BITCOIN

adindas

Section62 said:

However, your argument is effectively that we should believe people like you copy/pasting pro-crypto information, but ignore anything else.  Can you not see the problem with that?

Sorry, but when did I ever ask people to believe me, any link? In fact, in many of my posts, I have said this. “Do your own DDs”.

grumiofoundation said:

I think we have to give some credit to the poster here - normally when I try and belittle other people for their lack of intelligence I waste my time reading their arguments to thoroughly belittle them, forming coherent sentences and checking my spelling, and I think we should give them credit for not lowering themselves to those levels.

And what is more important for a person to make a conclusion it is arguments forming coherent sentences, spelling or fact. I know for a politician, what you said is very important.

If you just follow the post above in this thread; someone is comparing BTC ownership with Jeff Bezos ownership of Amazon and ask me to explain my rational. I posted that statistical fact, look at the number and draw your conclusion.

Combine all of the top 10 holders of BTC, they only own 5% altogether. Compare it to Jeff Bezos  ownership of Amazon. Because it is statistical fact you could easily cross check it from other sources.

Scottex99

I think we have to give some credit to the poster here - normally when I try and belittle other people for their lack of intelligence I waste my time reading their arguments to thoroughly belittle them, forming coherent sentences and checking my spelling, and I think we should give them credit for not lowering themselves to those levels.

English not their first language, obviously

HHarry

 “We know the price of Bitcoin, but not the value” - which is exactly the question asked a while ago.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/steve-hanke-bitcoin-price-value-is-zero-000106264.html

Scottex99

Another Boomer. “Fiat is so reliable and controlled and safe but we really need to scale back on printing it when inflation gets to 9%.”

These guys will all be left behind 

lozzy1965

Yes, a bit of a nonsensical statement in my opinion.  The 'value' of all money is zero if it hasn't been accepted as a method of payment for goods and services!  It's the acceptance that gives it value.  It's another argument as to whether bitcoin (as this is what this thread is about) will become accepted enough to have true value.
EDIT:  Scottex - It's true to say we don't know Bitcoin's value yet surely?

Malthusian

The 'value' of all money is zero if it hasn't been accepted as a method of payment for goods and services!

The value of fiat currencies can only become zero if the issuing Government decides to change the law such that their currency will no longer be accepted as a means to pay tax and will no longer be considered a valid means to settle debts by its courts. None of the bros have yet come up with a convincing reason why they would do so in defiance of the fact that it would obliterate the wealth of everyone involved in that decision and cause the economy to go full Venezuela.

That makes it far more complicated than the idea that one day all the sheeple will wake up, take a red pill and realise that fiat currency is worthless.

The idea that Bitcoin will be used as currency runs into the ancient problem that to become useable as a currency it has to stop rocketing in value, and if it stops rocketing in value nobody will get rich quick.

For Bitcoin to see mass adoption and to be used as a currency at somewhere around its ATH level, a massive transfer of wealth would have to occur from the new mass user base to those who bought in at lower prices. Why the general population would want to transfer a huge amount of wealth to current hodlers in order to create a stable currency is unclear when there are already plenty of them around. Yet again we have a solution looking for a problem.

Alternatively, there is a way that Bitcoin could become usable as a currency without a transfer of wealth from the new mass user base to current hodlers. But it involves a massive price crash, followed by stability. This would solve the previous problem but wouldn't be great for current hodlers. Essentially this would have the same effect as a dump to zero, with the remaining money on the table (pennies in the pound) being shared out across speculators as they cashed in at the new stable price, after which game over.

Zola.

Malthusian said:

The 'value' of all money is zero if it hasn't been accepted as a method of payment for goods and services!

The value of fiat currencies can only become zero if the issuing Government decides to change the law such that their currency will no longer be accepted as a means to pay tax and will no longer be considered a valid means to settle debts by its courts. None of the bros have yet come up with a convincing reason why they would do so in defiance of the fact that it would obliterate the wealth of everyone involved in that decision and cause the economy to go full Venezuela.

That makes it far more complicated than the idea that one day all the sheeple will wake up, take a red pill and realise that fiat currency is worthless.

The idea that Bitcoin will be used as currency runs into the ancient problem that to become useable as a currency it has to stop rocketing in value, and if it stops rocketing in value nobody will get rich quick.

For Bitcoin to see mass adoption and to be used as a currency at somewhere around its ATH level, a massive transfer of wealth would have to occur from the new mass user base to those who bought in at lower prices. Why the general population would want to transfer a huge amount of wealth to current hodlers in order to create a stable currency is unclear when there are already plenty of them around. Yet again we have a solution looking for a problem.

Alternatively, there is a way that Bitcoin could become usable as a currency without a transfer of wealth from the new mass user base to current hodlers. But it involves a massive price crash, followed by stability. This would solve the previous problem but wouldn't be great for current hodlers. Essentially this would have the same effect as a dump to zero, with the remaining money on the table (pennies in the pound) being shared out across speculators as they cashed in at the new stable price, after which game over.

It IS being used as a currency for 6 million people in El Salvador, right now. They are the first nation-state to adopt it. A 12-year-old incorruptible currency. Pretty impressive. 

When you look at countries like Turkey, where their currency is utterly falling apart, their citizens are flocking to Bitcoin and other currencies that maintain value better.

This is even more important in corrupt developing nations where you can't leave the country with your money if you want to flee. But your money held in a seed phrase inside your mind, no one can take that. This is one of Bitcoin's many perks. 

There's a long way to run yet, but to totally dismiss Bitcoin at this stage is somewhat baffling. 


Jack Mallers, Strike CEO discussing cross-border payments to the IMF... Bitcoin has already won the crypto game. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-mWhNZda4U

lozzy1965

Apologies for posting this in the BITCOIN thread, but with reference to the above video, I think there might be a new crypto coin called "Peanut" coming!
I listened to half of it.  Obviously the guy's reasons are compelling, but it is a sales pitch from a pro crypto person.  That doesn't mean I dismiss it out of hand, but I would like to hear the counter argument.  Off the top of my head, what he is saying is so great about Bitcoin - it's speed of movement across boarders - could apply to any existing currency, if it wasn't for all the checks and controls governments require to ensure that what is being done is legal?  I didn't quite get the moving a dollar from the US to El Salvador having 4 or 5 steps along the way - surely it's just one transfer fee?  Not that I've ever sent any money to El Salvador!
Probably rehashing old arguments here but I haven't read the whole of this thread!!!

realistlaw

After the all upcoming news of purchasing and buying of bitcoin in ban now in the following countries as the government is declaring a ban on crypto currencies is it ok to say that all trading apps are saved now to trade...
As I  invested in crypto currency and no doubt takes great return out of it but is it safe now to invest in the market as its right time to but coins as its getting down but at the same time is the trading apps we are using is save to invest.

Zola.

lozzy1965 said:

Apologies for posting this in the BITCOIN thread, but with reference to the above video, I think there might be a new crypto coin called "Peanut" coming!
I listened to half of it.  Obviously the guy's reasons are compelling, but it is a sales pitch from a pro crypto person.  That doesn't mean I dismiss it out of hand, but I would like to hear the counter argument.  Off the top of my head, what he is saying is so great about Bitcoin - it's speed of movement across boarders - could apply to any existing currency, if it wasn't for all the checks and controls governments require to ensure that what is being done is legal?  I didn't quite get the moving a dollar from the US to El Salvador having 4 or 5 steps along the way - surely it's just one transfer fee?  Not that I've ever sent any money to El Salvador!
Probably rehashing old arguments here but I haven't read the whole of this thread!!!

The counter-argument will be from old farts who just don't get it.  "but we need these old slow vampire banks who take forever, rip everyone off with fees and use IT systems built 50 years ago, which aren't fit for purpose in the modern world, bro" 

Damn right it's a sales pitch from a pro-crypto person, but the idea is out there now, it will never be put back in the box. Nothing is stronger than an idea whose time has come.

Technology moves the world forward and thank god for 27 year old "crypto bros" like Jack Mallers, who have the creativity to build something of value that the world needs.