BITCOIN

User232002

RogerIrvine said:

Right, so El Salvador is merely the first domino. Here's how that went, Darren.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/12/06/bitcoin-city-el-salvador-nayib-bukele/

I would not pretend to know what the situation is in El Salvador. In my experience, there are incredibly biased reporting standards around anything to do with Bitcoin. I've watched interviews with Bukele and he does not come across as a dictator to me; he makes arguments based on rationality & logic and seems firmly grounded in reality. I've seen videos of Bitcoin being used as a currency in isolated areas of El Salvador. Either way, the success or failure of it is not going to be measured in weeks or months, it will be measured over years.

In any event, if a country wants to offer a bond on the open market that is backed by the purchase of Bitcoin, what is wrong with that? Its a free market and people are able to either purchase or not purchase such bonds as they see fit. Microstrategy has essentially used the same method to finance the purchasing of $3-$4BN of BTC.

RogerIrvine said:

Second domino, presumably, is the city of Rio De Janeiro putting 1% of its treasury into Bitcoin. Don't you see a slight problem of scale extrapolating this? The whole value of Bitcoin couldn't buy Central Park, if it came up for sale.

I can't really fathom how someone would make this point to be honest. You just can't be serious. You realise that gold wasn't an $11T asset class in 1933 right? You realise that there weren't $21T of USD back in say 1933 right? Hell, you do realise that Bitcoin, at one point, was worth under $1BN?

RogerIrvine said:

Try El Salvador, it's perfect. Nice climate and the President wears a baseball cap backwards on his head, darren232002, 

Dubai just signed a deal with the largest crypto exchange to co-operate. Most of the largest exchanges and crypto investment companies are currently located in Singapore. Portugal offers no CGT on digital assets. If you think our options are limited to tiny South American countries you are sorely mistaken.

Scottex99

I can't really fathom how someone would make this point to be honest. You just can't be serious. You realise that gold wasn't an $11T asset class in 1933 right? You realise that there weren't $21T of USD back in say 1933 right? Hell, you do realise that Bitcoin, at one point, was worth under $1BN?

Dubai just signed a deal with the largest crypto exchange to co-operate. Most of the largest exchanges and crypto investment companies are currently located in Singapore. Portugal offers no CGT on digital assets. If you think our options are limited to tiny South American countries you are sorely mistaken.

Lol at 1.

And for 2, There's a few places in Europe that are already pro crypto.
Portugal, Gibraltar, Estonia, Germany/Switzerland (to some extent), Malta (although they have wider problems).

 Outside of Europe there is Dubai and Bahamas is soon to become a crypto hub due to the bankrolling from FTX

RogerIrvine

"In my experience, there are incredibly biased reporting standards around anything to do with Bitcoin."  :

That made me chuckle. Its zealots are postulating the overthrow of fiat currency. 

Scottex99

SonOfPearl said:

darren232002 said:

I think we really need a moderator intervention here. Its just ridiculous that on a 1600 page thread people can come in and post an opinion that isn't new or novel and the same arguments have to be dredged up again. People don't like to be told their opinion isnt valuable or intelligent because its offensive, but honestly this thread is turning in to evidence for the prevalence of the Dunning-Kruger effect in modern society.

Hello to all the folks on this thread. I've been lurking here for a long time but haven't posted before. To me, the most telling thing is that despite such a long discussion, those who see inherent value in Bitcoin have been unable to convince most (any?) of the sceptics here. I don't think Bitcoin sceptics are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect - we just don't see that Bitcoin has any real value and nothing I have read here has convinced me (an enquiring person with a reasonable education) otherwise. Of course I may be wrong, but it won't be from overestimating my knowledge of the subject.

Ultimately, time will tell and I'll continue to read news about Bitcoin as I find it interesting, but I think it's time for me to stop reading this thread as (apart from the occasional laugh) it's not a productive use of my time. Thanks to all who have contributed with constructive comments and links. 

Nice post but I don't think "convince" is really the word. 
Personally I dont see how it's possible to do a bit of research and not see how BTC/Crypto is going to have use in the future, but people are different.

Imo time already has told but it certainly will tell when we come back to this in a few years.

Cheers!

RogerIrvine

darren232002 said

I can't really fathom how someone would make this point to be honest. You just can't be serious. You realise that gold wasn't an $11T asset class in 1933 right? You realise that there weren't $21T of USD back in say 1933 right? Hell, you do realise that Bitcoin, at one point, was worth under $1BN?

The point being, for Bitcoin to replace USD, it has to keep rising in value exponentially. But whereas USD is backed, in principle, by the land value of Central Park, or Wyoming, Bitcoin is essentially of no value and can keep growing only by appealing to an ever widening base of users. Hence 40,000 crypto adverts on London Underground between April and September last year. 

RogerIrvine said:

Try El Salvador, it's perfect. Nice climate and the President wears a baseball cap backwards on his head, darren232002, 

Dubai just signed a deal with the largest crypto exchange to co-operate. 

What does that even mean?

Let me put the credibility issue another way  - What is wrong with the existing money supply strategy?

User232002

RogerIrvine said:

"In my experience, there are incredibly biased reporting standards around anything to do with Bitcoin."  :

That made me chuckle. Its zealots are postulating the overthrow of fiat currency. 

The BBC recently put out an article talking about how Bitcoin has 'crashed' from 70k to 40k, despite the fact that under 2 years ago it was trading under 4k. Even on this thread, someone recently pointed out that Bitcoin is not yet at 100k, as if that is somehow a 'win.' 

And its zealots have birthed a two trillion dollar asset class all whilst most people have been laughing at them playing with magic internet money, called it 'rat poison' or mentioned something to do with tulips or boiling the oceans. 

RogerIrvine said:

The point being, for Bitcoin to replace USD, it has to keep rising in value exponentially. But whereas USD is backed, in principle, by the land value of Central Park, or Wyoming, Bitcoin is essentially of no value and can keep growing only by appealing to an ever widening base of users. Hence 40,000 crypto adverts on London Underground between April and September last year. 

Really no idea why you think the USD is backed by the land value of the USA. Completely false, but a novel argument for sure. 

RogerIrvine said:

Dubai just signed a deal with the largest crypto exchange to co-operate. 

What does that even mean?

Probably favourable tax regulation to encourage them to move their offices, jobs, talent and ultimately revenue in to the UAE. I also believe sovereign wealth funds will disclose purchases of BTC within the next 2 years, and if you're going to do that it makes sense that your counterparty also has a healthy stake in the future of your country. Its still probably slightly too underdeveloped to allocate capital to at the minute, but its getting there.

RogerIrvine said:

Let me put the credibility issue another way  - What is wrong with the existing money supply strategy?

Amazing question. I can't believe nobody has asked or commented on this before now in this thread.

Scottex99

RogerIrvine said:

Let me put the credibility issue another way  - What is wrong with the existing money supply strategy?

Amazing question. I can't believe nobody has asked or commented on this before now in this thread.

Hahaha, no more internet for me today

RogerIrvine

 The front of every dollar bill states that it is a Federal Reserve Note and "this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." It is signed by the Secretary of the Treasury. On the front and the back (in case you are still in doubt) it states "The United States Of America." Of course its currency is underwritten by its land value. And all its other tangible assets. Including its 7th Fleet. You can't build an aircraft carrier out of Bitcoins. Or tax-avoiders.

Even if there were an economic argument for using Bitcoins instead of currency, politics always wins out against economics.  

Since you have answered the point so many times, darren, you should have honed your answers: Why is the Fed's existing policy not sustainable in your opinion?

Scottex99

Money printer go brrrrrrr, inflation goes to 7% and you’re…. Surprised?

User232002

RogerIrvine said:

 The front of every dollar bill states that it is a Federal Reserve Note and "this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." It is signed by the Secretary of the Treasury. On the front and the back (in case you are still in doubt) it states "The United States Of America." Of course its currency is underwritten by its land value. And all its other tangible assets. Including its 7th Fleet. You can't build an aircraft carrier out of Bitcoins. Or tax-avoiders.

Sir, the idea that a country's currency is backed by its land value is just preposterous. You're closer on the 7th fleet, but nobody is suggesting that Aircraft carriers are built out of Bitcoins so no idea what your point is there. Aircraft carriers are terrible in modern warfare by the way.

RogerIrvine said:

Even if there were an economic argument for using Bitcoins instead of currency, politics always wins out against economics.  

Amazingly, you've managed to ask and answer your question in the same post.

RogerIrvine said:

Since you have answered the point so many times, darren, you should have honed your answers: Why is the Fed's existing policy not sustainable in your opinion?

Its probably better to ask why you believe that printing tens of billions every month for over a decade is actually sustainable... But you're also someone who doesn't understand how a $1T monetary asset can purchase anything costing more than $1T, so I'm not sure we can give your opinion on the matter much credence unfortunately.