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

MicroStrategy Adopts Bitcoin as Primary Treasury Reserve Asset

ir.microstrategy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 176 posts

Re: MicroStrategy Adopts Bitcoin as Primary Treasury Reserve Asset

#71

Post by dnautics »

mac01021 wrote: post #34
diegocerdan wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No inflation? Look what new money has bought and you will clearly see huge inflation: stocks and housing. We don't see shopping cart inflation because it's countered by the technological cheapening of the production. And the key fact that new money is not being given to people buying groceries.

I never understood how anyone can find it remotely fair for the Fed to introduce new money into the economy by any means other than equal division between all citizens.

What about government contracting? Is it a fair process to decide who builds a highway?

The Fed's activity is what drives the government's ability to pay it's contractors.

Re: MicroStrategy Adopts Bitcoin as Primary Treasury Reserve Asset

#73

Post by ak217 »

colinmhayes wrote: post #39
diegocerdan wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No inflation? Look what new money has bought and you will clearly see huge inflation: stocks and housing. We don't see shopping cart inflation because it's countered by the technological cheapening of the production. And the key fact that new money is not being given to people buying groceries.

CPI includes housing. Most Americans have seen minimal inflation over the last decade.

I'm not an expert, but it seems to me the way CPI imputes the cost of housing and several other things is broken. It looks like most Americans have seen much more inflation in the cost of housing, healthcare and education than the CPI would have you believe.

Re: MicroStrategy Adopts Bitcoin as Primary Treasury Reserve Asset

#74

Post by speedgoose »

baconandeggs wrote: post #67
speedgoose wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Telling people that bitcoin and its stupid proof of work consume energy indeed consume energy. But informing people about it is worth it. And the energy use is nothing compared to bitcoin. Not even a rounding error. Or do you mean I make people hot (upset)?

You seem to be the one upset. Storing gold consumes energy, printing money consumes energy, using credit cards and maintaining a bank's data centers consumes huge amounts of energy; they have been doing it for decades, and with far dirtier energy than the one we use now. There is no payment method or currency that does not consume energy in one form or another. Everything consumes energy. You by being awake are contr…

Everything consumes energy so it's ok to use solutions were one single transaction uses as much energy as all my showers during a year if not more ? And yes I wash myself.

Re: MicroStrategy Adopts Bitcoin as Primary Treasury Reserve Asset

#75

Post by briandw »

sonicggg wrote: post #18

I feel conflicted by this expectation from people that bitcoin will continually grow ad eternum, just because the supply is limited. I'm a believer on cryptocurrencies, but bitcoin being a first generation project, still has several pitfalls, such as transaction throughput, slowly trying to be addressed by other projects. What happens when people start flocking to ethereum, cardano, eos, or something else? Will it re…

It’s not the Bitcoin will continue to rise, it’s that the dollar will continue to fall. All currencies eventually become worthless.

Re: MicroStrategy Adopts Bitcoin as Primary Treasury Reserve Asset

#76

Post by jcfrei »

seibelj wrote: post #55

Decentralized Finance (DeFi) is the green shoots of a new and innovative financial system. It will break, it will be hacked, but longterm I believe this is the direction of finance - borderless, global, instant, peer to peer. Artificial barriers / borders / regulations simply don't matter when the mechanism for such transfers and investment are unstoppable and permission-less. Look at Compound Finance - $2 billion+ i…

I am also optimistic about the long-term value created by DeFi and the new business models it will allow. But for now I think the sole reason it exists is because people use it to get leverage for speculation.

Re: MicroStrategy Adopts Bitcoin as Primary Treasury Reserve Asset

#77

Post by drcode »

f00zz wrote: post #70
bhaak wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can totally believe how Bitcoin, Ethereum and the rest of the cryptocurrency space could go through another bubble (the last one was quite small if you compare it to the DotCom bubble and consider how much money is floating around nowadays). So I can imagine that this will turn into a big profit for them but the arguments are hilariously weak. Granted they will get a lot of PR out of it.

> go through another bubble I don't know. I remember a few years ago when people on reddit would get excited when some cafe in Bratislava or wherever started accepting bitcoin, or when Steam started accepting bitcoin. Now cryptocurrencies seem... boring. I see lots of people talking about "store of value", but actual use of bitcoin for what it was intended seems to be decreasing. And now people who want to gamble can…

The counterargument to this is that IF people are willing to pay for something, they must care about it. For both Bitcoin and Ethereum, the amount of money people are willing to pay in fees to propagate on the network are extremely high at the moment... so in theory at least, somebody thinks these networks are "worth" using, or they wouldn't spend this money.

Re: MicroStrategy Adopts Bitcoin as Primary Treasury Reserve Asset

#78

Post by ihm »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #43
mac01021 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understood how anyone can find it remotely fair for the Fed to introduce new money into the economy by any means other than equal division between all citizens.

The Fed introduces new money into the economy through two major mechanisms: setting a target interest rate on overnight loans, and buying assets at market rates. It's not clear how either of those would be extended to an equal division between all citizens, the vast majority of whom don't want overnight loans and don't have financial assets they want to sell.

This is just another way of saying “the Fed currently only introduces new money by ways that benefit certain corporations and wealthy people”. Just because they only do those two things doesn’t mean they couldn’t do other different things like just sending people more checks.

Re: MicroStrategy Adopts Bitcoin as Primary Treasury Reserve Asset

#79

Post by baconandeggs »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #62
baconandeggs wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence why they shouldn't do it.

It seems unfortunate to give up a useful tool for managing the economy just because it can't be structured to provide everyone an equal amount of benefit. Should we end small business programs because not everyone's wealthy enough to own a small business? I'd see the problem if it worked how I've sometimes seen it described, where rich people and banks are just getting free gifts of cash, but that's not accurate.

> Should we end small business programs because not everyone's wealthy enough to own a small business?

The job of financing ventures should be done by private parties and the banking industry, not by government, but since they are too preoccupied chasing assets with cheap money they can't be bothered to.

Re: MicroStrategy Adopts Bitcoin as Primary Treasury Reserve Asset

#80

Post by CryptoPunk »

AFAICS, Bitcoin has a deeply flawed long-term security model.

Its block reward, which constitutes a subsidy for its security budget, halves every four years.

Unless the halving of the security subsidy is made up for by additional transaction fees, Bitcoin's security decreases.

Given that Bitcoin blocks are full - with only a little space left for further optimizations via SegWit adoption and Schnorr signatures - transaction volumes cannot appreciably increase, and thus the only mechanism by which total transaction fees can increase is by the average fee per transaction increasing.

I can't see any way for transaction fees to ever reach the fantastical sums (e.g. $2,000 per transaction) needed to keep Bitcoin secure when the block subsidy becomes insignificant.

This wasn't the case back in 2015 when Bitcoin still had the hope of undergoing a hard fork to raise the protocol limit on its block size, which would have enabled it to increase the volume of transactions it processes by orders of magnitude. But now its governance structure is firmly captured by anti-hard-fork parties, so I see no long term viability in its protocol.

Post reply on HN