401–410 of 421 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This goes both ways. Why buy a beer for $5 if Bitcoin is going up? You should just buy Bitcoin instead. Why buy $5 beer if instead you can buy index funds?
Because I want a $5 beer today, and one next week as well. Why buy bitcoin until you die and never have beer? Are you even living at that point?
So then why feel bad about trading some BTC for it? The regret would be for not buying back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Investment is naturally incentivized because the only reason capital is created is to lower the cost of production. If you build a factory, or invest in a machine to make things and it costs the same to manufacture those things in the factory or with the machine as it would to manufacture them by hand, why did you even build the factory in the first place? The inputs used to construct the factory would be better used…
A couple things. Your first statement appears to be circular, it doesn't answer the question of why an entity would want to invest their money on an uncertain venture when it would just be worth more doing nothing with it. Secondly, I'm not sure what the rest of the first paragraph is in aid of, it seems like you're stating that capital is useful which I don't think was ever in question. Sure, the article never menti…
Simple, because the investment would return more than the natural rate of deflation alone would.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bitcoin is guaranteed to be deflationary as long as there’s a finite limit – if nothing else, lost keys would reduce the total over time. More importantly, the people hawking it _really_ want it to be deflationary because that effectively makes them landed gentry getting richer without any effort on their part. After a decade of that being integral to the sales pitch I would be extremely surprised to see any major ho…
>More importantly, the people hawking it _really_ want it to be deflationary because that effectively makes them landed gentry getting richer without any effort on their part. Yeah it is basically people getting screwed by increased wealth inequality and then as a response they don't think of a way to build a system without losers, instead they join a system where the old dynamic makes them the winners. The only diff…
Which system is that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are several alternatives nowadays, you're being dishonest by only mentioning the most controversial one.
> you're being dishonest by only mentioning the most controversial one. No. Your argument is "Yeah, we know it's terrible... so you can't hold it against us." Nevermind the fact that coinbase started to support Tether. I think what's most interesting to me (and should be to you as a pro-crypto advocate) is that underlying backing in tether appears to be highly volatile, yet it's not represented in the price. Also wha…
I wouldn't call me a pro-crypto advocate, just as I wouldn't call you an anti-crypto advocate. I like to keep track of what's happening in the crypto space but I'm not advocating pro or against it.
My opinion on Tether is that there should be a lot more transparency regarding their backed funds and personally I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know what the absolute best alternative is or how you would define the absolute best, I just know that there are several alternatives. The grandparent knows this as well, hence my post. [0] https://coinmarketcap.com/view/stablecoin/
I've asked for your opinion on what you feel is the best counterexample you can put up. It does not seem you're able to point out anything at all. Is that because you are aware that there is actually no good argument to refute OP's point? And thus you resorted to name-calling?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I know which one I'd prefer. Yeah, the dollar. Because I can be confident that my $USD won't lose half its value in two months. That's what I need in a currency.
!remindme 1 year :-P
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A couple things. Your first statement appears to be circular, it doesn't answer the question of why an entity would want to invest their money on an uncertain venture when it would just be worth more doing nothing with it. Secondly, I'm not sure what the rest of the first paragraph is in aid of, it seems like you're stating that capital is useful which I don't think was ever in question. Sure, the article never menti…
> it doesn't answer the question of why an entity would want to invest their money on an uncertain venture when it would just be worth more doing nothing with it. Simple, because the investment would return more than the natural rate of deflation alone would.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
!remindme 1 year :-P
From the time you posted this, bitcoin's price has fallen more than nine percent. That's not a currency I'd ever want, regardless of its price one year from now.
I suspect we're on the verge of a nasty bubble and the only tool the Fed has shown they're confident of using is printing more money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the time you posted this, bitcoin's price has fallen more than nine percent. That's not a currency I'd ever want, regardless of its price one year from now.
yeah it's volatility is very scary, but that has nothing to do with what's going to happen to the USD. I suspect we're on the verge of a nasty bubble and the only tool the Fed has shown they're confident of using is printing more money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it doesn't answer the question of why an entity would want to invest their money on an uncertain venture when it would just be worth more doing nothing with it. Simple, because the investment would return more than the natural rate of deflation alone would.
On its face that would appear to be a bald assertion. Investments inherently contain risk which would dissuade potential investors if they have a stable source of growth. Investments would have to have very high upside to be worth a stable but lower rate of deflation. Secondly, I'm not sure how you can be certain that investment returns, without regard for risks, could be higher than the deflation rate.
Stable sources of growth have existed for decades but somehow most investors aren't just going all in on those. That's because investors care more about good risk-adjusted returns than lame guaranteed returns.
>Investments would have to have very high upside to be worth a stable but lower rate of deflation.
Investments with risk-adjusted nominal returns above 0% are worth it if the currency is deflationary: even if the investment only has a nominal 1%/year return and the currency deflates at 2%/year, that's a 3%/year real return. So it's still better than just holding the currency, even though the nominal return is lower than the deflation rate.
> Secondly, I'm not sure how you can be certain that investment returns, without regard for risks, could be higher than the deflation rate.
Returns on most investments aren't certain in an inflationary environment either, so I'm not sure what's your point.