It already is.
Yes.
It already is.
We know. The truth is, you aren't convicted, and (thus) haven't done enough homework.
I remember Guy was really excited when Biden won because Gary Gansler was a 'blockchain' expert and he'd be good for the industry. Now he is fudding Trump's coming 4 years.
Interesting thing is the Coin Bureau HQ are in Dubai and not in London, I wonder why?
Interesting thing is the Coin Bureau HQ are in Dubai and not in London, I wonder why?
Just an alt-coin casino promoter…who is writing his YouTube scripts? Don’t watch any of this coin bureau garbage.
Mark Moss understands
UserUnavailable
Orthodox
I can see that it is, but would it ever become mainstream and accepted by most of the populace? Would we ever use these p2p loans instead of going through a traditional bank to say secure a home loan? I really doubt it and if it does become the norm it will be because the banks have accepted BTC as a form of security, something that would not please many BTC maximalists. If that occurs, then what? HODL forever out of spite?
The HRF looks to be a typical NGO that everyone in this forum would strongly dislike, but because they accept BTC all is good? I am personally wary of associating BTC with all "good" things in the world.
This is nice.
Once again, arguments for and against as to why this is or is not true. Very hard to know for sure.
Balance with most perspectives is required. I believe in BTC to an extent. As we see now, many government's are looking to stack BTC including the US government. Are they just going stack for the sake of stacking or will they trade it like any other asset? Likely the latter to enrich themselves because they simply view BTC as another asset. Yes they may stack for an x amount of time, but there is no value to be made unless they trade it.
Yes of course, loans will still have a place even in a bitcoin world. How will loans be different than a fiat world?
1. They will be far less ubiquitous, since there is an opportunity cost, and risk - Someone had to actually work to earn the money that is lent, vs just creating it at no cost.
2. Loans will fund only the most productive endeavors. Because now there is a real cost, and the fact that the bitcoin you borrowed is going to be getting more valuable. Whatever business or service you are borrowing to fund, must create real value soon: Not like Google, or Uber, or Tesla, all of which were unprofitable for decades. A loan for such an endeavor might be possible, but not repaid in bitcoin, but in actual equity in the company (similar to VC funding, rather than a loan market).
Banks will use it, nations will use it, criminals and rapists will use it. Everyone uses money. It doesn't matter who I want to use it, it is permission-less and unstoppable. That's one of the many reasons it is so valuable.
It might look like that, but it isn't. They don't accept bitcoin - they use it to fund dissidents all over the world: North Korea, Russia, Afghanistan...the only way to get money to people the governments don't like.
The value is, they can use it to defend their fiat currencies, which are currently in the midst of a global bank run. Japan is selling off US debt to defend its currency. Other countries will soon follow. Nations aren't going to be buying each others debt like they have the past 50 years. The sovereign bond ponzi is coming to an end. Sovereign bond yields are going to blow out like nothing we've ever seen. But, with a bitcoin reserve, the mere possibility of selling that bitcoin (even if they never do) could stabilize government money for a few more decades. Its the only logical play, and we are witnessing history in real time.
A world with only Bitcoin-based loans is a recipe for economic stagnation. Fiat money has flaws, but it also has virtues, and one of them is encouraging economic activity through loans. This may seem "wrong" to you, in the sense that the loan is created out of thin air (an idea which we initially recoil at), but it's important to remember that money is ultimately a social fiction, and has no relation to actual wealth. Wealth is only created through productive human activity - which fiat-based loans encourage. Conversely, a deflationary currency like Bitcoin cannot expand to meet the needs of a growing economy.
Honestly curious why you think banks and governments would willingly surrender their ability to create and loan money. And no, saying, "Because it's inevitable," is not an answer, that's just your statement of faith.
A global Bitcoin arms race will end in disaster for countries foolish enough to spend their wealth and energy acquiring what are literally useless virtual tokens. They will ultimately be forced to surrender to the dictates of countries who instead focus their economies on producing real economic wealth. Basically, everything you're saying in regard to Bitcoin and governmental economic power is completely backwards. The ability of a country to issue and control its own currency is paramount to its economic development and sovereignty. Poor countries who foolishly attempt to base their economies on Bitcoin will remain mired in poverty and have their wealth stripped from them. With their own currency, however, they could devalue it to encourage foreign investment and then begin exporting products to wealthier countries. This allows for rapid economic development over only a few decades (see: China).
Good clips of Cynthia Lummis describing the SBR, and Saylor discussing how a SBR can support a nations currency.
It's a reserve asset. Everyone wants it. Many of you make this really complicated, and it's not.
I think chance has given up on you to. You've learned nothing from all we've tried to teach you.
If you haven't read confessions of an economic hitman, or studied money, or figured out what we've said for umpteen pages here, we're just gonna wait and let you watch in real time. It's sad, but true.
It's strange watching that video and listening to how Sen. Lummis and Saylor talk about Bitcoin (my reaction in a nutshell). They both seem completely trapped in a mental paradigm where they believe that Bitcoin is actually inherently valuable in and of itself, versus the reality of it just being a speculative financial asset that currently enjoys an increasing dollar value. The propositional value of Bitcoin is very different for an individual speculator versus a global superpower nation state. The former just wants to "make money", (and paradoxically, it is only possible to make money in Bitcoin if Bitcoin is valued and traded in another currency) while the latter must account for a host of complicated social, economic and geopolitical goals. In short: these are not the same thing, not remotely.
The tweets toward the end of the video are even more breathtaking in their audacity. The author essentially describes Bitcoin as a cancer that will metastasize and swallow the entire world. And this is supposed to be a good thing? Has he stopped to consider the endgame that we would find ourselves in if such a scenario were actually to come to pass? It sure doesn't seem like it. In fact, it doesn't seem like any of these Bitcoin maxis actually have a firm understanding of the complexity of global financial/economic system, or of the multiplicity of advantages that sovereign nations gain from controlling the issuance of their own fiat currencies.
It's really impossible to view the Bitcoin maxi argument as anything except a combination of wishful thinking and tortured rationalization for why the line must keep going up in perpetuity. There seems to be literally zero awareness among maxis of the true nature of money and wealth - of the idea that money itself is actually completely worthless, and that it is only a means for facilitating the economic activity which is the true foundation of wealth. Or for an analogy, think of money as blood, and wealth as the human body. A bucket of blood is just about useless - but pump it through the veins of a human being, and you can make all sorts of things happen.
Fiat currencies make for a great economic blood supply, because they're highly liquid and can expand to fill every crack in the economy very quickly. Bitcoin, in contrast, would be like if your veins were filled with sand. A "harder" form of money, sure - but infinitely less flexible and adaptable. There are pros and cons to each, a fact which the maxis also deny, painting fiat as inherently broken and deficient, blatantly ignoring the irrefutable fact that fiat - despite its flaws - has helped to create the modern world and all of its technological marvels. "Guys, just trust us and sit back as our deflationary internet money takes over the world" is not a comforting or compelling argument in the face of centuries of economic development and experience with fiat currencies.
The tweets toward the end of the video are even more breathtaking in their audacity. The author essentially describes Bitcoin as a cancer that will metastasize and swallow the entire world. And this is supposed to be a good thing? Has he stopped to consider the endgame that we would find ourselves in if such a scenario were actually to come to pass? It sure doesn't seem like it. In fact, it doesn't seem like any of these Bitcoin maxis actually have a firm understanding of the complexity of global financial/economic system, or of the multiplicity of advantages that sovereign nations gain from controlling the issuance of their own fiat currencies.
It's really impossible to view the Bitcoin maxi argument as anything except a combination of wishful thinking and tortured rationalization for why the line must keep going up in perpetuity. There seems to be literally zero awareness among maxis of the true nature of money and wealth - of the idea that money itself is actually completely worthless, and that it is only a means for facilitating the economic activity which is the true foundation of wealth. Or for an analogy, think of money as blood, and wealth as the human body. A bucket of blood is just about useless - but pump it through the veins of a human being, and you can make all sorts of things happen.
Fiat currencies make for a great economic blood supply, because they're highly liquid and can expand to fill every crack in the economy very quickly. Bitcoin, in contrast, would be like if your veins were filled with sand. A "harder" form of money, sure - but infinitely less flexible and adaptable. There are pros and cons to each, a fact which the maxis also deny, painting fiat as inherently broken and deficient, blatantly ignoring the irrefutable fact that fiat - despite its flaws - has helped to create the modern world and all of its technological marvels. "Guys, just trust us and sit back as our deflationary internet money takes over the world" is not a comforting or compelling argument in the face of centuries of economic development and experience with fiat currencies.
How do you expect people to understand your teachings when they're too stupid to know what money is and haven't read Confessions Of An Economic Hitman?
Sovereign nations control the issuance of their "own fiat currencies"?
You've even forgot the basics.
As we've told you countless times, it doesn't matter if it's comforting. You obviously don't like it. It doesn't matter what you want or not, scorpion. Your argument keeps stating that worse money, literally based on nothing, is better for economic development. You're in a world of self delusion since you can't even apply first principles. Are you related to the Rothschilds or something? With these statements Urkel might even think you're part of the chew-sury system.
I'm hoping they can read. If not able to understand, at least trust someone who has predicted things, versus the emotional people who have come up with zilch as they miss out on generational wealth creation.
Are you completely incapable of engaging on this topic without coming across as patronizing? After months of going back and forth in this thread, the idea that you can read my posts and conclude that I am ill-informed on Bitcoin, economically illiterate or that I somehow "don't understand money" is completely asinine. It's like your brain simply cannot process the idea that someone can be intelligent and hold an informed opinion and yet still disagree with you. @chance vought presents actual arguments for the most part (albeit ones I find uncompelling), while you basically just sit here and call people dumb or tell them that they haven't consumed enough Bitcoin propaganda to properly brainwash themselves into taking the orange pill.
Through their central banks, yes.
My argument is that fiat currency has enabled the creation of the entire modern world. Whereas Bitcoin has, so far, enabled only rampant speculation and cybercrime. Your visceral negative reaction to the idea of a "money based on nothing" (which is humorous given the nature of Bitcoin itself) tells me that it is actually you who does not understand the distinction between money and wealth, and who has not internalized the proper role of money in the economy and society at large (that is, as a facilitator/lubricant for wealth creation, not as a "valued asset" in and of itself).
Are these good actors? Your suggestion is that they are so concerned with sovereignty and economic productivity, but I'm sure you know that most (the big ones), like in the US, are neither federal nor have reserves, as we say.
So which one is it? The mammon controllers are looking out for us?
I don't know how you don't see this. And you are calling me the patronizing one. These are the basics that I think are slipping past you because YOU WANT BTC to not be successful for emotional reasons. It's the only conclusion.
@Blade Runner stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you of jew crap to knock them down, if anything you sound like a Jew because that's their tactics for anyone who disagrees with them. You did the same thing to me in another thread, learn how to discuss things like a man.
Facts.
True, I hate it when condescending assholes, child pornographers, and jews get rich off of doing nothing but sitting on their fat asses, starring at computer screens, "crunching the numbers," and then rubbing their ill-gotten gains in the faces of the working class.
What have you predicted? That money exists and it's value fluctuates? You're a real genius.
Why are you so concerned with generational wealth when you're going to die alone in Eastern Europe having never found an 18 year-old virgin who's father approves of a man 10 years his senior?
Much less important than whether these are good or bad actors is recognizing that fact that regardless of how you feel about them, these institutions underpin the entirety of modern civilization. When you talk about completely doing away with fiat currency and replacing it with Bitcoin, I don't think you realize what an extreme and revolutionary position you're taking. But you are essentially as extreme as the communists who advocated for the abolition of private property, or the climate zealots who seriously propose that we cut emissions to zero and rely entirely on green energy and electric vehicles. In other words, you are so captured by an ideology - in this case, a sort of financial libertarianism/anarchism - that you are prepared to recklessly destroy one of the central pillars of modern civilization (the fiat-based financial system) in service of your utopian vision, with no concern for the myriad of unpredictable and highly disruptive downstream consequences. Because you are so thoroughly submerged in the cult-like thinking of the Bitcoin bubble, you don't realize how binary your thinking has become. You can only see the situation in black and white - "fiat bad, Bitcoin good". But the reality is that the picture is far more nuanced.
Last edited:
So in other words you are not saying hold onto bitcoin forever without enjoying any profits, you are basically say you can enjoy the profits without selling Bitcoin by loaning against it, I dont own enough Bitcoin to do that yet I still need to learn how to do that, so lets say a person is retired and they dont have a fiat income, when they take a loan will they pay it off with their Bitcoin monthly?
What about situations where you sell your Bitcoin when it has spiked, then when it drops just buy some more when a person makes some extra cash on a business deal or in their job?
Yes, I don’t plan on earning money once I retire…I’m not saying I won’t, I just don’t plan on it. Loans.
Example: I have 2 BTC. Each is worth $10M. I take out a loan against 1 BTC at 10% LTV for $1M. Payments are going to be about $2k per month, so I put $100k in a bank account and now I have 4 years of payments ready to go. Maybe take $900k and buy more bitcoin. If Bitcoin drops 80%, my collateral is still worth double the loan value (not even including the 1 BTC I haven’t used). 4 years later, my coins are now $50M each (plus I’ve added nearly .1 BTC, so $105M) I take out a new loan for $5M, pay off old loan, rinse and repeat.
These would be the larger, long term loans - used to accumulate more BTC and pay for big expenses. What about monthly fiat bills? Use shorter term loans, like credit cards. Pay those off by peer to peer trading Bitcoin for fiat…no reporting, or capital gains tax. Once banks are allowed to use Bitcoin, possibly short term bank loans by month or by year, that can be rolled over much faster than long term multi year loans. That way, I don’t have to have any fiat balance, just have all savings in Bitcoin while continually rolling over new debt against it. To my knowledge such a product doesn’t exist, but there will be strong demand on both sides for it while fiat still exists.
Last edited:
Hey guys here's the nupl for today's price action. Looks like we're facing some huge resistance and very understandably so at 100k which seems to match the top of march. Remember you should be selling some if not all at green-blue and buying on red-orange. Very simple isn't it?
Just my humble opinion seeing you guys keep arguing over the same thing over and over again. If maybe we should create a different thread for criticism of Bitcoin and Crypto currencies tech apart, so you can keep your heated discussion there, it's been going on for a long time and I used to come here for advice on how to navigate this crazy market, maybe we should just leave this one for Pro crypto guys and strategies on how to 10x - 100x our money every 4 years or so until the party it's over for good. Take or sweep I'm just saying.
Just my humble opinion seeing you guys keep arguing over the same thing over and over again. If maybe we should create a different thread for criticism of Bitcoin and Crypto currencies tech apart, so you can keep your heated discussion there, it's been going on for a long time and I used to come here for advice on how to navigate this crazy market, maybe we should just leave this one for Pro crypto guys and strategies on how to 10x - 100x our money every 4 years or so until the party it's over for good. Take or sweep I'm just saying.
Last edited: