81–90 of 147 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Bitcoin and other crypto require a well functioning internet infrastructure, otherwise it's just data on a hard-drive. Disconnect a country from the Internet (or filter the traffic) and you're forking the chain. Less so than in the past: https://blockstream.com/satellite/menu/ > I guess my point is: be careful, this is still very much experimental, don't invest everything you have in them. Well, that much is obviou…
Having satellites broadcasting the blockchain is a good step to make the network resilient but it doesn't prevent governments messing with miners. A great disturbance would occur should china decide to unilaterally shutdown the miners on its territory for instance. Furthermore unless I'm missing something these satellites broadcast the blockchain but don't relay new transactions. That means that if I'm stuck in some…
Is this necessarily true? Forgive my ignorance but if we're talking Bitcoin, wouldn't the rest of the remaining miners around the world be able to account for this? And would the situation be meaningfully different in the country in question were China (or another of similar size/mining power)?
"There are two main reasons to doubt bitcoin's viability as an investment....Another is more philosophical: Digital currencies have no fundamental value, so have no place in a portfolio." There is no such thing as an objective theory of value. ALL value is subjective (meaning each person values the same thing differently). The more you learn about what money is, the more you realize that there are qualities of money…
Dollars are "guaranteed" to have value because they are "legal tender," ie you can pay your taxes and buy things with them. As long as the US government has power, that will continue to be the case.
I can definitely see btc being a viable currency in situations where a government's power is limited but, for stable countries, it seems more like a commodity, and that's definitely (at least it seems to me) how people are treating it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My guess is that the Chinese miners are often well-connected in the middle-levels of the Chinese government, the parts that actually implement such policies, and only a few less-connected miners would actually get blocked, thus increasing the profitability of the miners with government connections.
AFAIK mining doesn't actually require connectivity until you want to reveal the block. It's unlikely anyone else will discover it quickly, so you can just have someone walk across a border (or get on a flight) and plug it in to the global network from elsewhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is something I've been wondering about. Maybe someone with more bitcoin expertise could answer. Is there more mining capacity inside China than outside China? If so, and the Chinese government used their well-known firewall against Bitcoin for a matter of days to weeks, would Chinese miners have the longer chain? And thus the chain? I guess what I'm wondering is if the government of China has the ability to DOS…
My guess is that the Chinese miners are often well-connected in the middle-levels of the Chinese government, the parts that actually implement such policies, and only a few less-connected miners would actually get blocked, thus increasing the profitability of the miners with government connections.
Lets say China creates a partition in the bitcoin network between inside China and outside China. My understanding is that when they remove the partition, the longest blockchain "wins". If there is more mining power inside China than outside, that gives them the power to deny everyone outside China the ability to do transactions for the duration of the partition.
The network could be divided other ways, but I believe China is the only one who has the ability and incentive to do it. Although maybe you're right that the miners are connected enough to prevent it (I'm sure it would create chaos that would hurt them in the end). Although I don't know if the firewall is administered at the provincial level or the national level? I think it is much less likely for them to have national level connections since I believe the Chinese political system is controlled by ~100 people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> to whoever accepts Bitcoin That's the difference.
Yes, in your case it's "whoever accepts the dollar". Huge difference /s
Bitcoin and other crypto require a well functioning internet infrastructure, otherwise it's just data on a hard-drive. Disconnect a country from the Internet (or filter the traffic) and you're forking the chain. Spend on both networks by buying other (unfiltered) crypto. There are states (even large ISPs) that can do that. Also, the first thing to go in case of global conflict is the global Internet. Countries will t…
I'll focus on one thing that's fitting and haven't been mentioned. It's about Opendime ( https://opendime.com/ ) which brands itself as a Bitcoin credit stick. It's like a USB stick but it stores inside a Bitcoin private key that's not revealed to the user unless they visibly break a part of the stick. This basically allows you to "load" bitcoins on the stick and give to others while being relatively certain of the "…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article does a surprisingly good job of addressing this issue as well: > What, though, is the value of a digital currency? > It's a fair question, but one that could equally be leveled at gold. Since Richard Nixon ended the fixed $35 an ounce convertibility of gold in 1971, its value has risen at times (the 1970s, the 2000s) and fallen at others. The best argument to justify investing in gold these days is not th…
Agreed - for an article in MSM, I was surprised it wasn't completely terrible! But I'm tired of the BS line that "gold has no value" continues to be repeated as nauseam. If people value it, then it has value. If people don't, then it doesn't. End of story. Things don't have value because some Minister of Value makes a proclamation about what has value and what doesn't (USSR tried that, didn't work!)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed - for an article in MSM, I was surprised it wasn't completely terrible! But I'm tired of the BS line that "gold has no value" continues to be repeated as nauseam. If people value it, then it has value. If people don't, then it doesn't. End of story. Things don't have value because some Minister of Value makes a proclamation about what has value and what doesn't (USSR tried that, didn't work!)
that's not quite the case. There is such a thing as objective value. Stocks have objective value because they pay dividends. Real estate in warm climates has objective value because it's pleasant to be in a warm place in winter. BMW costs more than a honda civic because it is objectively a better driving experience. Etc. Etc. So, no, it's not true that there is no objective value
All of your cases are about subjective value. Take out the buyer with personal interests on the other side of the transaction and see if it has any value.
A good test is to take what you think has value and move 10000 years into the future or the past and consider if everyone you encounter will value it. Do you think it will have value? If not, then no, it doesn't have any 'objective' value.
People seem to get caught up on the word "value" and then rush to defend Bitcoin's use cases and unique technology as making it valuable. I don't think it's a diss when people say Bitcoin has no fundamental value. A thing having use cases or unique properties is not what "value" means in an exchange market sense. "Fundamental value" is also known as "intrinsic value" and is based on the BUILT IN return potential of an asset. So stocks and bonds have an intrinsic value because they generate a return, based on dividends or interests rates they pay.
A thing is only worth what someone will give you for it. So EVERY value needs to be in terms of something else.
An ounce of Gold, 1 bitcoin, 1 US dollar, have NO intrinsic value because you can hold them forever and they will never pay you a dividend or make a coupon payment on their own. Gold has a few practical uses in jewelry and industry but that's not why it's important. Bitcoin and the dollar have ZERO "value" beyond being a place to store something else's value. Well back in the day a dollar in the bank might earn you a small interest rate but hello 21st century. Bitcoin doesn't even offer an interest rate. Gold is not a good long term investment. But Gold is good to have in case of emergency. I imagine bitcoin will be similar. Bitcoin and gold COST you money to own them. The people who make money off gold are the miners and then forever after the banks and security companies who store physical gold for you at great expense. Bitcoin should be similar in this sense as Bitcoin can create a spread income over the energy costs and the transaction fees it generates every 10 minutes.
My guess is since 90% of the bitcoins that will ever be mined will be mined within the next 2-3 years. And there will be lost coins. So maybe 15 million coins will be around long term and that number will slowly shrink. The fees will start to be more important.
I don't think Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme. Bitcoin has a ton of great uses and tech features. And most importantly it has signaling properties. While Bitcoin is unlikely to be the main digital currency people on a daily basis as the 1 MB limit does appear to cause issues. It would be very bad for all digital currencies if bitcoin went away.