BITCOIN

Malthusian

Zola. said:

Malthusian said:

A reduced increase in supply is still an increase in supply. 

No - it just means there are more players fighting over the same block reward. Thats it. 

However you dress it up, Vespene and co taking money off the table by mining coins leaves less to go around and cash out for people who currently hold Bitcoin or buy it with fiat or fiat's worth.
Didn't we already do the "greedy bankers BlackRock invest in product that will liberate us from greedy bankers" thing? And it's not clear why it makes sense for rich people to invest in a trust holding Bitcoin rather than simply buying some Bitcoin. Have they forgotten when the major exchanges froze the accounts of Russian oligarchs? Not your keys not your coins bro.

Zola.

Malthusian said:

Zola. said:

Malthusian said:

A reduced increase in supply is still an increase in supply. 

No - it just means there are more players fighting over the same block reward. Thats it. 

However you dress it up, Vespene and co taking money off the table by mining coins leaves less to go around and cash out for people who currently hold Bitcoin or buy it with fiat or fiat's worth.
Didn't we already do the "greedy bankers BlackRock invest in product that will liberate us from greedy bankers" thing? And it's not clear why it makes sense for rich people to invest in a trust holding Bitcoin rather than simply buying some Bitcoin. Have they forgotten when the major exchanges froze the accounts of Russian oligarchs? Not your keys not your coins bro.

However you dress it up, the more people getting into Bitcoin, the greater the adoption, the greater the price, lindy effect bro.

Agree with you on Blackrock though, they just care about the expensive management fees that will come with it for the lazy/scared institutional investors. I dont know why an institution wouldn't just set up a multi sig.. laziness and lack of education on the subject no doubt.

With Blackrock it will most likely pave the way for a spot bitcoin etf  in the US too. 

Frequentlyhere

I'm surprised that Bitcoin supporters are surprised that those not in thrall to BTC are less than impressed by the waste recycling thing. 

The thing is, if you don't see any value to BTC then any usage above zero is a total waste. It apparently uses 0.3% of global electricity, which especially in the current circumstances is absolutely galling.

So, trumpeting that some new venture, at it's most charitable interpretation, might one day in the future reduce that figure ever so slightly by harnessing some energy which is difficult to otherwise use, rather just invites the response " Or....you could just stop the pointless activity?"

So the challenge as ever is to try and find any sort of purpose for the thing. That would impress and then we can all make excuses to justify whatever level of electricity it uses. 

Zola.

Frequentlyhere said:

I'm surprised that Bitcoin supporters are surprised that those not in thrall to BTC are less than impressed by the waste recycling thing. 

The thing is, if you don't see any value to BTC then any usage above zero is a total waste. It apparently uses 0.3% of global electricity, which especially in the current circumstances is absolutely galling.

So, trumpeting that some new venture, at it's most charitable interpretation, might one day in the future reduce that figure ever so slightly by harnessing some energy which is difficult to otherwise use, rather just invites the response " Or....you could just stop the pointless activity?"

So the challenge as ever is to try and find any sort of purpose for the thing. That would impress and then we can all make excuses to justify whatever level of electricity it uses. 

Yeah, I suppose the world's first singular global money, that is fully decentralised, incorruptible by governments and banks,  open to anyone with a mobile phone and without a bank account (2 Billion unbanked globally) has no absolutely purpose 

Comical!

Adyinvestment

Zola. said:

Frequentlyhere said:

I'm surprised that Bitcoin supporters are surprised that those not in thrall to BTC are less than impressed by the waste recycling thing. 

The thing is, if you don't see any value to BTC then any usage above zero is a total waste. It apparently uses 0.3% of global electricity, which especially in the current circumstances is absolutely galling.

So, trumpeting that some new venture, at it's most charitable interpretation, might one day in the future reduce that figure ever so slightly by harnessing some energy which is difficult to otherwise use, rather just invites the response " Or....you could just stop the pointless activity?"

So the challenge as ever is to try and find any sort of purpose for the thing. That would impress and then we can all make excuses to justify whatever level of electricity it uses. 

Yeah, I suppose the world's first singular global money, that is fully decentralised, incorruptible by governments and banks,  open to anyone with a mobile phone and without a bank account (2 Billion unbanked globally) has no absolutely purpose 

Comical!

I do genuinely believe that if it was reported that Bitcoin in some fantasy cured cancer (I am not being serious here guys - just pointing this out as you have to watch your words carefully in this thread) that it would still get bashed here. 

barnstar2077

Zola. said:

Frequentlyhere said:

I'm surprised that Bitcoin supporters are surprised that those not in thrall to BTC are less than impressed by the waste recycling thing. 

The thing is, if you don't see any value to BTC then any usage above zero is a total waste. It apparently uses 0.3% of global electricity, which especially in the current circumstances is absolutely galling.

So, trumpeting that some new venture, at it's most charitable interpretation, might one day in the future reduce that figure ever so slightly by harnessing some energy which is difficult to otherwise use, rather just invites the response " Or....you could just stop the pointless activity?"

So the challenge as ever is to try and find any sort of purpose for the thing. That would impress and then we can all make excuses to justify whatever level of electricity it uses. 

Yeah, I suppose the world's first singular global money, that is fully decentralised, incorruptible by governments and banks,  open to anyone with a mobile phone and without a bank account (2 Billion unbanked globally) has no absolutely purpose 

Comical!

Governments print money for a reason.  In fact, doing so to fund large infrastructure projects seems to be a good way of getting a sluggish economy going again.  What would happen if the majority of the world used bitcoin and some global disaster/tragedy caused a massive sell off dropping the price, how does a government get things going again when they now have a fraction of the money available to them than they did a few days earlier?  Not to mention civil unrest as people realise that their bank accounts have been more than halved over night.  Perhaps though the volatility of bitcoin would be reduced the more people that use it.

Anyway isn't etherium going to replace bitcoin as soon as they switch to proof of stake?  Or will everyone just jump ship from eth as it won't be the get rich quick scheme people originally signed up for? 

Frequentlyhere

Let's break down that list.

1) singular global money - I think we've all collectively thrashed to death the idea that BTC is useful money. Very few people use BTC as money for a whole host of reasons. You can point to all of the hokey retailers that do accept it as much as you like, but 99.9% of retailers don't. Even when it is made legal tender, people don't use it.

2) Fully decentralised - Is not a benefit. So far it has only ever been a drawback for its users, requiring technical nous for safe storage and countless fraud/theft/'oops I forgot my password' type issues. Be your own bank is not a good thing. Of course in practice, many people trust their coin to exchanges, which brings a whole other set of risks.

3) Incorruptible by Govts + Banks. This weirdly implies that it is Govts+Banks that are the corrupt actors looking to overturn an established system as opposed to protecting consumers from the huge losses that many have incurred from getting involved with private money that holds no stable value and is not in any way insured against theft/loss/fraud etc.

4) Open to anyone with a mobile phone. This rather overlooks the fact that the vast majority of unbanked aren't unbanked due to not liking bank accounts or finding them expensive or whatever, but because they have no money. What tiny amounts they do have is certainly not best used by investing in a volatile speculative asset which is difficult to keep safe.



More basically though, outside of a small circle of pro/anti interested nerds like us and a few leaders of banana republics with unwholesome financial interests, nobody gives a toss about BTC. No-one talks about it in real life, because no-one uses it for anything.

The truth is that the only time any normal people really engage with BTC is when it is on one of it's more spectacular swoons up in volatility. Then, it attracts some press attention, hooks in a few more of the naive and greedy, who are purely interested in any ongoing appreciation in BTC relative to £ and $, before of course promptly collapsing in value again leaving yet more victims in its wake.

Zola.

barnstar2077 said:

Zola. said:

Frequentlyhere said:

I'm surprised that Bitcoin supporters are surprised that those not in thrall to BTC are less than impressed by the waste recycling thing. 

The thing is, if you don't see any value to BTC then any usage above zero is a total waste. It apparently uses 0.3% of global electricity, which especially in the current circumstances is absolutely galling.

So, trumpeting that some new venture, at it's most charitable interpretation, might one day in the future reduce that figure ever so slightly by harnessing some energy which is difficult to otherwise use, rather just invites the response " Or....you could just stop the pointless activity?"

So the challenge as ever is to try and find any sort of purpose for the thing. That would impress and then we can all make excuses to justify whatever level of electricity it uses. 

Yeah, I suppose the world's first singular global money, that is fully decentralised, incorruptible by governments and banks,  open to anyone with a mobile phone and without a bank account (2 Billion unbanked globally) has no absolutely purpose 

Comical!

Governments print money for a reason.  In fact, doing so to fund large infrastructure projects seems to be a good way of getting a sluggish economy going again.  What would happen if the majority of the world used bitcoin and some global disaster/tragedy caused a massive sell off dropping the price, how does a government get things going again when they now have a fraction of the money available to them than they did a few days earlier?  Not to mention civil unrest as people realise that their bank accounts have been more than halved over night.  Perhaps though the volatility of bitcoin would be reduced the more people that use it.

Anyway isn't etherium going to replace bitcoin as soon as they switch to proof of stake?  Or will everyone just jump ship from eth as it won't be the get rich quick scheme people originally signed up for? 

Fiat currencies wont be disappearing any time soon, so I don't think you or I need to worry about that hypothetical scenario in our lifetime, but who knows?  Bitcoin right now is an alternative asset class, but it is a technological marvel of computer science and finance combined. What is clear is Bitcoin adoption is growing globally on a daily basis and is continually being integrated into more and more industries that make up the global economy. 

On Etherium - quite simply no

Zola.

Frequentlyhere said:

Let's break down that list.

1) singular global money - I think we've all collectively thrashed to death the idea that BTC is useful money. Very few people use BTC as money for a whole host of reasons. You can point to all of the hokey retailers that do accept it as much as you like, but 99.9% of retailers don't. Even when it is made legal tender, people don't use it.

2) Fully decentralised - Is not a benefit. So far it has only ever been a drawback for its users, requiring technical nous for safe storage and countless fraud/theft/'oops I forgot my password' type issues. Be your own bank is not a good thing. Of course in practice, many people trust their coin to exchanges, which brings a whole other set of risks.

3) Incorruptible by Govts + Banks. This weirdly implies that it is Govts+Banks that are the corrupt actors looking to overturn an established system as opposed to protecting consumers from the huge losses that many have incurred from getting involved with private money that holds no stable value and is not in any way insured against theft/loss/fraud etc.

4) Open to anyone with a mobile phone. This rather overlooks the fact that the vast majority of unbanked aren't unbanked due to not liking bank accounts or finding them expensive or whatever, but because they have no money. What tiny amounts they do have is certainly not best used by investing in a volatile speculative asset which is difficult to keep safe.



More basically though, outside of a small circle of pro/anti interested nerds like us and a few leaders of banana republics with unwholesome financial interests, nobody gives a toss about BTC. No-one talks about it in real life, because no-one uses it for anything.

The truth is that the only time any normal people really engage with BTC is when it is on one of it's more spectacular swoons up in volatility. Then, it attracts some press attention, hooks in a few more of the naive and greedy, who are purely interested in any ongoing appreciation in BTC relative to £ and $, before of course promptly collapsing in value again leaving yet more victims in its wake.

I disagree with almost everything (and I can't be bothered to reply to it all), but the last paragraph is accurate, except you could replace "normal" with something more applicable, like "normally uninterested" 

Frequentlyhere

Don't blame you zola, it's too hot, I almost didn't bother writing that myself.

Putting aside the utility of the thing, as I watch inflation and savings rate creep up almost by the hour (2.96% on a 1 year fix now), it does make the question of actually making any money or even preserving wealth from the thing a bit more pressing.

I know there are ways you can earn some return on Bitcoin, but they always look tremendously risky to me ( "earn 20%: Safe!").

So what do you hodlers do with the mainstay of your holding that you really don't want to see get rugged? Do you lend it out at all to any perceived safe hands, or do you keep it stowed away safe accepting zero yield and long term capital appreciation? 
Or are you just so darn pure that 1 BTC = 1 BTC and nothing else matters?