BITCOIN

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.

flaneurs_lobster

hallmark said:

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

You knew this, right?

https://opensea.io/assets/ethereum/0x495f947276749ce646f68ac8c248420045cb7b5e/93286448579747295008687894214958177990168199227657113304386885984223464783873/

(although it's not a cryptocurrency, it's a NFT).

See also DogeShit and DogePoop.

Reaper

"Somewhere between 73 and 81 percent of retail Bitcoin buyers are likely to be into the negative on their investment, according to research published Monday by the Bank of International Settlements (BIS)." [source]

Exodi

Reaper said:

"Somewhere between 73 and 81 percent of retail Bitcoin buyers are likely to be into the negative on their investment, according to research published Monday by the Bank of International Settlements (BIS)." [source]

You missed the part where 73-81% of retail Bitcoin buyers maintain that it was a good investment.

Crypto bro's are notoriously inexorable.

GDB2222

Reaper said:

"Somewhere between 73 and 81 percent of retail Bitcoin buyers are likely to be into the negative on their investment, according to research published Monday by the Bank of International Settlements (BIS)." [source]

It must be rather hard to tell, as someone might have made a killing previously, and sold out. Then, later on, he bought some more, and he is 'into the negative' on that new holding. Overall, he might be doing better than the researchers think.

Pollycat

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. 
 

Did investors with FTX think the same, Danny?