BITCOIN

Frequentlyhere

DannyCarey said:

Of being an appreciating asset with a fixed supply, which cannot be debased, that is accepted and used globally to send instant permission-less borderless payments without any intermediary or third party, final settlement in around 10 minutes, that kind of thing. 

If I want to send money around the globe, I have a revolut account for that. I can exchange one currency fee-free for another, and send it *instantly* to someone else. Or I can use paypal. Or Wise. Or my bank account. etc etc.

The intermediary third party involved in those transactions is not a bad thing. That third party is there so that I'm less likely to send my money to a fraudster, or to the wrong person by mistake, or to compensate me if I buy a good/service not delivered, or if I lose my password/access to the platform I use.

None of these protections exist with bitcoin, and the end to end process to actually go from one person sending £ to someone in the US to spend in $ is much longer and more expensive to perform. Besides, why would you even bother if it's an appreciating asset? 

But that's all irrelevant anyway, as with how it's currently perceived if you offered someone on the other side of the World to pay for a good/service in Bitcoin they'd probably think you have something to hide and also wouldn't have a clue how to accept if even if they didn't think that. And by the time it arrived you'd have to send more to cover for it falling 5% in the course of an afternoon!

This is the problem with all of Bitcoin's use cases. When you get to the detail of it, It serves no purpose that isn't already done better, except for criminal transactions and ransomware.


And going back to it being an appreciating asset, well it won't be if it doesn't find a good purpose. Even criminals will find it less and less attractive as regulatory authorities catch up with it, and the pure gambling aspect has/will be severely curtailed by its worsening reputation.

Frequentlyhere

Playing devil's advocate, the only possible rational reason I can see for buying this thing is the same real reason that almost everyone else bought it for. To make a quick buck with it appreciating against real money, or to at least hope that it's regarded in the long term as some sort of digital gold or art. 

It could still do that, After all, people are people. They can value whatever they like for mysterious reasons, from beanie babies to farts in a jar. There is clearly a core group of people who truly believe in BTC, just as there's still a core group who believe in Gamestop shares (though GME is still up far more than Bitcoin since the pandemic: get in whilst you're early!).

I don't see it though. I think it will always retain some sort of notional value measured probably in thousands of dollars, but that number could easily represent a 75% loss from today's prices, and all the while inflation is eating away at it and it's earning zero yield.

I mean, if you look for downward factors you have:  Ongoing implosion of crypto ecosphere both necessitating selling and discouraging adoption,  tightening monetary policy, increasingly attractive alternatives with real yield, known quantities of piles of bitcoin that are going to be flooding the market at some stage all whilst Saylor maniacally hopes he doesn't get margin called.

On the upside you have, what? A misguided notion that a fixed supply of something dictates the price must rise? (in which case I have some limited edition farts in a jar to sell you). Hope? Hope that the bubble might pump again for currently unforseeable reasons? Well, it might because anything is possible. Is that a good investment case generally speaking? I'm going to say No.

GDB2222

DannyCarey said:

Of being an appreciating asset with a fixed supply, which cannot be debased, that is accepted and used globally to send instant, permission-less borderless payments without any intermediary or third party, final settlement in around 10 minutes, that kind of thing. 
 

I did a turd this morning. It’s unique. There’s no other like it. The supply is limited to that particular one. Surely, though, you are not suggesting that it’s an appreciating asset? 

I accept that you can use bitcoin  to pay people, and that is a sensible use. It has a value for that purpose of a few pence. Maybe even  a £ or two.    

Frequentlyhere

GDB2222 said

I accept that you can use bitcoin  to pay people, and that is a sensible use. It has a value for that purpose of a few pence. Maybe even  a £ or two.    

I don't know why you grant it even that. As I've already illustrated in the last page, there are far better/faster/safer/cheaper alternatives already in existence unless you're buying drugs or selling ransoms.

GDB2222

Frequentlyhere said:

GDB2222 said

I accept that you can use bitcoin  to pay people, and that is a sensible use. It has a value for that purpose of a few pence. Maybe even  a £ or two.    

I don't know why you grant it even that. As I've already illustrated in the last page, there are far better/faster/safer/cheaper alternatives already in existence unless you're buying drugs or selling ransoms.

True, but some people sending money abroad use Western Union. I’m not sure about the fees, but I assume several percent. I was thinking that that gives some sort of idea of what bitcoins are worth for this purpose. 

I’m not sure why people use WU if there are far cheaper methods, but I don’t want to stray too far off the subject of the thread. 

Section62

GDB2222 said:

DannyCarey said:

Of being an appreciating asset with a fixed supply, which cannot be debased, that is accepted and used globally to send instant, permission-less borderless payments without any intermediary or third party, final settlement in around 10 minutes, that kind of thing. 
 

I did a turd this morning. It’s unique. There’s no other like it. The supply is limited to that particular one. Surely, though, you are not suggesting that it’s an appreciating asset? 

Nightsoil men once would have considered it an asset.  With the way gas (and consequently artificial fertiliser) prices have gone, it may well become an appreciating asset sometime soon.

Although not as a result of its uniqueness. (sorry)

DjangoUnchained

GDB2222 said:

DannyCarey said:

Of being an appreciating asset with a fixed supply, which cannot be debased, that is accepted and used globally to send instant, permission-less borderless payments without any intermediary or third party, final settlement in around 10 minutes, that kind of thing. 
 

I did a turd this morning. It’s unique. There’s no other like it. The supply is limited to that particular one. Surely, though, you are not suggesting that it’s an appreciating asset? 

I accept that you can use bitcoin  to pay people, and that is a sensible use. It has a value for that purpose of a few pence. Maybe even  a £ or two.    

do you sell fractions of the turd or do we have to buy the complete turd, just asking

hallmark

Just a matter of time before somebody starts to sell DogeTurd.

Frequentlyhere

GDB2222 said:

True, but some people sending money abroad use Western Union. I’m not sure about the fees, but I assume several percent. I was thinking that that gives some sort of idea of what bitcoins are worth for this purpose. 

I’m not sure why people use WU if there are far cheaper methods, but I don’t want to stray too far off the subject of the thread. 

It's a fair challenge. 

For developed countries, WU is typically a pretty suboptimal choice. But for less developed places it is used more often.

Where better to trumpet the possible success of Bitcoin in a less developed country than the one who adopted it formally as a currency? El Salvador of course, where Bitcoin makes up less than 2% (and falling) of remittances. Oops.

"Our people pay $400 million a year in fees for remittances,” Bukele said when the project launched last October, according to Be In Crypto. “That saving alone will be a huge benefit for our people — or at least for those who want it. There is also the advantage of not having to carry cash. Safer and more practical.”

But Bitcoin remittances never took off, accounting for well under 2% of the total amount received.

They dropped even further in the third quarter of 2022, falling 6% to $32 million from $34.22 million in the second quarter, it added"

 edit: That article is a little light on the reasons why. It seems the simplest answer is the right one. It costs more than other methods.

Malthusian

GDB2222 said:

I accept that you can use bitcoin  to pay people, and that is a sensible use. It has a value for that purpose of a few pence. Maybe even  a £ or two.    

Which funnily enough was where it was trading when it was purely being used for the purpose of paying people for pizzas.
When Silk Road came into existence the price rose to three figures. It acquired a premium and higher volatility due to the ability to use it on the black market, just like cigarettes in prison.
Then the get-rich-quick crowd got interested and the rest is history.