Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Wealthy Are Hoarding $10B of Bitcoin in Bunkers

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 405 posts

Re: The Wealthy Are Hoarding $10B of Bitcoin in Bunkers

#141

Post by blackbrokkoli »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #36
will_brown wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At what point are the miners/network considered the centralized institution? Are corporations considered “decentralized institutions” in the world of bitcoin enthusiasts? After all corporations are made up of decentralized shareholders that can vote for and change the directors. If that doesn’t fit...what about a credit union? Like bitcoin there are no “owners/shareholders” of credit unions they are simply comprised…

> At what point are the miners/network considered the centralized institution? Very much this; I'm fairly sure that if there is an organization that wants to direct / control btc, all they have to do is open up their (real money) wallet and get the majority mining capacity. If they first drop the value of BTC by selling or whatnot, miners / automatic miners will switch to more profitable currencies so the total hashe…

In theory yes, but as the other answer states, you would raise an immense amount of money WITHOUT the public realising who would than just abandon whatever mining-based Crypto we're talking about

Re: The Wealthy Are Hoarding $10B of Bitcoin in Bunkers

#142

Post by mkirklions »

jonknee wrote: post #82
mkirklions wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there are only a given number of total bitcoins in existence, which many (myself included) would argue makes it a poor currency. I have always question who says this. What makes you think deflation would be bad? My conspiracy is that governments require inflation to print themselves out of bad policy. Without government abilities to do this, the government performs poorly. Common citizens do not lose 2-4% of their…

> What makes you think deflation would be bad? Literally economics 101. Investment grinds to a halt and progress along with it.

>economics 101

I wouldnt use an entry level economics class to judge technology that eliminates risk of government hyperinflation and lowers/eliminates cost of transactions.

The economic benefits of free/low cost transactions and money that can be saved/spent rather than invested may have its own benefits.

Re: The Wealthy Are Hoarding $10B of Bitcoin in Bunkers

#143

Post by icebraining »

pwinnski wrote: post #104
zeth___ wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am curious, how were you doing any of these things 4 months ago when the average transaction fee was $40?

The question answers itself: they weren't. It also beggars belief that they were regularly spending bitcoins that was shifting in value by hundreds of USD in a matter of hours. The would be irrational to the point of lunacy if true, but I don't believe it is.

It also beggars belief that they were regularly spending bitcoins that was shifting in value by hundreds of USD in a matter of hours. The would be irrational to the point of lunacy if true

How so? What matters is the price at the time of transaction, no?

Re: The Wealthy Are Hoarding $10B of Bitcoin in Bunkers

#144

Post by canoebuilder »

simias wrote: post #17

>the global currency of the future, that they need to buy some, and that he’s the man to safeguard it. Looks like in the future people hoard currency instead of spending and investing it then. That ought to be interesting. It also demonstrates the costs associated with non-reversible transactions, these vaults aren't storing gold ingots or priceless artifacts, just private keys. Banks around the world don't need to w…

let a bank manage and insure their wallet than manage it themselves. Too stressful otherwise.

This just goes to show where the hype and misunderstanding around this has led.

It is not too far off to say bitcoin's only reason for being, is to "hold them yourself," i.e. conduct all your financial dealings with zero third parties.

A bank holding your bitcoins is just nonsensical if you understand the relative merits of each system.

The merits of the banking system are a centralized efficiency in conducting "transactions at a distance," and economies of scale in preventing fraud, theft, and other losses,

Trying to inject bitcoin into the banking system is like trying to re-insert a vestigial organ into a species long after the organ has been pruned from the evolutionary tree.

Nobody seems to have much interest in bitcoin's purported raison d'etre, but are more interested in a perceived potential for appreciation. That much of past appreciation has been shown to be the result of various systemic manipulations, rather than genuine organic demand, seems not to register with most people, or is unknown.

That perceived potential for appreciation would seem to eventually rest on people having an interest in using bitcoin for the uses around which it was designed. Should that day come, a shift from the game of "musical chairs-hot potato-hype machine," to a system of digital cash, the system would require a major re-working to support the number of users one would think would be proportional to the current valuation.

But like you said most people aren't comfortable or willing to shoulder this sort of risk in their financial lives.

Another curiosity, or countervailing force to bitcoin's design goals is the ever growing 'blockchain' record that needs to be stored locally to partake in the bitcoin system in the spirit it was conceived.

The blockchain is growing at a fairly constant rate, has anyone ever plotted blockchain growth relative to projected future storage costs and bandwidth capabilities necessary to onboard new users?

So what is the point of bitcoin other than the original goal of "be your own bank"?

But not just your own bank, your own datacenter as well!

Re: The Wealthy Are Hoarding $10B of Bitcoin in Bunkers

#145

Post by Finnucane »

Clubber wrote: post #59
Finnucane wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with raising the insurance is that banks pay for it, and the FDIC maintains a fund for paying out claims. If the amount at risk was higher, fees would have to be higher and the FDIC would have to keep an enormous amount of cash on hand. Hell, even at that level, the FDIC was badly stressed during the 2008 crisis. The point of the FDIC anyway is not to protect rich people from all losses, but to prevent ru…

Yes, but since commercial banks and investment banks were allowed to merge after 70 or so years, banks certainly have a lot more income than they used to.

True, but still not really the FDIC's mission.

Re: The Wealthy Are Hoarding $10B of Bitcoin in Bunkers

#146

Post by mkirklions »

spookthesunset wrote: post #136
mkirklions wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've had gold, and it was a massive equalizer between major powers. If someone overspent, they had to be smarter until they regained their wealth. Inflation has destroys savings for the masses who keeps cash more than investment. We've seen this a half dozen times in the last 100 years.

> We've had gold, and it was a massive equalizer between major powers. The gold standard was one of the worst fiscal policies ever. Its use was directly responsible for the destruction of millions of lives. Arguing to bring it back shows incredible nativity and a severe lack of history. I suggest you read up on how horrible of an idea the gold standard was before you spout this kind of nonsense.

> Its use was directly responsible for the destruction of millions of lives.

Oh please, war happens for land, population, and resources. Gold is one of the resources.

Anyone want to send this kid the link to 'We invaded Iraq because Saddam wanted to use Euros/RMB to trade oil?'

Re: The Wealthy Are Hoarding $10B of Bitcoin in Bunkers

#147

Post by TeMPOraL »

mkirklions wrote: post #129
zeth___ wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am curious, how were you doing any of these things 4 months ago when the average transaction fee was $40?

Coinbase Peer to Peer using email is free and instant. Shift card had like a 10$ fee for printing the card, but its free and instant. The only time I did an on-chain transaction in the last 3 years was moving money to another exchange to buy alt-coins.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but the way you're using Bitcoin gives you no magical crypto guarantees the currency is supposed to offer?

I increasingly feel that pro-crypto arguments are mostly motte and bailey. So Bitcoin is better than fiat because it's decentralized and censorship-resistant, with everything forever stored in the blockchain. It's also more convenient and efficient than fiat in daily use - when we discard all the decentralization and anti-censorship guarantees, skip the blockchain and use it as a private-issued, unregulated fiat.

Re: The Wealthy Are Hoarding $10B of Bitcoin in Bunkers

#148

Post by anonuser123456 »

acdha wrote: post #46
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because - and everyone but the uninformed or idealists know this - it's an investment product. It's simply not suitable as a currency, because one, inflation / instability, and two, it can only do what, a dozen transactions a second, if that? That's not nearly enough to become a viable currency.

Investments need to have intrinsic value. Under the new spin that bitcoin isn’t intended to be a currency, it makes little sense as an investment because there’s no value in any particular set of random numbers. If nobody is using it except for speculation, where’s the incentive to pay to keep that network running?

If contracts are written and priced in BTC, then it will behave like a commodity. Since supply is limited, it's value will fluctuate based on demand (e.g. the need to acquire bitcoin to satisfy the contract).

I'm not saying this is actually happening, but when/if it does, it will work no differently than other currencies.

Re: The Wealthy Are Hoarding $10B of Bitcoin in Bunkers

#149

Post by mkirklions »

spookthesunset wrote: post #133
mkirklions wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speak for yourself. I use bitcoin all the time for payments. Peer to peer using coinbase(email) for free and instant to friends. Shift card for free and instant at merchants. Bitcoin is beyond blockchain, companies have built products to trade BTC instantly, free, using the infrastructure already existing. The transaction time 'problem' doesnt really exist if you are into crypto, you know how to use it. And I dont tr…

> Bitcoin is beyond blockchain, companies have built products to trade BTC instantly, free, using the infrastructure already existing If bitcoin is "beyond blockchain", than what is it? Just a table of transactions in a Real Database™? If yes, whats the point? You've just layered a very bank-sounding, very-centralized construct on top of your space-age "trustless" decentralized blockchain. How is it at all revolution…

>I feel like bitcoin people live in some kind of alternate reality that I simply don't understand.

I can tell. You seem to think Bitcoin is another inflationary currency.

The excitement is that, Donald Trump doesnt have control over Bitcoin. China doesnt have control over bitcoin. No government does. People with computers have control over it. There are 21,000,000 Bitcoin ever ever ever. No amount of awful government can change that.

>How is it at all revolutionary since you've basically gone and re-invented a much shitter version of the credit card and traditional (evil) fiat banking.

Like I said, Bitcoin is rare and digital. I think you are complaining about payment processing companies. I have had an excellent experience using these companies with no fees on instant transactions.

Re: The Wealthy Are Hoarding $10B of Bitcoin in Bunkers

#150

Post by jonknee »

mr_spothawk wrote: post #132
jonknee wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What makes you think deflation would be bad? Literally economics 101. Investment grinds to a halt and progress along with it.

I keep reading that "economics isn't a science"

And it doesn't take a scientist to realize that when things will be cheaper tomorrow people tend to avoid making purchases today. (Think back to when home prices were crashing, there wasn't exactly a rush of people to buy homes that were declining in value.)
Post reply on HN