911–920 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is the best asset to hold if you local currency goes -5% every day. Easy to buy (officially and not), easy to liquidate, can be used as unofficial currency for trade
Not by any stretch of the imagination. A highly volatile asset isn't suitable for storing value reliably. This is because the chances of you having to liquidate your position at a loss are very high.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty sure that every society that unilaterally adopted gold used it for jewellery first, and only started using it as a currency and store of wealth once its value had already been established.
Sure, that's because a good piece of jewelry shares the same property of a good money: its scarcity. Gold was introduced to humanity as an ornament, but eventually humans discovered a better use for it.
There are all sorts of scarce things that we don't use for jewellery or see as particularly valuable. Gold has physical properties that make it specifically useful for jewellery (easy to work, doesn't tarnish, shiny, etc.).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All you get is traceability for people with nothing to hide Have we officially abandoned the original goal of privacy/anonymity with bitcoin? Privacy isn't only a good thing when you have something to hide. > You can't actually prevent on and off ramps because anybody could go to the black market On and off ramps are generally meant to only include the legal avenues for buying and selling bitcoin. The government ca…
> Have we officially abandoned the original goal of privacy/anonymity with bitcoin? Privacy isn't only a good thing when you have something to hide. But if you have something to hide and the official on ramps and off ramps don't allow you to hide it, you can just use the black market, so the only people using the official system in that context are the people who believe themselves to be uninteresting to the governme…
Oh I'd be all for getting rid of KYC laws and similar, no complaints here.
> you buy your medication from the pharmacy and not a drug dealer because you want the quality controls the government imposes
Personally if I were buying prescription meds I'd go to a pharmacy simply because I don't went to be caught and charged with illegally buying a controlled substance. I don't have much faith in the pharmaceutical industry or its regulation.
> When both the buyer and the seller have no interest in the rules, neither of them reports the other for violating them and then they're basically unenforceable.
This is where you lose me a bit. The laws are enforceable if they catch you. Catching you will be harder on the black market, but you absolutely can be charged if they do.
My original point was more about the limited market if you have to go black market. Fewer potential customers to transact with means demand goes down, in all likelihood the value of bitcoin would be much lower if there were no legal uses for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they can't win the not-war they're fighting against Russia, what is their huge military stockpile supposed to do? If it isn't useful here, they can't use it.
The US military stockpile is staffed by Americans, not Ukranians, and there's no political will to transfer some of the really expensive stuff which requires extensive training like F35s. The transfers of Patriot anti-missile batteries, HIMARS, Bradley vehicles etc have been extremely effective in pushing back the Russian line of control from the initial invasion, but now it's a nasty question of assaulting well defe…
Now I've got 2 persapectives here. There is "largest weapons cache and standing military in the history of humanity" from pyvpx and there is this rather smaller list from yourself. I'm inclined to go with your list - I don't think the US is in a position to deploy the largest weapons cache in the history of humanity.
The evidence we have is that the US is broke and only capable of bullying people with this rather less impressive list of ad-hoc assembled gear with no air support. Which is not nothing, but has observably failed to turn back the Russians. They don't have the industrial or financial foundations to project do-what-I-say strength overseas any more against larger economies like Russia.
It is pretty obvious they don't have that capability, or they'd have used it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bitcoin equalises this. USD is going to hyper-inflate to 0 relative to bitcoin, and bitcoin will ultimately be the world reserve asset.
> world reserve asset. Except it's extremely unsuited for this purpose despite of what some delusional people might be thinking. No (at at least semi stable) country ever will use bitcoin as their primary reserve asset...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it’s all about the consensus of majority of the nodes! Not miners.
not even that. the miners follow the nodes. if fidelity holds all transactions andbonly show them to their private miners, they will always mine with more transactions then the others, hence the 51 attack is based on transactions not miners nor nodes. again, the cheerleaders who might know math (usually not even that) forget about the ruthless of business
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/1/51-attack.asp
> forget about the ruthless of business
Noone has forgot a thing just aren't clowns like you who think businesses are some substitute god who can't be beat. Fidelity doesn't "hold" the transactions. Transactions to be relevant MUST be broadcast to the network and if this doesn't happen then the blockchain plods along as if they didn't happen.
Honestly, learn a bit more about how this stuff actually works before commenting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine being this paranoid. I believe you and your money are safe. Have a nice day!
Man, companies involved in crypto currencies trading getting into trouble is about the most common news out there. Making sure I am not exposed to this risk is just basic due diligence not being paranoid. You may disagree but the view that crypto currencies are toxic assets is pretty popular so the question is worth answering for people who subscribe to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The simple fact that there's no societies left using shells, beads, Rai stones, etc. Only the hardest money survived - gold. However although gold is hard, it fair to say that it was beaten somewhat by soft fiat money, simply due to the overwhelmingly better other monetary qualities of fiat (e.g. portability and divisibility) especially in the digital age. Bitcoin is a hard money that takes the best monetary qualitie…
> Bitcoin is a hard money that takes the best monetary qualities of both fiat and gold Not it doesen't. Also bitcoin is not money (why do people keep claiming this?), it's a speculative asset.
[1] SEC vs. Shavers followed by FBI vs. Shavers
DOJ victim emails are neat!
This whole ETF thing has been a long time coming in terms of precedent at the legal level. Court cases are how things happen in America unfortunately.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wealth can't really use to purchase anything with is not real wealth. If you can't convert bitcoin to $/€ it becomes effectively worthless I agree, that is why Bitcoin was supposed to be electronic cash, you were supposed to be able to pay for everything with it. Bitcoin (BTC) doesn't scale today to this purpose, but you can still use it to pay directly for some products and services as long as the other party will…
> pay directly for some products and services as long as the other party will accept it. You can but generally you don't want to. Besides the technical issues it's a very volatile asset which means that you don't want to hold it for any extended period of time (IF you're only using it to pay for stuff).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They didn't try to stick with the Gold standard. They secretly left it altogether, while robbing its value to anyome buying bonds. Post WWI, they tried to stop gold from leaving Britain, which had the effect of hastening it leaving :-) You could say that they would have lost WWI without leaving the gold standard (other world governments followed suit by leaving the gold standard after Britain did) but imho the war wo…
> they would have lost WWI without leaving the gold standard (other I mainly meant their attempts to get back on the gold standard in the 1920s. Unlike e.g. France and the other European countries which didn't really have a choice and had to devalute. It put Britain industry and economy at a disadvantage during the 20s (on the brightside Britain didn't suffer from the Great Depression as much..). e.g. between 1910 an…