Bitcoin

Sebo027

RichTips said:

IvanOpinion said:

See what Terry Smith has to say on Bitcoin. A voice worth listening to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GS1ebrdX7g&feature=youtu.be&ab_channel=interactiveinvestor

The guy seems fairly rational and makes reasonable points.
I'd push back against his advocacy for Libra, however, as it would, according to the current proposed design released by its creators, Facebook, be subject to some of the same issues that afflict fiat currencies (lack of censorship resistance, for example). This inclines me to believe cryptocurrency may be a field he lacks sufficient knowledge of to give a huge amount of insight into. That is to say, others have voices equally if not more worth listening to on this topic.

Agree. He doesn't say anything really, actually, other than saying "it's volatile" which anyone could deduce from looking at the price chart in USD and then talks about the Zimbabwe dollar which is of no relevance to crypto currency other than it's value changed rapidly.

HansOndabush

Sebo027 said:

RichTips said:

IvanOpinion said:

See what Terry Smith has to say on Bitcoin. A voice worth listening to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GS1ebrdX7g&feature=youtu.be&ab_channel=interactiveinvestor

The guy seems fairly rational and makes reasonable points.
I'd push back against his advocacy for Libra, however, as it would, according to the current proposed design released by its creators, Facebook, be subject to some of the same issues that afflict fiat currencies (lack of censorship resistance, for example). This inclines me to believe cryptocurrency may be a field he lacks sufficient knowledge of to give a huge amount of insight into. That is to say, others have voices equally if not more worth listening to on this topic.

Agree. He doesn't say anything really, actually, other than saying "it's volatile" which anyone could deduce from looking at the price chart in USD and then talks about the Zimbabwe dollar which is of no relevance to crypto currency other than it's value changed rapidly.

The relevance of the Zimbabwe dollar is that it is fiat currency that can be printed into oblivion/debased and I guess the point he is making about bitcoin is that there are a finite number of numbers so from that standpoint, infinite bitcoin cannot be 'printed'. Though of course bitcoin could be subdivided into increasingly smaller amounts to effectively create more units so work that one out.

RichTips

HansOndabush said:

Sebo027 said:

RichTips said:

IvanOpinion said:

See what Terry Smith has to say on Bitcoin. A voice worth listening to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GS1ebrdX7g&feature=youtu.be&ab_channel=interactiveinvestor

The guy seems fairly rational and makes reasonable points.
I'd push back against his advocacy for Libra, however, as it would, according to the current proposed design released by its creators, Facebook, be subject to some of the same issues that afflict fiat currencies (lack of censorship resistance, for example). This inclines me to believe cryptocurrency may be a field he lacks sufficient knowledge of to give a huge amount of insight into. That is to say, others have voices equally if not more worth listening to on this topic.

Agree. He doesn't say anything really, actually, other than saying "it's volatile" which anyone could deduce from looking at the price chart in USD and then talks about the Zimbabwe dollar which is of no relevance to crypto currency other than it's value changed rapidly.

The relevance of the Zimbabwe dollar is that it is fiat currency that can be printed into oblivion/debased and I guess the point he is making about bitcoin is that there are a finite number of numbers so from that standpoint, infinite bitcoin cannot be 'printed'. Though of course bitcoin could be subdivided into increasingly smaller amounts to effectively create more units so work that one out.

Putting the presence of sats (satoshis) and the implications of implementing further subdivision on the protocol to one side, you do realize that subdividing bitcoin into "increasingly smaller amounts to create more units" differs from the injection of new currency into the money supply by a central bank quite radically? Your supposition would simply be redenominating the holdings of all current holders. This would do little more than make holders wealthier in the eyes of simpletons.

HansOndabush

RichTips said:

HansOndabush said:

Sebo027 said:

RichTips said:

IvanOpinion said:

See what Terry Smith has to say on Bitcoin. A voice worth listening to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GS1ebrdX7g&feature=youtu.be&ab_channel=interactiveinvestor

The guy seems fairly rational and makes reasonable points.
I'd push back against his advocacy for Libra, however, as it would, according to the current proposed design released by its creators, Facebook, be subject to some of the same issues that afflict fiat currencies (lack of censorship resistance, for example). This inclines me to believe cryptocurrency may be a field he lacks sufficient knowledge of to give a huge amount of insight into. That is to say, others have voices equally if not more worth listening to on this topic.

Agree. He doesn't say anything really, actually, other than saying "it's volatile" which anyone could deduce from looking at the price chart in USD and then talks about the Zimbabwe dollar which is of no relevance to crypto currency other than it's value changed rapidly.

The relevance of the Zimbabwe dollar is that it is fiat currency that can be printed into oblivion/debased and I guess the point he is making about bitcoin is that there are a finite number of numbers so from that standpoint, infinite bitcoin cannot be 'printed'. Though of course bitcoin could be subdivided into increasingly smaller amounts to effectively create more units so work that one out.

Putting the presence of sats (satoshis) and the implications of implementing further subdivision on the protocol to one side, you do realize that subdividing bitcoin into "increasingly smaller amounts to create more units" differs from the injection of new currency into the money supply by a central bank quite radically? Your supposition would simply be redenominating the holdings of all current holders. This would do little more than make holders wealthier in the eyes of simpletons.

All things being equal, a redenomination does not alter the value of ones holdings, merely the number held. But you are right it is not the same as creating more fiat currency.

What can, in a sense, dilute the value of bitcoin is the proliferation of other cryptos, any of which could potentially usurp bitcoin and make bitcoin less desirable as a better alternative has been dreamed up.

onthebench

RichTips said:

HansOndabush said:

Sebo027 said:

RichTips said:

IvanOpinion said:

See what Terry Smith has to say on Bitcoin. A voice worth listening to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GS1ebrdX7g&feature=youtu.be&ab_channel=interactiveinvestor

The guy seems fairly rational and makes reasonable points.
I'd push back against his advocacy for Libra, however, as it would, according to the current proposed design released by its creators, Facebook, be subject to some of the same issues that afflict fiat currencies (lack of censorship resistance, for example). This inclines me to believe cryptocurrency may be a field he lacks sufficient knowledge of to give a huge amount of insight into. That is to say, others have voices equally if not more worth listening to on this topic.

Agree. He doesn't say anything really, actually, other than saying "it's volatile" which anyone could deduce from looking at the price chart in USD and then talks about the Zimbabwe dollar which is of no relevance to crypto currency other than it's value changed rapidly.

The relevance of the Zimbabwe dollar is that it is fiat currency that can be printed into oblivion/debased and I guess the point he is making about bitcoin is that there are a finite number of numbers so from that standpoint, infinite bitcoin cannot be 'printed'. Though of course bitcoin could be subdivided into increasingly smaller amounts to effectively create more units so work that one out.

Putting the presence of sats (satoshis) and the implications of implementing further subdivision on the protocol to one side, you do realize that subdividing bitcoin into "increasingly smaller amounts to create more units" differs from the injection of new currency into the money supply by a central bank quite radically? Your supposition would simply be redenominating the holdings of all current holders. This would do little more than make holders wealthier in the eyes of simpletons.

And could have a psychological effect - if "simpletons" look at the price of one bitcoin and it is £40,000 or whatever, that seems expensive and might put people off, similarly if they go to buy a small amount and see that they are getting 0.0016 BTC, that seems like they are not getting much for their money - and if the BTC price went up into six figures this problem would be even worse. If instead of 0.0016 BTC you call it 1.6 mBTC or 160,000 sats, that might be more appealing.

I'm very torn with bitcoin. I bought a modest amount a few months ago which has just about quadrupled in value, so it's been great as a short-term punt. But what is its future? I like the idea of an inflation-proof store of value, but I feel like the future of crypto has to be something that is more easily used as a currency, which after all was meant to be the point of bitcoin. In some ways I am surprised that bitcoin is still performing, when so many newer technologies have advantages over it. Perhaps its value is that it is not really trying to be a currency any more.

HansOndabush

It's the "simpletons" that are buying into Bitcoin now.

RichTips

HansOndabush said:

RichTips said:

HansOndabush said:

Sebo027 said:

RichTips said:

IvanOpinion said:

See what Terry Smith has to say on Bitcoin. A voice worth listening to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GS1ebrdX7g&feature=youtu.be&ab_channel=interactiveinvestor

The guy seems fairly rational and makes reasonable points.
I'd push back against his advocacy for Libra, however, as it would, according to the current proposed design released by its creators, Facebook, be subject to some of the same issues that afflict fiat currencies (lack of censorship resistance, for example). This inclines me to believe cryptocurrency may be a field he lacks sufficient knowledge of to give a huge amount of insight into. That is to say, others have voices equally if not more worth listening to on this topic.

Agree. He doesn't say anything really, actually, other than saying "it's volatile" which anyone could deduce from looking at the price chart in USD and then talks about the Zimbabwe dollar which is of no relevance to crypto currency other than it's value changed rapidly.

The relevance of the Zimbabwe dollar is that it is fiat currency that can be printed into oblivion/debased and I guess the point he is making about bitcoin is that there are a finite number of numbers so from that standpoint, infinite bitcoin cannot be 'printed'. Though of course bitcoin could be subdivided into increasingly smaller amounts to effectively create more units so work that one out.

Putting the presence of sats (satoshis) and the implications of implementing further subdivision on the protocol to one side, you do realize that subdividing bitcoin into "increasingly smaller amounts to create more units" differs from the injection of new currency into the money supply by a central bank quite radically? Your supposition would simply be redenominating the holdings of all current holders. This would do little more than make holders wealthier in the eyes of simpletons.

All things being equal, a redenomination does not alter the value of ones holdings, merely the number held. But you are right it is not the same as creating more fiat currency.

What can, in a sense, dilute the value of bitcoin is the proliferation of other cryptos, any of which could potentially usurp bitcoin and make bitcoin less desirable as a better alternative has been dreamed up.

There's a cryptocurrency soon to be launched by the coder that developed torrenting. It's call Chia. It has the advantage over Bitcoin of not requiring computation to create new coins, relying instead on mining achieved through plotting files (basically terabytes of cryptographically secured storage space are used to help you win blocks) and is therefore less environmentally damaging. Maybe, as it is very much in its infancy, you might consider looking into it.
I'll happily adopt the technology that I think is most suited to purpose. An unwillingness to change one's opinions or "allegiances" is daft. 

virenque

Chi(n)a...?

onthebench

HansOndabush said:

It's the "simpletons" that are buying into Bitcoin now.

Not only them. Plenty of big investors are still buying. Mind you Elon Musk is also shilling Dogecoin, so...

[Deleted User]

onthebench said:

HansOndabush said:

It's the "simpletons" that are buying into Bitcoin now.

Not only them. Plenty of big investors are still buying. Mind you Elon Musk is also shilling Dogecoin, so...

That's true. MicroStrategy invested another $1 billion, they just published it today:

https://cointelegraph.com/news/microstrategy-purchases-another-1-billion-worth-of-bitcoin-now-owns-90-000-btc