Earlier quoted context omitted.
How often is it used for that use case? Does gold have a high value due to this? No. I would even say that we might see more use industrially if people weren’t inflating its price by using it as a store of value.
37% of gold use in the US is for electronics. https://geology.com/minerals/gold/uses-of-gold.shtml
Bitcoin is a disaster
231–240 of 992 posts
Re: Bitcoin is a disaster
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use Bitcoin where ever possible, so your opening claim is wrong. I've been banned from Paypal. I've run into many verification issues over the last decade with banks because I have no proof of residency once my driver's license expired. Like physical cash, it doesn't need to be superior in all ways to be useful at all.
> I use Bitcoin where ever possible, so your opening claim is wrong. Just because a random guy barters bitcoins for goods/services, that by no means implies that bitcoin is anything close to money. There is a very specific definition of what money is, and bitcoin's volatility alone rules it completely out.
Re: Bitcoin is a disaster
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see the irony. The point is that Bitcoin has introduced an actual "digital cash" currency without institutional/governmental middlemen. That institutions can be built on top of that, and that some people want such institutions, doesn't change the novel utility of finally having a currency that functions like digital cash. It's like saying it's ironic that people use physical USD for anonymous p2p transactions…
Since Bitcoin transactions are enabled only by spending electricity, isn't the whole system dependent on utility companies, which are either in part or in whole extensions of the government?
Re: Bitcoin is a disaster
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's "digital cash" in this context? What does it offer extra compared to regular cash and online payments?
Theoretically companies like Mindgeek who have been kicked off of the VISA/Mastercard duopoly, would be able to use Bitcoin as a censorship-resistant way to accept online payment. There's additional benefits as mentioned earlier like not needing to comply with KYC laws. Of course, as Bitcoin currently stands, it's difficult for this to come to fruition because most holders are speculators rather than people intereste…
In many situations lack of KYC is a bug, not a feature.
Re: Bitcoin is a disaster
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see the irony. The point is that Bitcoin has introduced an actual "digital cash" currency without institutional/governmental middlemen. That institutions can be built on top of that, and that some people want such institutions, doesn't change the novel utility of finally having a currency that functions like digital cash. It's like saying it's ironic that people use physical USD for anonymous p2p transactions…
That is a good way of thinking about it. "The Internet of Money" is a very good way of labeling it. The internet protocols itself and it's openess are very foundational like bitcoin. Everything we use today is built on top of that. BTC is really just the brand right now. Moving forward we will see if BTC is Yahoo/Myspace and who will be the Google/Amazon of this new sector.
It's more like TCP/IP than businesses built on top of the protocol.
Re: Bitcoin is a disaster
#236Related: the current rise of Bitcoin prices has been peculiar to me, and seems to be a bit of a canary in an inflationary coal mine. We've injected trillions of dollars of fiat into the economy this year. It feels like the sky-high valuations of technology companies and Bitcoin are "shock absorbers" of sorts, or early signals of inflation-yet-to-come. If we assume the market is efficiently pricing these assets (like…
Re: Bitcoin is a disaster
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one treats Bitcoin as a currency. It’s treated as an investment vehicle. And the reason behind that is obvious. Something whose value may double in a month or whose value may halve within weeks is a terrible currency. If I expect it’s value to increase then I would be a fool to spend it. If I expect it’s value to drop I would be a fool to accept it. Cryptocurrencies are anything but currencies.
I use Bitcoin where ever possible, so your opening claim is wrong. I've been banned from Paypal. I've run into many verification issues over the last decade with banks because I have no proof of residency once my driver's license expired. Like physical cash, it doesn't need to be superior in all ways to be useful at all.
Re: Bitcoin is a disaster
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't matter how safe an investment is. Uncorrelated alternative assets (metals, crypto, art, etc), when added to your portfolio, lower the total volatility (risk) and boost the risk adjusted returns. You can take a really crappy asset with low returns and high volatility (like gold) and add it to your portfolio to boost your risk adjusted return. In short, from a quantitative perspective, it never makes sense t…
One of the most common critiques of modern portfolio theory is that it defines risk by volatility rather than downside risk. While a stock will never have price-to-book multiple less than 1 (unless fraud has occurred) a cryptocurrency has no such limit on how far it can fall.
You could instead look at downside deviation instead of volatility, but in my experience standard volatility and upside/downside deviation look very similar for most securities. This is somewhat paradoxical for me personally, but it is what it is.
Re: Bitcoin is a disaster
#239Bitcoin, at least according to Satoshi's original white paper, is supposed to be a peer to peer electronic cash system.
Let's pay for a Bay Area cup of coffee with Bitcoin. That'll be $13 ($5 + $8 in network fees). If we use Bitcoin Cash, its $5. As you can see, Bitcoin is no longer useful. That's because Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin, and Bitcoin is...well, something else.
Like all nice ideas that happen to rock the boat, Bitcoin was subverted, controlled, and is no longer Bitcoin, but that's a story for another day.
Re: Bitcoin is a disaster
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one treats Bitcoin as a currency. It’s treated as an investment vehicle. And the reason behind that is obvious. Something whose value may double in a month or whose value may halve within weeks is a terrible currency. If I expect it’s value to increase then I would be a fool to spend it. If I expect it’s value to drop I would be a fool to accept it. Cryptocurrencies are anything but currencies.
"No one treats Bitcoin as a currency. It’s treated as an investment vehicle." I, for one, have and will continue to use it as a currency in some cases. I'm quite sure I'm not the only one.