281–290 of 405 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> By that reasoning, investing in gold is also speculation. What else? However, gold has some utility as jewelry etc. Cryptocurrencies are (currently) pure speculation.
Why do you say gold jewelry has utility? Because people are willing to pay for it? How does that distinguish gold jewelry from Bitcoins, which people are also willing to pay for?
According to its proponents, Bitcoin is digital gold. (Interestingly it’s not an “electronic currency” anymore even though that was the original title of the 2008 whitepaper. I suppose Lightning Network or something is supposed to fix that with new transaction layers backed by the Bitcoin gold.) One aspect of gold’s historical value is that it’s traditionally recognized even in societies in collapse. I’ve never under…
> After an EMP wipes out data centers and cell phone towers If such a thing happens on a large scale there will be hundred of millions of deaths. All major cities will simply collapse. See recent articles how London can only survive for 4 days without electricity, after that there will be no food. The modern society is incredibly fragile. Everything is just in time, there are no stocks or buffers. Bitcoins will be th…
There is practically no evidence in history where gold had fungible value then became worthless. Nothing else matters; everything else is conjecture, opinion, and extrapolation.
Yes, we live in a very fragile society. Yes, if complete collapse happened, there would be a period of extreme chaos when millions, hundreds of millions, die.
But the chaos would stabilize, barring any extenuating factors like a T-Virus. And in that world, maybe US Dollars would still hold some value. History says Gold probably will. Bitcoin though? Bitcoin requires a global network of miners. It would require having access to the original blockchain that gives your wallet value. In the best likelihood, the currency would splinter into every small network that can still run miners. And when energy is so expensive that you need all of it to power your lights, vehicles, and medical equipment, why would anyone spend it on an expensive mining rig, even if all the complex computer equipment necessary to make it run were widely available?
And then a guy walks into town with a bag full of gold. Suddenly Bitcoin isn't looking all that valuable as a currency. I'll sell my extra food to the guy with the gold, because the guy with antibiotics down the street would also sell to the guy with the gold, and the guy in the town over with car parts would also sell to the guy with the gold. That's what makes currency work; people, not software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
> Investments need to have intrinsic value. > there’s no value in any particular set of random numbers What is the "intrinsic value" in e.g. an iPhone? Would that value exist without humans? I would say no, it only has value because people are willing to pay for it. So I'm left wondering what principled distinction you can draw between a particular set of random numbers and a particular arrangement of metal and glass…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You dont need to use on-chain for bitcoin transactions.
So we’re back to using a federated model with most people using trusted third parties and hoping there are enough laws and regulatory oversight to prevent them from abusing that trust? This sounds oddly familiar…
But even if we are back to that model, it still uses ultra rare BTC where there are 21,000,000 BTC ever ever ever.
The US currency just keeps inflating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A simple argument is as follows. Without inflation, i.e. fixed money supply, it would be impossible for a majority of loans to be repaid with interest, or give a positive return to investments. Note that this fact is independent of how well the borrower or business performs. (This is like a zero-sum game). So, it would be irrational for investors or lenders to part with their deflationary money, as the net profit is…
A deflationary currency regime would raises the bar for both investment and consumption. Investors would be choosier about speculative opportunities because the yield on the risk-free asset would be much, much higher. Consumers would still buy essentials, but they'd be extremely incentivized to hold currency rather than spend it. Regardless of whether or not a deflationary end-state is better or worse, it seems non-c…
We currently have many currencies, if Bitcoin is so absurdly better, then maybe there would be a transition. Otherwise I'm sure many currencies will be used based on the application.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody is going to keep a billion dollars in a savings account, which FDIC insurance would not even come close to covering anyway.
Can you just loan your money directly to the US Government? In the UK the "National Savings & Investment" bank is actually outright owned and operated by the British government, specifically for this purpose. Instead of raising money commercially with a debt security, and then having banks buy that take savings from their customers to afford the securities and keep a cut as profit, the NS&I gets rid of the middle man…
Well, you can buy, e.g., savings bonds directly, but only $25,000 worth per year.
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…
Not sure if representative for "bitcoin enthusiasts", but here is how I see it: As the written word spread in Europe after BC, it layed an important cornerstone for democracy and changed the world for good. Noone would argue with that, right? Ok, so let's look at Europe from 500BC-1300BC. Corrupt monks forging official documents, under some goverments up only about 60-80% of the were real. Monks were people of god, s…
While modern view has corporation as these evil centralized entities...the first “stock corporations” were a welcome invention, allowing distribution of risk and a share in profits.
I personally love the idea of an immutable and distributed ledger. And while bitcoin may have been helpful as an example of a potential use for a blockchain, it has failed to fulfill the intended use of the creator (peer 2 peer digital currency). I think in a lot of ways because while blockchain itself may have some democratic characteristics, the example of bitcoin as a currency is anything but democratic. Bitcoin is something bought and sold, the inventor(s) have 1,000,000 and new comers will be hard pressed to have equal power.
Then again the way democracy is used as a term and romanticized is kind of a joke to me. From the fact the US is often called a democracy (it’s not it’s a constitutional republic), to the idea it took women about 2,500 years to get the right vote, to the realities of democracy only works until it doesn’t then might is right (see the democratically elected parties: taliban, hezbollah, hamas).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> After an EMP wipes out data centers and cell phone towers If such a thing happens on a large scale there will be hundred of millions of deaths. All major cities will simply collapse. See recent articles how London can only survive for 4 days without electricity, after that there will be no food. The modern society is incredibly fragile. Everything is just in time, there are no stocks or buffers. Bitcoins will be th…
I really think this opinion is short-sighted. And it comes from a less extreme version of the same place that 9/11 deniers operate from; normal humans don't want to naturally think about loss of control and what that loss of control would look like. So its easier to just say "if this happens we're all fucked, don't even try" There is practically no evidence in history where gold had fungible value then became worthle…
Those who survive the chaos will be the ones strong enough and ruthless enough to organize themselves into powerful gangs. The nerd with a bag of gold will most likely be killed and it's gold stolen.
Being a prepper with an underground bunker will also not be of much value, you will just be seiged out.
If you are rich, what you'll need is a small private army to protect you, a small working force to feed you and the army, and the political skills to be able to enter into the right alliance after that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you say gold jewelry has utility? Because people are willing to pay for it? How does that distinguish gold jewelry from Bitcoins, which people are also willing to pay for?
Jewelry looks pretty. Bitcoins don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Historically Fiat currencies are awful Fiat has ushered in an absolutely amazing period of global growth that has made us unbelievably wealthy. But there is inflation, so why not go with the thing that has no history?
"Us"? Who, exactly, is "us"? Since around 1980, all the "amazing global growth" has largely gone to those who own and hold financial instruments, while those who make and those who serve have just been treading water all this time. I can't imagine how unbelievably wealthy I would feel if my class's wages had risen commensurate with increases in productivity, but I certainly don't feel all that rich now.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence but the 1980s was the beginning of the "off-shore everything" trend.