzinomics are quite deep baked into projects. Traders usually demand more ponzinomics. Virtually no one in the space is talking about a stable coin that is not pegged to the dollar.

Lightning may not be the answer, but it shows that Bitcoin can scale, with a small security tradeoff. As I said before, there cannot be security without cost. Securing a $20 payment, or even $20000, with the equivalent of a nuclear weapon, is ludicrous. Maybe you don’t understand the level of security on L1 Bitcoin? It is literally the most secure data on the planet. You still have the option of using it to move $20, but it makes no economic sense to do so.

It seems it can't scale. There is only one project that claims to be a real L2 for Bitcoin - https://www.bitlayer.org/ - but there is no proof of that available as of yet. "Layer 1 verification - Inherits Bitcoin security via BitVM". The security trade-off of LN is large, especially if one also makes arguments for BTC's POW model. LN is a separate system where individual nodes hold Bitcoin.

My suspicion is that all ETH L2's also don't preserve it's security. And from a little reading it appears that is the case. Polygon/MATIC is less secure and more decentralised than Ethereum, yet it's faster. It doesn't appear to offer any advantages over ETH, other than being quicker and cheaper.

Thus, it seems the whole concept of L2s is a cope for old tech. If a chain cannot do what is required on an L1, then an L2 could only solve it by solving the blockchain trilemma. In which case there would be no point in being a sidechain to a slow but secure L1.

If BitLayer is not a real L2 that preserves all BTC's properties, then something is eventually going to surpass Bitcoin's market cap.

At least you have the self-awareness and honesty to admit it. I think crypto can be a phenomenal trading opportunity for guys willing to take the risk. But I genuinely worry for guys who seem to be drunk on the Kool-Aid and lost in borderline religious delusions about crypto completely reshaping the world (while at the same time filling their pockets - how convenient!)

I think it's mostly as you say it for now - a good trading opportunity. But I believe that as the technology matures we will see systems and processes move to blockchains and decentralised technology.

As an example, this website is hosted on a server that was deemed safer than hosting with a major hosting company. But there are several parties that can quickly pull the plug on it. There is tech under development where the code, required processing and storage could be replicated and spread out across multiple nodes. This tech is maybe 10 years away from its first polish. For now you can play a three year gamble on the projects trying to do it.

I still don't see any projects that look like they are going to gain wide adoption. The best case there is gaming. We will know by the end of 2025 if there is anything that can be considered a real winner in that space.

There are other things people are working on that are definitely going to be adopted, either in a decentralised way. For example the WEF-types are looking at ways to use this technology to validate and streamline administrative processes. There are billions spent on administration, compliance and masses of hours wasted on standing in line, filling in forms, giving proofs. On the other hand there are people working on say providing a credit score without handing over any information.

With this technology something like buying real estate could be transformed from something that takes weeks-months and x% fees, to something that can be done quickly for $500...

 

[cosine]

"Digital scarcity" is a nonsensical concept, as was proven with the hilariously awful NFT craze, which was so absurd that even the stupidity of the average greedy normie and a parade of hype couldn't keep it afloat. Bitcoin is literally just the crypto version of an NFT. It has nothing going for it except its brand value/name recognition. From a technological perspective, it is both lacking and infinitely replicable.

Facebook, Amazon, Google are all "replaceable" too. Lots of people have tried replacing them, none have succeeded. Getting a critical mass of users is the hardest part of developing a software app.

 

[Crastinus]

"Digital scarcity" is a nonsensical concept, as was proven with the hilariously awful NFT craze, which was so absurd that even the stupidity of the average greedy normie and a parade of hype couldn't keep it afloat. Bitcoin is literally just the crypto version of an NFT. It has nothing going for it except its brand value/name recognition. From a technological perspective, it is both lacking and infinitely replicable.

You are right in the point that it seems contradictory, for a thing that is non-existent materially, to have the material property of scarcity. But that is one reason why bitcoin is having its current success.

To comment on its replicability, that is why I referenced ealier it is a zero to one technology. Everything that follows is a 1-n replication of the tech. Cosine touches on the implication of this in his previous post.

In regards to the religious nature of Bitcoin, I agree with you, and actually find it so unsettling that at times I even weigh whether or not I should continue participating in the network. But the reason it is unsettling for me, is because I see the potential for it sweep the world into a fervor of mammon worship, where as you see it as a dead end cult. To be honest, part of me hopes you are right.

 

[chance vought]

NFTs and affinity scam coins are not digital scarcity.

@scorpion How long until people wake up and decide Bitcoin is worthless? Is there a price level or hash rate that would mean death?

is there a price level, adoption level, that would signal that it is working?

what if it overtakes gold, ($600k)?

What if its market cap is bigger than USD M1 base money supply ($1M)? (It is already worth more than the entire GBP money supply.)

Is there an inflection point, or will you continue to claim it can never work 15 years from now, no matter the facts?

 

[Australia Sucks]

Facebook, Amazon, Google are all "replaceable" too. Lots of people have tried replacing them, none have succeeded. Getting a critical mass of users is the hardest part of developing a software app.

Peter Thiel covered this point in his book zero to one. In the tech space for a new technology or product to leapfrog another entrenched/legacy technology or product in general it must be 10 times better or ten times cheaper due to switching costs and general human inertia and the risks involved in changing to a new system, lack of network effect, and so on. To make something better is easy. To make something ten times better is hard. Plenty of things are better than Google or Amazon or Facebook. How many things are 10 times better?

This argument therefore also applies to Bitcoin. There are many other coins now which it can be argued are in some aspects technically superior to Bitcoin but at this stage there is nothing that is an order of magnitude superior to Bitcoin and it will likely be at least another 5 - 10 years until such a crypto currency/token is developed. In the meantime Bitcoin will reign supreme.

As somebody who owns Bitcoin for all the weaknesses Bitcoin has even the Bitcoin sceptics (of which I am one despite owning Bitcoin) have to admit that it is superior to fiat and if somebody put a gun to your head and said "for the next 5 years all your wealth must either be stored in fiat or in Bitcoin, choose only one option" almost everybody here would choose Bitcoin. What about you Scorpian which option would you choose?

 

[Blade Runner]

Cash and physical bullion are still the only things with 100% privacy end to end.

Cash isn't, but it does somewhat depend on context, but bullion is closer. The larger point that you are missing, conveniently since you are just arguing to argue, is that all things and transactions, as they involve humans, have risk. The problem with your analysis is that you don't take into consideration the fact that BTC is so much more valuable than the other two, small privacy considerations or risk (enforcement only matters to middle of the road people, largely, who are lost in the crowd = win) are irrelevant. In other words, when I'm worth millions I'll figure out ways to deal with minor problems. You can hold your shiny yellow rock and complain why it got controlled a long time ago and only moves up like a snail since it's not desired and has been largely replaced by something better (BTC).

Btc will continue to be a hedge against inflation and an investment for the future but probably will never be used for point of sale

Yes, and it doesn't matter, which is our point.

Bitcoin maxis like Chance just don't want to acknowledge the truth. Bitcoin has existed for 15 years and has gotten minimal traction as a medium of exchange. 15 years is ample time, If Bitcoin was a good medium of exchange it would have started gaining serious traction already but it hasn't (at least in terms of being a medium of exchange).

You focus on medium of exchange differences because they don't really matter, thus proving our point, which is amusing.

but upon closer inspection the utility is the enjoyment and status people get from art which has a monetary value. If you own a rare artwork you can rent it out to a hotel or office building or put it in a museum and it will generate income for you, therefore its a productive asset and has intrinsic value.

You don't understand the BTC network and the world you keep using, "value."

Truly revolutionary technologies/innovations are recognized as such immediately and quickly make a huge impact on society.

Patently false.

Bitcoin is a cult and its loudest proponents are essentially religious rich zealots.

There, fixed it for you.

Don’t let your ego get in the way. New technology is never obvious. It is only obvious in hindsight. Very few people saw the potential of the internet. Or cell phones. I lived through it. I remember.

We don't let you get away with posting obvious falsities, in other words, is what chance is saying.

Bitcoin will continue to do what it has done. The MSM will claim it’s dead 1000 more times. Tick tock next block.

and probably the creation of a new monetary elite.

That's been my prediction.

And you should be thankful that it is not easy or cheap to spend, because that is a built-in incentive for you to only use it on important things.

The most important counter to AS's points. We're holding let's say million dollar coins if we are right, ok? You think we're worried about buying a coffee with sats?

"Digital scarcity" is a nonsensical concept, as was proven with the hilariously awful NFT craze, which was so absurd that even the stupidity of the average greedy normie and a parade of hype couldn't keep it afloat. Bitcoin is literally just the crypto version of an NFT. It has nothing going for it except its brand value/name recognition. From a technological perspective, it is both lacking and infinitely replicable.

Another example of not understanding Bitcoin/the BTC network.

Is there an inflection point, or will you continue to claim it can never work 15 years from now, no matter the facts?

As I think I put back on the old forum or here, until you can tell me when you'll be wrong, you're fundamentally dishonest intellectually about BTC. I don't think he ever answered before, and as the old arab proverb goes, "Silence is an answer."

 

[eradicator]

Bitcoin is a cult and its loudest proponents are essentially religious zealots. All of the arguments in favor of Bitcoin have been backward rationalized and are simply the window dressing for the actual underlying motivation that unites Bitcoin HODLers: the desire to become fabulously wealthy without doing any work. All of this nonsense about Bitcoin's value approaching infinity due to limited supply and becoming the future world reserve currency, blah blah... this is all transparently nothing more than the desire of the HODLer to himself become what he claims to hate: a member of the wealthy financial elite who has an unearned stranglehold on the currency.

Do you consider Wall Street and the stock market to be replaceable and obsolete and a cult of rich assholes?

It may be full of rich jerks but yeah. So are banks. They are all crooks. But you don’t think banks serve a purpose either?

I’m guessing you are bearish and don’t own any btc? You may consider buying one if the Bitcoin ETFs or ethereum when they come out. That way you wouldn’t have to do any of the buying and selling

 

[eradicator]

Here’s a link from 2013 of a guy losing his mind on bitcoin mooning to $111(and yes someone tracked him down and did a where is he now. “Of course I hodled and now a multi millionaire”




Obligatory

 

[chance vought]

Bitcoin: poisoning rats since 31 October, 2009.

 

[Australia Sucks]

Cash isn't, but it does somewhat depend on context, but bullion is closer. The larger point that you are missing, conveniently since you are just arguing to argue, is that all things and transactions, as they involve humans, have risk. The problem with your analysis is that you don't take into consideration the fact that BTC is so much more valuable than the other two, small privacy considerations or risk (enforcement only matters to middle of the road people, largely, who are lost in the crowd = win) are irrelevant. In other words, when I'm worth millions I'll figure out ways to deal with minor problems. You can hold your shiny yellow rock and complain why it got controlled a long time ago and only moves up like a snail since it's not desired and has been largely replaced by something better (BTC).

Yes, and it doesn't matter, which is our point.

You focus on medium of exchange differences because they don't really matter, thus proving our point, which is amusing.

You don't understand the BTC network and the world you keep using, "value."

Patently false.

There, fixed it for you.

We don't let you get away with posting obvious falsities, in other words, is what chance is saying.



That's been my prediction.

The most important counter to AS's points. We're holding let's say million dollar coins if we are right, ok? You think we're worried about buying a coffee with sats?

Another example of not understanding Bitcoin/the BTC network.

As I think I put back on the old forum or here, until you can tell me when you'll be wrong, you're fundamentally dishonest intellectually about BTC. I don't think he ever answered before, and as the old arab proverb goes, "Silence is an answer."

I have already said that I own some Bitcoin and gold. Because both have strengths and weaknesses. Bitcoin is superior to gold in many aspects, faster, more portable, more divisible, etc.

But Gold has a level of anonymity that Bitcoin does not and its also a physical asset so if the grid/internet ever gets disrupted you can still pull out your gold and trade it.

I believe people should own both gold and bitcoin which is what I do.