# How many furries know what Bitcoin is?



## Foxy Emy (Sep 16, 2018)

I was curious about how much the furry fandom intersects with the world of blockchain tech.

Feel free to elaborate on your responses and/or ask me any questions you may have about it.


----------



## Paolite (Sep 16, 2018)

I know that Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency. What does it do or what are its uses? I don't know. I'm not really into economics, I'm happy as long a I have enough money to live peacefully without worries.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 16, 2018)

I've heard of bitcoin. 

It's reputation as a cryptocurrency for criminals, and reports of content such as illegal pornography in the blockchain, don't exactly enamour me to it. 

'Child porn links' on Bitcoin blockchain


----------



## kidchameleon (Sep 16, 2018)

My understanding of bitcoin is that it's money in the same way that a tamagotchi is a pet. Except you can actually hold a tamagotchi.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 16, 2018)

kidchameleon said:


> My understanding of bitcoin is that it's money in the same way that a tamagotchi is a pet. Except you can actually hold a tamagotchi.



Let's create a crypto currency tied to the popularity of tamagotchi. x3


----------



## Foxy Emy (Sep 16, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I've heard of bitcoin.
> 
> It's reputation as a cryptocurrency for criminals, and reports of content such as illegal pornography in the blockchain, don't exactly enamour me to it.
> 
> 'Child porn links' on Bitcoin blockchain



It surprises me how recent that article is. Most illicit stuff slowed down with the improvements in analytics making it easier to trace stuff like that.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 16, 2018)

Emyrelda Seoni said:


> It surprises me how recent that article is. Most illicit stuff slowed down with the improvements in analytics making it easier to trace stuff like that.



I suspect bitcoin's always going to be like this. Cryptocurrencies that make it more difficult for transactions to be traced have a clear appeal to criminals.


----------



## Simo (Sep 16, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Let's create a crypto currency tied to the popularity of tamagotchi. x3



Huh, do you think I can somehow monetize my 'likes' here on FAF, and make a Skunk Coin offering


----------



## Foxy Emy (Sep 16, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I suspect bitcoin's always going to be like this. Cryptocurrencies that make it more difficult for transactions to be traced have a clear appeal to criminals.



It really isn't that difficult to trace because you can see which account number (address) sent what where and when they did it. The problem is that you need to figure out who those addresses belong to from another source. It is pseudonymous, not anonymous.


----------



## Rassah (Sep 25, 2018)

There are actually few prominent people who are in bitcoin who are or were furries. Remember Butterfly Labs miners? One of their top guy was a furry. One of the developers for a top wallet who has a popular cryptocurrency YouTube channel is a furry. There's even a guy who is building a bitcoin bank who is a furry.


----------



## Foxy Emy (Sep 25, 2018)

Rassah said:


> There are actually few prominent people who are in bitcoin who are or were furries. Remember Butterfly Labs miners? One of their top guy was a furry. One of the developers for a top wallet who has a popular cryptocurrency YouTube channel is a furry. There's even a guy who is building a bitcoin bank who is a furry.



_Someone _is well informed. Yes, I do remember Butterfly Labs. I have been involved with crypto stuff since late 2013/early 2014. I made a *lot* of money from very little by hodling and and not watching the prices too closely. I'm not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination but I have more than $100 to my name which I can't say was true when I started.

Also, I seem to have a knack for picking coins that last for more than a year.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Sep 25, 2018)

All I know is that it's a type of cryptocurrency, but I'm not entirely sure how it has any tangible value.

But I do know this for sure, where there is a Bitcoin thread, you will find Rassah. He knows all about that stuff and has managed to become fairly wealthy from it from my understanding.


----------



## Foxy Emy (Sep 25, 2018)

Mr. Fox said:


> All I know is that's it's a type of cryptocurrency, but I'm not entirely sure how it has any tangible value.
> 
> But I do know this for sure, where there is a Bitcoin thread, you will find Rassah. He knows all about that stuff and has managed to become fairly wealthy from it from my understanding.



I always reply to questions about cryptocurrencies having tangible value with a question. How does the U.S. Dollar have tangible value?

Good to know that I'm not alone here with crypto stuff here on FAF, though! In December, my holdings shot up to $75k USD worth but I spent a fair amount... and prices dropped... and I had to report the past 4 or 5 years worth of trading on my taxes so I suddenly owed a bunch of capital gains taxes. It is not nearly that much now, but I still have several times more than what I have put in overall, even after taking so much out.


----------



## Picklepaige (Sep 25, 2018)

I've heard of it, but I do not understand it. At all. Like, the second I start to read about it, my eyes glaze over and my head gets fuzzy.

Looking me, breaking that "furries know everything about computers/the internet" stereotype!


----------



## AppleButt (Sep 25, 2018)

I know it’s a crypto currency and it happens to be popular among the black market or something like that. 

My friend almost invested  1,000 dollars in it in 2012 and decided against it.  Has kicked himself in the rear ever since.


----------



## Foxy Emy (Sep 25, 2018)

Picklepaige said:


> I've heard of it, but I do not understand it. At all. Like, the second I start to read about it, my eyes glaze over and my head gets fuzzy.
> 
> Looking me, breaking that "furries know everything about computers/the internet" stereotype!



Hahaha! I was the same way at first but I found it very fascinating so I kept reading... and kept reading... and kept reading...

I joined forums and asked questions... and more questions... and more questions...

Eventually I learned enough and became well respected enough in certain crypto communities that I had the opportunity to have an op-ed published on The CoinTelegraph, one of the largest cryptocurrency news websites out there. It was a very controversial call for developing new consensus mechanisms besides the two that existed at the time: Proof-of-Work and Proof-of-Stake (you don't have to know what those are, but @Rassah will).

I took a hiatus because the stress of authoring a controversial got to me. By the time I came back to the community, there were several active projects working on new consensus mechanisms and even a couple touting new database structures (most cryptocurrencies use a blockchain but now a few use directed acyclic graphs or "DAGs" for short).

I also predicted that "smart contracts" would be a driving force in the technology while Ethereum's smart contract platform was still just a proposed improvement. I'm proud of that one.


----------



## Foxy Emy (Sep 25, 2018)

AppleButt said:


> I know it’s a crypto currency and it happens to be popular among the black market or something like that.
> 
> My friend almost invested  1,000 dollars in it in 2012 and decided against it.  Has kicked himself in the rear ever since.



I first saw BTC when you could buy 3 of them for a penny on Mt. Gox and totally dismissed it as "magic internet money" and quickly forgot about it; I am still kicking myself for that one. I didn't bother to read about what it was or how it worked until around 2013/2014.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Sep 25, 2018)

Emyrelda Seoni said:


> I always reply to questions about cryptocurrencies having tangible value with a question. How does the U.S. Dollar have tangible value



All currency is valued by the amount of belief we have in it, none of it having any real value otherwise. I suppose the difference with actual money is that it's been around for longer and is something you can actually hold, but still governed by the belief it has any real value.

Cryptocurrency is a good alternative, but feels less trustworthy.


----------



## zenmaldita (Sep 25, 2018)

it turned my initial investment of $20 to $140 at the height of it's popularity last year but now it's just $80 :\

we hit a real financial crisis last year and my mom was hellbent on getting as much money as possible so we turned to cryptocurrency for a while.
it didnt really work out lmao
however I'm not touching my investment in hopes that maybe someday, it will spike up again.


----------



## Foxy Emy (Sep 25, 2018)

Mr. Fox said:


> All currency is valued by the amount of belief we have in it, none of it having any real value otherwise. I suppose the difference with actual money is that it's been around for longer and is something you can actually hold, but still governed by the belief it has any real value.
> 
> Cryptocurrency is a good alternative, but feels less trustworthy.



It depends on how much people trust their government's financial system. Some people trust cryptocurrency _*more*_ than their local fiat currency; this is especially true in countries that are in the middle of a financial crisis or have frequent financial crisis due to hyperinflation.



zenmaldita said:


> it turned my initial investment of $20 to $140 at the height of it's popularity last year but now it's just $80 :\
> 
> we hit a real financial crisis last year and my mom was hellbent on getting as much money as possible so we turned to cryptocurrency for a while.
> it didnt really work out lmao
> however I'm not touching my investment in hopes that maybe someday, it will spike up again.



I always hold long term positions myself but I am careful to research the development teams and the tech behind the cryptos I invest in. To be frank, I am happy it crashed so hard even though it sucks for me and a lot of other people, it was inflating too fast and there was too much FOMO and not enough informed decisions driving the inflation.


----------



## Rassah (Sep 27, 2018)

Picklepaige said:


> I've heard of it, but I do not understand it. At all. Like, the second I start to read about it, my eyes glaze over and my head gets fuzzy.



I tried explaining it as simply as possible here www.reddit.com: r/explainlikeimfive - ELI5: How bitcoins work- mining them and spending them.
Basically it's just everyone having a list of everyone's balances, and transactions is just passing around messages telling everyone how to update those balances. It's a very basic and simple system, with just a lot of very complex math to keep it working.


----------



## Foxy Emy (Dec 30, 2020)

FelicityMcG92 said:


> I really like this kind of discussions, this is really interesting to read people's opinions regarding this subject, opinions which are already 2 years old. Right now, the bitcoin has reached it's top, the peak and the biggest possible level actually. It is almost 30.000 bucks, that is just insane. So, those people who actually thought that the bitcoin would not be living more, so what do you think about it today?



I regretfully had to sell low. It didn't bounce back as fast I had hoped and I needed the liquidity if cash.

That said, I still realized a lot of gains overall, in spite of some sizable losses detracting from that in the Crypto Winter.

I knew it was only a matter of time before institutional investors jumped on board once regulators started coming in and clarifying things like how the heck to report it on your taxes.

I still predict that a government sponsored distributed ledger will be a thing in the not so distant future. It is just a mater of burocracy catching up with technology.


----------



## Cockynoob666 (Dec 30, 2020)

Its a e currency... it once was crazy but in days it wnt to pennies


----------



## Foxy Emy (Dec 30, 2020)

Cockynoob666 said:


> Its a e currency... it once was crazy but in days it wnt to pennies



Not exactly... and it is crazy now. 1 BTC is approx. $28000.


----------



## Cockynoob666 (Dec 30, 2020)

WAT


----------



## Foxy Emy (Dec 30, 2020)

Cockynoob666 said:


> WAT


Yep. You read that right. Recently broke an all time high.


----------



## Cockynoob666 (Dec 30, 2020)

Let me guess cus _censored fake virus

i know what it is.. its real_


----------



## Foxy Emy (Dec 30, 2020)

Cockynoob666 said:


> Let me guess cus _censored fake virus
> 
> i know what it is.. its real_



Possibly. But also because PayPal is nomming on them right now and buying them up in droves.


----------



## EmpressCiela (Dec 30, 2020)

Funnily enough, I thought it was a joke thing until I got into cybersecurity/hacking in earnest and had to buy some tools with _only_ that. My mentor at the tie then explained it to me, and now I'm considering delving into that industry, since it intersects with my passion for cybersecurity and cryptography, even though I'm still learning.


----------



## WitherSDL (Jan 1, 2021)

Emyrelda Seoni said:


> I was curious about how much the furry fandom intersects with the world of blockchain tech.
> 
> Feel free to elaborate on your responses and/or ask me any questions you may have about it.


I know that my $200 in bitcoin is now worth $600 and as soon as I get my stimulus it's going straight into bitcoin because the dollar is fucked.


----------



## FoxesYummy (Jan 2, 2021)

The only times I've heard of it before now were people making fun of it and ransomwares having bitcoin addresses in them.


----------



## Rassah (Jan 7, 2021)

I've been in the Bitcoin industry for about a decade now, worked in lots of different crypto related jobs and businesses, made a lot of high-level connections that let me know what's going on, and have been interviewed as an expert/authority on this subject many times (here's the most recent one 



). Lucky for me, I understood what it is and what the prospects are back when the price was only about $6. So I am not at all surprised about this price, although I was hoping that Bitcoin would have been here years earlier. I still find it unfortunate that I have been explaining it to people on this forum and trying to convince them to invest in it since as far back as 2014, but most still dismissed it as just fake magic internet money.


----------



## pilgrimfromoblivion (Jan 7, 2021)

I just know it as the anonymous currency people use to purchase some delicious cheese pizza on the dark web.


----------



## KimberVaile (Jan 24, 2021)

I have a bit invested in it and the value has so far appreciated pretty well. With how much it has taken off, I wonder if we'll see crypto currency upend the technological world the same way the internet did.


----------



## Mambi (Jan 24, 2021)

Foxy Emy said:


> I was curious about how much the furry fandom intersects with the world of blockchain tech.
> 
> Feel free to elaborate on your responses and/or ask me any questions you may have about it.



Yes, I am aware of  it. To use it in my opinion is currently insane. 

It's basically a currency backed by absolutely nothing, so it's as stable as the whims of the owner of that particular chain and how strong their memory is of the passwords if they lose the hard drives (worst-case to be fair). There is no real oversight from anyone, and no actual protection from any gouvernments in the case of theft or even standardization of worth...as the whole point of it was to get away from gouvernment money. Therefore when you lose your real money from it, you will have no legal options at all. And it's still taxable as you have to convert to real money sometime...the grocery store isn't going to take bitcoin for bread and milk anytime soon.

You'd be better off trading your money for Pokemon cards...at least their value is backed by millions of fans agreeing on the card's value.


----------



## Rassah (Jan 28, 2021)

KimberVaile said:


> I wonder if we'll see crypto currency upend the technological world the same way the internet did.



We're working on it 

@Mambi You're right, it's not for people like you.


----------



## Yakamaru (Jan 28, 2021)

Ah, Bitcoin. Got interested in it when it hit $100 and started trading more seriously. Used to mine Litecoin and Bitcoin and still have my 3 Antminer S3+. Kind of want to sell them, though at this point it's kinda more about nostalgia than anything. I wonder how much they'll sell for seeing as I've made back some 3x their value..


----------



## Foxy Emy (Jan 28, 2021)

Yakamaru said:


> Ah, Bitcoin. Got interested in it when it hit $100 and started trading more seriously. Used to mine Litecoin and Bitcoin and still have my 3 Antminer S3+. Kind of want to sell them, though at this point it's kinda more about nostalgia than anything. I wonder how much they'll sell for seeing as I've made back some 3x their value..



BTC is going for $32000 per pop today. If you are sitting on a little more than 3 BTC still, you got yourself a cool $100 grand. Do you know what kind of fur suit you could buy with that money?


----------



## Yakamaru (Jan 28, 2021)

Foxy Emy said:


> BTC is going for $32000 per pop today. If you are sitting on a little more than 3 BTC still, you got yourself a cool $100 grand. Do you know what kind of fur suit you could buy with that money?


Sadly I don't have much Bitcoin anymore. I only have like 0.1 currently. Not going to invest any more than that.

If I still had the BTC I used to trade in however.. I'd be a millionaire now.


----------



## Foxy Emy (Jan 28, 2021)

Mambi said:


> Yes, I am aware of  it. To use it in my opinion is currently insane.
> 
> It's basically a currency backed by absolutely nothing, so it's as stable as the whims of the owner of that particular chain and how strong their memory is of the passwords if they lose the hard drives (worst-case to be fair). There is no real oversight from anyone, and no actual protection from any gouvernments in the case of theft or even standardization of worth...as the whole point of it was to get away from gouvernment money. Therefore when you lose your real money from it, you will have no legal options at all. And it's still taxable as you have to convert to real money sometime...the grocery store isn't going to take bitcoin for bread and milk anytime soon.
> 
> You'd be better off trading your money for Pokemon cards...at least their value is backed by millions of fans agreeing on the card's value.



It is more like an asset than a currency and the price moves because millions of people agree it has value.

I would NOT treat anything but a stable value coin like a currency.


----------



## Foxy Emy (Jan 28, 2021)

Yakamaru said:


> Sadly I don't have much Bitcoin anymore. I only have like 0.1 currently. Not going to invest any more than that.
> 
> If I still had the BTC I used to trade in however.. I'd be a millionaire now.



Aww... you were referring to selling the miners.


----------



## Yakamaru (Jan 28, 2021)

Foxy Emy said:


> Aww... you were referring to selling the miners.


Ye. I spent like $300 on them during a sale. Easily made over $1000 from them. Still work, but my router's a bitch and won't allow me to mine anymore.


----------



## Play3r (Jan 28, 2021)

Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency often traded or made online purchases with. (I am not using google, this is what I know from the top of my head)


----------



## Foxy Emy (Jan 28, 2021)

Yakamaru said:


> Ye. I spent like $300 on them during a sale. Easily made over $1000 from them. Still work, but my router's a bitch and won't allow me to mine anymore.



Nice!

I have played around with mining but only altcoins that my GPU can get something with.

Been mining Gridcoin by folding proteins for COVID research.


----------



## Yakamaru (Jan 28, 2021)

Foxy Emy said:


> Nice!
> 
> I have played around with mining but only altcoins that my GPU can get something with.
> 
> Been mining Gridcoin by folding proteins for COVID research.


Oh? Earning anything from it?


----------



## Foxy Emy (Jan 28, 2021)

Yakamaru said:


> Oh? Earning anything from it?



Just enough to offset electricity costs. It is mostly volunteer.


----------



## Yakamaru (Jan 28, 2021)

Foxy Emy said:


> Just enough to offset electricity costs. It is mostly volunteer.


What GPU(s) are you using? With a decent to high-end one you could actually earn money from it too. Two birds with one stone, as it were.


----------



## Foxy Emy (Jan 28, 2021)

Yakamaru said:


> What GPU(s) are you using? With a decent to high-end one you could actually earn money from it too. Two birds with one stone, as it were.



Haha. The one GeForce GTX 1080 in my gaming laptop. If I wanted to make money with it, I would need to selectively chose coins I thought were undermined and undervalued.


----------



## Yakamaru (Jan 28, 2021)

Foxy Emy said:


> Haha. The one GeForce GTX 1080 in my gaming laptop. If I wanted to make money with it, I would need to selectively chose coins I thought were undermined and undervalued.


Ah, nice. The 1080 is a good card for gaming despite getting a little old.


----------



## Foxy Emy (Jan 28, 2021)

Yakamaru said:


> Ah, nice. The 1080 is a good card for gaming despite getting a little old.



I don't actually do much gaming since my daughter was born. She keeps us too busy. 

Still it has held up. Need to replace the bottom of the case and maybe the mouse pad.


----------



## Zhalo (Jan 29, 2021)

I used to trade alt-coins when I was in High school. I had a really fun time doing it too made a good bit of money for a high school student! Used it to buy some stuff I probably shouldn't had. Eventually I cashed out though because I needed the money to pay for college.


----------



## Yakamaru (Jan 29, 2021)

Foxy Emy said:


> I don't actually do much gaming since my daughter was born. She keeps us too busy.
> 
> Still it has held up. Need to replace the bottom of the case and maybe the mouse pad.


Yeah, I can imagine. Kids are a lot of work from the looks of it, but well worth it in the long run from the looks of it.



Zhalo said:


> I used to trade alt-coins when I was in High school. I had a really fun time doing it too made a good bit of money for a high school student! Used it to buy some stuff I probably shouldn't had. Eventually I cashed out though because I needed the money to pay for college.


Oh hey Zhalo. Long time no see. How you been? =^w^=


----------



## Zhalo (Jan 29, 2021)

Yakamaru said:


> Oh hey Zhalo. Long time no see. How you been?


Hey! ^-^ I've been doing good been busy with College, decided to look at the forums see how things are now!


----------



## Yakamaru (Jan 29, 2021)

Zhalo said:


> Hey! ^-^ I've been doing good been busy with College, decided to look at the forums see how things are now!


Ey that's good to hear. Hope College is going well too?

Haven't seen you in a while, and was wondering how you were faring.


----------



## Zhalo (Jan 29, 2021)

Yakamaru said:


> Ey that's good to hear. Hope College is going well too?
> 
> Haven't seen you in a while, and was wondering how you were faring.


Yep, I'm doing CS and having fun with that! How have you been?


----------



## Yakamaru (Jan 29, 2021)

Zhalo said:


> Yep, I'm doing CS and having fun with that! How have you been?


Ey, that's good to hear!
I'm doing pretty damn well I have to say. Work is going pretty great, have a forklift license, lost a lot of weight.. Could go on for a long time but don't want to derail the thread further. ^^"


----------



## SolDirix (Mar 1, 2021)

Yes, and I wish I had bought and invested some 3 months ago and I'd have me a Tesla X'D


----------



## fernshiine (Mar 1, 2021)

I know about it. Was a huge thing on the news a couple of years back.


----------



## contemplationistwolf (Mar 1, 2021)

I won $75 worth of BTC in some competition some years ago. When I finally got around to selling it, it had grown to more than $300.
I also did research on it in college and I have to say: it's a very interesting thing! IMO definitely has the potential to make significant impact on a societal level: a fully information based currency that follows stable and transparent rules rather than the whims/trustworthiness of a government. It's also anti-fragile: people can fork it anytime, to adapt and change it according to whatever problems/shortcomings arise (whichever side of the fork is the most robust is the one people will settle on).

It's still a young currency, so it doesn't yet have the infrastructure around it for it to be as convenient to use as traditional currencies, but that infrastructure is getting built (and it's probably easier to build it for Bitcoin than for traditional currencies). It could also become the international currency of choice, as it would be equally convenient to use in any part of the world (plus, you wouldn't have to worry about exchange rates).

A big shortcoming right now though is that more people speculate on it than use it, which makes its price rather volatile.


----------



## Foxy Emy (Mar 2, 2021)

contemplationistwolf said:


> A big shortcoming right now though is that more people speculate on it than use it, which makes its price rather volatile.



Yeah. I don't think this will change outside of a fork. BTC is designed to be deflationary with less produced every so many blocks. This means it is designed to go up in value over time so people are more likely to invest then spend.


----------



## SnowBorne (Mar 2, 2021)

its free money


----------



## huddlewalt (Apr 26, 2021)

It's a huge bubble that it always burst when the big players decide to become millionaires again and again while you help them do that by believing it's the future and freedom! There are better practices to follow in case you are looking for ways to profit from all kinds of crypto coins you can easily take advantage of a cfds trader that can allow you to trade most of the famous coins right now. I have seen countless reports from people who use their technical analysis n a daily basis to trade.


----------



## Raever (Apr 26, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> I've heard of bitcoin.
> 
> It's reputation as a cryptocurrency for criminals, and reports of content such as illegal pornography in the blockchain, don't exactly enamour me to it.
> 
> 'Child porn links' on Bitcoin blockchain



I'm essentially of the same opinion as Fallow.
While I know of it, and the "privacy" it offers is enticing, the associations it has with the seedy underworld are less so.
Generally, I stay away from it for these reasons, amongst my overall lack of depth regarding it; in other words, I only know it's basics.


----------



## Kyrick (Apr 26, 2021)

I was mining it back when it was in it's infancy but lost interest as it had no real world currency value...back then. Oops 

Anyway, BitCoin shouldn't be classed as a cryptocurrency anymore, unless you use a scrambler at least, you can still be tracked. Have you noticed the amount of attention and advertising in sports and arts? Here in the UK, you need to provide a passport or driver's license to get on the blockchain.
I'd rather start using Ethereum if I was to go back to the deep web.


----------



## Rassah (Apr 30, 2021)

Raever said:


> I'm essentially of the same opinion as Fallow.
> While I know of it, and the "privacy" it offers is enticing, the associations it has with the seedy underworld are less so.
> Generally, I stay away from it for these reasons, amongst my overall lack of depth regarding it; in other words, I only know it's basics.


Do you avoid US dollars too, since they're the primary currency used by criminals around the world for things like drug trafficking, assassination, and human trafficking?


----------



## Raever (Apr 30, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Do you avoid US dollars too, since they're the primary currency used by criminals around the world for things like drug trafficking, assassination, and human trafficking?



Well, I avoid carrying cash, but I doubt that's what you meant.

To clarify my initial post (and wipe away some of that unnecessary snark,) I meant that I avoid things regarding currency when it can't be rectified should something go wrong. I also like to avoid things that haven't been around long, due to the possibility of systems being taken advantage of (both in part due to hacking or just poor system management, among other things). 

Lastly, I find that if someone is going to websites that would encourage criminal behavior it's not out of the ordinary to assume they'd be using a Cryptocurrency. What's to stop them from figuring out a way to get into that system and steal from others (or better yet, paying someone to do it). I'm rather paranoid, as you might be able to tell.

All that aside...as stated originally, I'm not against positive sources of education and encouragement.

I only know the bare bones basics of what it is, after all. I've never needed to know more due to lack of interest. So I never read up on anything passed what it is and it's base uses. If you'd like to respectfully provide further information I'm sure myself and many others might appreciate it.


----------



## TheCrocWhoSoldTheWorld (May 1, 2021)

It's just another type of currency, the more we advance as a society the more abstract shapes it will take.
Just look at where we are now, in a lot of countries people don't even carry paper money anymore, they just use the NFC chips in their phones to make payments.

Bitcoin just has a lot of mystique around it because of all the tales of people who got rich overnight and the "deepweeb" association it has. And despite what many people think Bitcoin can be traced and wallets can be inspected by anyone, thats how you know when someone is trying to pull and exit scam. Also getting your wallet hacked while possible is extremly rare, if it were that easy someone would have already stolen Satoshi's or DPR's wallet lol.


----------



## Raever (May 1, 2021)

I think that for me it just comes down to not needing it.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (May 2, 2021)

An environmental disaster.


----------



## Rassah (May 2, 2021)

Raever said:


> Well, I avoid carrying cash, but I doubt that's what you meant.
> 
> To clarify my initial post (and wipe away some of that unnecessary snark,) I meant that I avoid things regarding currency when it can't be rectified should something go wrong. I also like to avoid things that haven't been around long, due to the possibility of systems being taken advantage of (both in part due to hacking or just poor system management, among other things).



Ah, that makes more sense. It's unfortunate that technology that is a completely neutral tool gets used for bad things and ends up getting a bad reputation. At first no one wanted to use the internet because it was only used by pornographers and drug traffickers. Then nobody wanted to use peer-to-peer file sharing because it was only used by music and software pirates. It's same with bitcoin now. Even though all those bad activities were done on a much larger scale already on established older systems. But people get over it eventually and realize that the technology is just a tool that can be used for good too.
Personally I just use it to avoid dealing with banks, and for shopping online (like to get 15% discounts on my Amazon purchases), since I don't do drugs or even drink alcohol.


----------



## Rassah (May 2, 2021)

Short version: it's something you can spend on furry porn, paying even as little as a few cents without fees (or with very little fees), where you don't have to worry about your payment processor closing your account for violating TOS, your bank from spying on you buying furry porn, and knowing that your cash stash will be able to buy you even more porn in the future.

Long version:
As for what Bitcoin is and why it's useful? It's the first time we have something that is both digital and scarce, where if you send a digital thing to someone, you're not just making a copy, you're losing the original.
And it's the first time we have money that has complete scarcity. If value of other money goes up, like gold or dollars, people make much more of it, like mining gold or dollars, and devalue that money to everyone's detriment. Bitcoin has a mechanism built in where no matter how many people try to get into mining it, the amount of it being created will always remain the same.
It's also the first entirely sovereign/non-custodial form of digital money. Every dollar you use online requires a third party (bank, credit card issuer, PayPal) to hold the money on your behalf. Bitcoin is the first time you can hold and spend it yourself. That also means it's the first money that can be held and spent by software all by itself, without requiring a human to open a bank account somewhere for that software to use. The possibilities for AI to own and earn its own money is crazy (think self-driving car + Uber + bitcoin. The car can own itself, earn its own money, pay for its own gas and repairs, and when it earns enough, "reproduce" by buying itself another car).
It's also the first money that is completely neutral and resistant to political whims. Anyone in the world can use it without worrying about which country is issuing it, or worrying if that country's failing economy is going to wreck your savings account, or restrict your bank from using it, or whatever. It's finally money that's as free as using email.

There are also major (and even more important) things with regards to it being deflationary money that can finally counteract inflation that was "normalized" in the last century, but that's a much bigger and more complicated economic topic.


----------



## Rassah (May 2, 2021)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> An environmental disaster.


Not as much as inflationary currencies have been. Going from gold to something that can just be printed from nothing has contributed to more pollution than anything else in the world ever.


----------



## Raever (May 2, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Short version: it's something you can spend on furry porn, paying even as little as a few cents without fees (or with very little fees), where you don't have to worry about your payment processor closing your account for violating TOS, your bank from spying on you buying furry porn, and knowing that your cash stash will be able to buy you even more porn in the future.
> 
> Long version:
> As for what Bitcoin is and why it's useful? It's the first time we have something that is both digital and scarce, where if you send a digital thing to someone, you're not just making a copy, you're losing the original.
> ...



To say it isn't progress both technical and financial is irrational, but to call it useful to the modern day individual? I'm not sure.

For starters, I don't pay for porn or anything else that my bank might find suspicious (and frankly, I've never met someone that expresses otherwise until now) ...unless we're counting Commissioned work that is, so it has no use there.

I'm not worried about violating my bank's ToS because (after having read it) there isn't anything I could accidentally do legally that would cause such a violation.

I think as of now there might be only one reason why I would look into using Bitcoin and that'd be for the purchase of Vape Machine Tools due to the recent (very stupid) law that passed regarding online purchases and mailing them out. So that might be useful, but I don't necessarily need to do that since I have a friend who could just order things for me without all the hassle (they own a vape store business).

I'm glad that you're so passionate about a technological advancement, and I think the implications of it for future progress are very interesting, but I also think it's just not quite what most people need in their day to day lives. Which is probably why, like me, they know very little of it and choose to avoid it.

The Internet, when it first came around, was very limited. Maybe twenty or so websites total? More were soon to come, obviously, but most were crime related. There also wasn't Google or a Wiki to tell you what was what so you'd type it in and then immediately be screwed. In essence, it was associated with dangerous things because it was a dangerous thing, Laws and such hadn't formed around it and there was a lot of things someone could do and get away with simply because of that alone. I wouldn't blame someone for avoiding that sort of situation entirely. Same for file sharing when it came out, it wasn't something that had much legal coverage.

If Bitcoin were to become regularly used/known about in detail by the mass majority it might first need to be more controlled, and that's pretty much the opposite of what it's aiming for. Which is both good and bad, depending on how you look at it.

It all eventually comes down to why someone should use it over their other options, over how safe it is. Safety is more of a secondary concern.


----------



## Rassah (May 2, 2021)

Raever said:


> To say it isn't progress both technical and financial is irrational, but to call it useful to the modern day individual? I'm not sure.
> 
> For starters, I don't pay for porn or anything else that my bank might find suspicious (and frankly, I've never met someone that expresses otherwise until now) ...unless we're counting Commissioned work that is, so it has no use there.
> 
> I'm not worried about violating my bank's ToS because (after having read it) there isn't anything I could accidentally do legally that would cause such a violation.


I haven't kept up with PayPal recently, but porn is against PayPal's TOS, and I know artists who have had their accounts shut down and money actually clawed back out of their personal bank accounts for selling furry porn. It's not significant, but it's still important for some. In some countries things are even worse with regards to what you can and can't buy or how you can send your money, so the aspect of censorship resistance in finance is even more important to them. In US at worst we have financial censorship for porn, gambling, and political dissent. If you point out how our government is stealing from or killing people, it will freeze your methods of getting paid.

The most important innovation of Bitcoin that everyone does need is money that has real scarcity. One that can't just be inflated. There's a severe lack of money that can be used as a store of value in the world. Gold comes close, but gold is practically useless in the digital age. Bitcoin is has scarcity, meaning you know it will not be inflated and will hold it's value, so for long term storage, or to preserve wealth when you live within an inflationary currency, is bitcoin is the best and likely only option available. That's also why over time it will eliminate all other currencies, just like, and for the same reason, that gold eliminated cowry shells, glass beads, copper, and eventually even silver.

It's unfortunate that Bitcoin's most important and soon to be most radically world changing use is its deflationary nature. Unfortunate because while a lot of people may understand the tech, very few people understand economics, with even fewer understanding money and monetary history, so most people just can't comprehend just how important this innovation is. But to give a small hint, every major civilization - from the Greek empire to the Roman empire to the Mongolian empire to Venetian to British to early American - all became wildly successful and wealthy, reaching their historical pinnacle, under strong non-inflationary currency (strong trusted gold coin). And every one of those civilization, even the Mongolian one, collapsed once they started to inflate the value of their coins, either by diluting the amount of gold, by shaving edges of gold coins, or by expanding the backed paper beyond the amount of gold backing it. Bitcoin is the first solution in thousands of years of human history that finally fixes that problem, by creating a currency that is impossible to inflate, and impossible for anyone to take over, control, and change (like what banks did with gold coins). Because of this it has the potential to be as historically significant as the Renaissance, or even more so.


----------



## MechaMegs (May 2, 2021)

.
.
.
.
.
.

*Buzzes in*

Yes, What is a digital currency that is yet another capital driven mechanism that is damaging the eco system?


----------



## TheCrocWhoSoldTheWorld (May 5, 2021)

Bitcoin itself are not harming the eco system tho, miners are, and some of them are already working to fix that, iirc there's even an italian crypto farm that only uses hydroelectric energy to farm their stuff.

That being said there's also NFTs, these aren't quite the same as bitcoin and the like, these are a type of "token". Unlike Bitcoin NFTs have been serialized and can be tracked Individually, that's why they require stupid amounts of energy to do anything, no one but stupid hollywood celebrities and brands actually like these since they are just a novelty


----------



## Yakamaru (May 5, 2021)

...Bitcoin is damaging the ecosystem? What?


----------



## Raever (May 5, 2021)

Yakamaru said:


> ...Bitcoin is damaging the ecosystem? What?



They might mean the Economy...?
It could've been a mistake in wording.
But hell if I know lol.


----------



## Mambi (May 5, 2021)

@Yakamaru ...Bitcoin is damaging the ecosystem? What?



Raever said:


> They might mean the Economy...?
> It could've been a mistake in wording.
> But hell if I know lol.



Data-mining uses a lot of computer power in server farms...and those suck up a lot of electricity and space, which tends to be bad for the environment.


----------



## TheCrocWhoSoldTheWorld (May 5, 2021)

Each time a coin is mined it gets harder and harder to mine the next and since miners are in a race against each other they buy a lot of computers to increase processing speed, this in turn increases electricity consumption

Edit:
But like i said, some people are already working on fixing this, the bigger problem right now are NFTs


----------



## Yakamaru (May 5, 2021)

Raever said:


> They might mean the Economy...?
> It could've been a mistake in wording.
> But hell if I know lol.


Hell if I know either. Kinda sounds like jealousy because people are becoming millionaires off of it, or the very least decently richer. And people didn't jump on it and as such are losing out on it. Hell, I am now sitting at some 250% earnings on these investments.

The old don't like competition. Bitcoin and the wallet system is a competition with the banks and various other systems, and they don't like that very much.


----------



## MechaMegs (May 5, 2021)

Mambi said:


> @Yakamaru ...Bitcoin is damaging the ecosystem? What?
> 
> 
> 
> Data-mining uses a lot of computer power in server farms...and those suck up a lot of electricity and space, which tends to be bad for the environment.


Yes the consumption of resources in the further increase in demand of components for the miner rigs to the space used up for it to the power consumed from start to end.


----------



## Izzy4895 (May 6, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> Yes the consumption of resources in the further increase in demand of components for the miner rigs to the space used up for it to the power consumed from start to end.


Bitcoin’s estimated “carbon footprint” is on par with that of New Zealand.


----------



## Paws the Opinicus (May 7, 2021)

It's that thing that makes my plans to upgrade my video card for, you know, GAMING, an annoying-as-hell endeavour. -_-


----------



## Pomorek (May 9, 2021)

I may be paranoid by nature, but for me the whole thing looks dangerously close to a new incarnation of a pyramid scheme. Except that this one is self-sustaining on a longer term basis. 

What's more, I can't help but think that this whole system enables some very evil people to do some very evil things. And while geeky folks are happy that their 'puters are creating monies - the processing power that is generated empowers criminals, drug/weapons/human traffickers and other sorts of scum to conduct their dark business unhindered by the traditional money control mechanisms. I'd bite my own paw off rather than lend it to something like this. 

I realize that the above is still my own suspicions, so having no hard proof I was still rather tolerant towards the whole thing. But more recently,  as it started hurting both on personal levels (by sucking the market dry of electronics) and globally (contributing noticeably to the resource wastage), I wish for noting less than this whole damn crypto thing be nuked to hell, and good f-ing riddance!


----------



## Rassah (May 9, 2021)

TheCrocWhoSoldTheWorld said:


> Each time a coin is mined it gets harder and harder to mine the next and since miners are in a race against each other they buy a lot of computers to increase processing speed, this in turn increases electricity consumption


That's not how it works. The difficulty isn't dependent on the number of coins produced. Instead it's based on trying to keep new coin issuance at a fixed 10 minutes per successful mine. If more people put more computing power into it and start finding new coins faster, then it becomes more difficult to bring the speed back to one mine every 10 minutes. If nobody adds any more computing power, that difficulty remains the same. And if people pull out of mining and remaining people find it too hard to mine, the difficulty goes down (as it did last week after a lot of miners temporarily stopped mining in China). This difficulty adjustment works automatically roughly every two weeks. The only thing that has been making mining and energy use go up is Bitcoin's price. Because mining costs A LOT of money, if the difficulty goes up too much you may not earn any profit or even lose money. But if Bitcoin price goes up, what you can earn is worth more, so more people start to mine to get some of that profit. Until the difficulty goes up again and makes the payment lower. In simple terms, this automatic difficulty adjustment keeps making the profitability of Bitcoin trend to zero, but as long as Bitcoin grows in value there's still a bit of money to be made.

Another thing, these aren't mined with computers. They require specially manufactured CPUs (ASIC) which can only mine Bitcoin and nothing else, and due to bring specially made for that purpose they can mine it millions of timea faster than a regular PC CPU.


----------



## Nexus Cabler (May 9, 2021)

I know the basics, it being a crypto currency, and it's value can suddenly rise and fall on a variety of factors, etc.

My father and sister have invested a small amount into them, and from what I have heard, they have had promising results.

I might try it myself some point in time.


----------



## Rassah (May 9, 2021)

Paws the Gryphon said:


> It's that thing that makes my plans to upgrade my video card for, you know, GAMING, an annoying-as-hell endeavour. -_-





Pomorek said:


> I realize that the above is still my own suspicions, so having no hard proof I was still rather tolerant towards the whole thing. But more recently,  as it started hurting both on personal levels (by sucking the market dry of electronics)...


Bitcoin has nothing to do with it. You can't mine Bitcoin with video cards. It's all the other shitty coins that people created, hoping to get in on the "blockchain" fad, that use GPUs. Hopefully they will die off soon.


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (May 9, 2021)

For a few years, but, I wish I had known about it a long time ago.


----------



## Rassah (May 9, 2021)

Regarding concerns about Bitcoin's waste of energy, and it being used for "empowers criminals, drug/weapons/human traffickers and other sorts of scum," it would be useful to compare it to alternatives.

The first complaint, is that bitcoin results in a lot of a lot of wasted energy/resources. Let's compare that to gold and fiat (USD/EUR). Gold takes am enormous amount of energy to mine, and destroys whole areas with physical mining in the process. Bitcoin just uses electricity and can get it from clean sources too, like hydro (which probably accounts for at least 1/3rd of it). Fiat takes no energy to create (government and private banks just print it out of thin air), but it creates another way more massive problem, which is inflation. Inflation is MASSIVELY wasteful and horrible for the environment because it motivates consumption (which is one of the reasons we're told we need it). That means people don't want their money sitting around losing value, so they go spend it on whatever crap they can get. Worse, they even borrow money to spend on crap, because even borrowing costs less than saving. All that consumption is of products that waste lots of energy and resources.

Second way inflation is horrible is that it creates what's called malinvestment. Say we we're using a currency that lost 0% a year to inflation, and you were approached with an investment that burns tons of energy and resources, and for that loses you 1% of your money. Would you invest? Of course not!
Now say we're using dollars that lose 3% a year. Now that investment looks like a 2% return instead of a 1% loss, because it outpaces the dollar loss by 2%. It looks like a good investment, so it gets started and begins to waste all that energy and resources, and in the end the wealth it actually produces is still the same negative 1%. It just looks good compared to dollars. There are A LOT of malinvestments like these around the world, and they waste WAY more than Bitcoin ever possibly could.

And third, inflation allows governments to spend money on things no one would actually voluntarily support, simply because it can print as much as it wants. Corporate subsidies. Pork projects that suck up millions but never go anywhere (like California's rail project). Or worst of all, war. How much energy and resources did we spend on the wars in middle east? Trillions. Way more than Bitcoin can even come close to. If everyone, and governments, used deflationary bitcoin that no one can just create as much as they want to, it would be literally impossible for governments to spend money on subsidies and wars, because the only way they could get money for them is by asking us to pay taxes for them directly, which obviously we would vote against.

And the second complaint about Bitcoin, with regards to it being used for a slew of bad things, first, those things were not invented by Bitcoin users. They were very widely used with just USD cash. Laws don't stop those things at all. And second, fiat that you can print actually makes those WORSE, because a lot of those bad things are done by people in power who have the ability to print that money themselves, or get it from banking and political friends who can. Like the wars for example, where the military industrial complex has been getting billions to murder innocent people from their political friends. Or the billions that government agencies have been using to smuggle guns, spread drugs, and possibly even fund human trafficking in other countries (and our own) to destabilize them or their populations. If we were all using Bitcoin, the only way for these bad people to fund their activities would be to offer people something they actually want so people can give them the money voluntarily. And as soon as  exposed for doing these bad things, people would just stop giving them money. Which isn't a problem with fiat, since they just print more to fund themselves.

So, yeah, with regards to wasting resources and funding bad things, Bitcoin is not even a blip on a radar compared to ALLLLLLLL the shit inflationary fiat contributes to.


----------



## TyraWadman (May 9, 2021)

But Bitcoin is digital. You could literally type more money, vs printing it?

I can't legally invest into anything until I can figure out how to restore my missing i.ds anyway so it technically doesn't affect me much, but I have seen the negatives more than the positive. Like people are just desperately trying to convince you it's good, but the people on board only want to get richer.


----------



## Rassah (May 9, 2021)

TyraWadman said:


> But Bitcoin is digital. You could literally type more money, vs printing it?
> 
> I can't legally invest into anything until I can figure out how to restore my missing i.ds anyway so it technically doesn't affect me much, but I have seen the negatives more than the positive. Like people are just desperately trying to convince you it's good, but the people on board only want to get richer.


One of Bitcoin's greatest innovations is to be able to make something that is both digital and cannot be duplicated like every other digital thing. It's the first time in history that you're able to send something digital to someone else, and guarantee that you will no longer have it yourself. So because of this mathematically guaranteed scarcity no one can make any more of it, not even the richest most powerful people or governments (who historically have been able to amass their wealth and power mainly by being able to print more money). You can hold a gun to a 2+2=4 math problem and demand that it be equal to 5, but it will always be equal to 4, and it's the same with Bitcoin's math.

Eh, people desperately try to tell others to exercise, eat healthy, and do things that make you better off too, because doing those things made them better off, but other people either listen or don't. It's same with bitcoin. Everyone I know who switched to hard, sound money with a good monetary policy became much better off in the end. Everyone who stuck with their easy and manipulated money remained the same or got worse. And just like old folks who don't want to adopt the internet doesn't really affect the internet, people who don't want to adopt new money won't really affect it either.
Although I am not sure if you are trying to imply that "getting richer" is a bad thing?


----------



## TyraWadman (May 9, 2021)

Rassah said:


> One of Bitcoin's greatest innovations is to be able to make something that is both digital and cannot be duplicated like every other digital thing. It's the first time in history that you're able to send something digital to someone else, and guarantee that you will no longer have it yourself. So because of this mathematically guaranteed scarcity no one can make any more of it, not even the richest most powerful people or governments (who historically have been able to amass their wealth and power mainly by being able to print more money). You can hold a gun to a 2+2=4 math problem and demand that it be equal to 5, but it will always be equal to 4, and it's the same with Bitcoin's math.
> 
> Eh, people desperately try to tell others to exercise, eat healthy, and do things that make you better off too, because doing those things made them better off, but other people either listen or don't. It's same with bitcoin. Everyone I know who switched to hard, sound money with a good monetary policy became much better off in the end. Everyone who stuck with their easy and manipulated money remained the same or got worse. And just like old folks who don't want to adopt the internet doesn't really affect the internet, people who don't want to adopt new money won't really affect it either.
> Although I am not sure if you are trying to imply that "getting richer" is a bad thing?



From my understanding, they started as a way to sort of unite the world under one currency and I really liked the sound of that idea. But now, in 2021, you've got more and more people trying to start their own. It's no longer a mission, it's a competition.

Getting wealthier (in my situation) wouldn't be terrible. But the psychological tactics of  a promoting something as good, and then dipping once you've gotten your fill (aka playing the stock market)  is more likely to be the issue than when it first started up. It doesn't make sense to me to promote cryptocurrency if you're still banking your success on the amount of cash you have to spend everywhere else that doesn't accept Bitcoin.

The concept of a digital currency having absolutely no way of being altered sounds very unrealistic to me. Unless I'm just misunderstanding something, it'd be like saying 'we made a safe no robber can break through', but you had to break down the materials in order to get it into that shape, not to mention, you still have to have employees coming and going from that safe every day. Someone had to make it in order to put it there. It doesn't matter how many layers it has, it can still be abused or manipulated in some way. So clearly something can, and will, happen at some point. 

People can hack or develop malware to get into it. People can lose their entire wallet just for not being able to remember their password after x amount of times. That wouldn't go over well with a lot of older folks, I'm sure. If people are desperate enough, they will find a way to exploit it. I guess what I'm trying to say is, same shit, different currency. XD

All in all, this doesn't really affect me 'cause I'm in Canada and nobody uses it over here. But this is just my skepticism on it.


----------



## Rassah (May 10, 2021)

TyraWadman said:


> From my understanding, they started as a way to sort of unite the world under one currency and I really liked the sound of that idea. But now, in 2021, you've got more and more people trying to start their own. It's no longer a mission, it's a competition.
> 
> Getting wealthier (in my situation) wouldn't be terrible. But the psychological tactics of  a promoting something as good, and then dipping once you've gotten your fill (aka playing the stock market)  is more likely to be the issue than when it first started up. It doesn't make sense to me to promote cryptocurrency if you're still banking your success on the amount of cash you have to spend everywhere else that doesn't accept Bitcoin.
> 
> ...



That's still the goal, and one that's closer than ever, to make it be the world's reserve currency. I'm playing with the latest Bitcoin tech now (still in beta but came a long way in the last year), and it let's me send transactions with almost instant settlement and almost zero fees. I can even use it to instantly fund one-time-use VISA cards to buy anything online. Those other competitions have been around since almost the beginning, but they're about as useful as someone making their own dollar bills with green crayons. Or someone making up their "secret language" that no one else knows or uses. It's the same concept. There's still only one main cryptocurrency with the biggest network of users.

Those who end up making money from Bitcoin don't "dip" if you mean "take their profits and run." Bitcoin*is* money. Just keep your savings in it and spend it when you need to. It's going up mainly because more and more people are realizing that it's better money than all alternatives, and dumping their old money to move into it. Some even moving hundreds of millions or billions into it. I guess the point is to not be the last one left holding the old money that by then will be worthless. Earlier you move in, better off you'll be. If you move in late, you'll still be able to use it just fine, but you'd have missed out on the growth. That's why people are trying to get their friends and family into it. They don't want them to miss the growth part.

It's not so much a safe no robber can break through, it's more like a financial policy that was set at the beginning and no one can change or mess with. No rich person, government, bank, or dictator can come in and say "Bitcoin will do this from now on." No one can change the total number of bitcoins that cash exist by just printing more for themselves. No one can say "This country or these people can't spend their bitcoin in this way." It's the most sovereign, uncensorable, apolitical, and thus peaceful and fair currency in existence. Everyone has to use it exactly the same way as everyone else, no one can dictate what it can and can't do, it doesn't depend on any country's political or economic stability, and nobody can capture it for their own benefit like governments have done countless times with their money (from diluting gold coins to printing more paper than there is gold to back it). That's also why it's the most trusted money by those who use it.

The reason it can't be changed our hacked is because it's not a program or a piece of software that just runs on some computer somewhere, but rather a math based language that everyone uses to communicate transactions of value to each other. And it's all based on consensus, meaning everyone has to agree on the terms in that language. You can easily take the code, "hack" it, and change the language to anything you want. It's not even a "hack" really, since it's all open and easily modifiable. But the problem is that if you do that, no other Bitcoin computers will understand you or trust you. They'll just ignore whatever your code says because it doesn't conform to the standard that everyone else uses. And they have a huge incentive to conform, because if they don't, no one else will accept their payments either. The only way to change Bitcoin is to have a supermajority (90%+) agree on that change. And even then there are a lot of economic incentives to prevent such agreements from happening. For instance, you can propose to increase the amount of bitcoin that can exist and make it inflationary, but the majority of people will not want to see their savings go down in value so they will not go along with that change, and your change will just be ignored. So there's really no way to hack or exploit it because there's nothing actually there to exploit. It's just too basic and too distributed.

People can forget their passwords, but they write them down for that reason. Or make backups. Or use custodial services like banks that store their bitcoins for them. More and more banks are coming around to letting you hold bitcoins in your account along with dollars, euros, and other stuff. There are already a number of debit cards that let you spend it anywhere VISA or MasterCard are accepted, and PayPal is rolling out a way to pay with it too. In a few short years you'll be able to use it same as you use Canadian dollars through your bank or credit card. It'll just be another currency available to you. Only difference is that it will not keep falling in value like your current money is, and you'll have the option to take full personal control over it if you want to.


----------



## TyraWadman (May 10, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Those who end up making money from Bitcoin don't "dip" if you mean "take their profits and run." Bitcoin*is* money. Just keep your savings in it and spend it when you need to. It's going up mainly because more and more people are realizing that it's better money than all alternatives, and dumping their old money to move into it. Some even moving hundreds of millions or billions into it. I guess the point is to not be the last one left holding the old money that by then will be worthless. Earlier you move in, better off you'll be. If you move in late, you'll still be able to use it just fine, but you'd have missed out on the growth. That's why people are trying to get their friends and family into it. They don't want them to miss the growth part.



So how do you actually use it then? Is it 1 dollar of any currency for one bitcoin? Do you just load it up how you would buying an online gift certificate? If so, that might be more reasonable. 

But if you have to fork over thousands for just one coin (like I keep hearing it is), it's not gonna help those who are stuck spending 80% of their income on basic living expenses.


----------



## Rassah (May 10, 2021)

TyraWadman said:


> So how do you actually use it then? Is it 1 dollar of any currency for one bitcoin? Do you just load it up how you would buying an online gift certificate? If so, that might be more reasonable.
> 
> But if you have to fork over thousands for just one coin (like I keep hearing it is), it's not gonna help those who are stuck spending 80% of their income on basic living expenses.


Just use it same as any money. Like deciding you don't want to use euros anymore and converting them to dollars. You just keep your money in it and use it to pay for things, such as reloading your VISA card, or paying for things online directly with merchants who support accepting payments in it. Only difference is that, while you need to go through the same banking setup hassle to convert your currency into it using online means, if you just want to set up an account to accept it all you need to do is download a simple wallet app. A lot of people who can't get a bank account use it for that reason.
Sure, the price of a Bitcoin is about $58,000 right now, but since it's divisible to 100 million units, the smallest unit, called satoshi, is worth less than a penny, so you can buy any tiny amount you want. Even a penny worth. Same as a $100 bill is too expensive for most people in the world to obtain, but they can just get $1 or a few cents if they wanted to. And it can definitely help those who spend 80% of their income on basic living expenses. If they convert their income into Bitcoin, they can get good deals spending that money on living expenses (there are places that give you discounts on gift cards you can use for groceries, or as much as 15% off on Amazon purchases, if you use bitcoin), and as the month goes by, the money they have left can just keep growing, versus continuing to fall if they keep in all in dollars.


----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (May 10, 2021)

It’s the reason I hate new graphic cards coz they’re all sold out by people mining.

Whiles I know why some people do it and why it can be good, I still wish all people who do it but buy the new graphic cards making it impossible for people to enjoy it that they trip over, stub their toe and have the sensation of wanting to sneeze but can’t for a full hour.


----------



## MechaMegs (May 10, 2021)

I see some claims that Bitcoin is lower emissions than say Gold mining.
Emissions of Bitcoin vs other things like gold mining
Seems that Bitcoin operations are responsible for more emissions than gold mining annually:




I stand by my initial statement that bitcoin is a digital currency that is yet another capitally driven machination that really on a large scale has the net benefit of adding yet another vector of destruction to the climate.


----------



## Faustus (May 13, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> I see some claims that Bitcoin is lower emissions than say Gold mining.
> Emissions of Bitcoin vs other things like gold mining
> Seems that Bitcoin operations are responsible for more emissions than gold mining annually:


It's worth noting that the disparity in opinions may be because BitCoin, by its nature, is a finite resource. The more that gets mined, the longer it takes to mine the same amount. This translates directly into more energy and more emissions. Gold is of course also a natural resource following the same general rules, but the number of companies with the money, political connections and experience to mine it are limited. Anyone with the space and knowledge to set up a home server can start mining BitCoin, and the outlay is much much lower.

Similarly, the blockchain on which it's based relies on a network of computers performing fancy calculations to track the entire trading history of a bitcoin, every time a transaction occurs. This would mean that there would continue to be a steady increase in computational needs to maintain the currency, even after the last bitcoin ever was mined, because those trading histories will only get longer and more complicated to process.

Now, I don't have historic data to back this up, but logically speaking, this could mean that the CO2 cost of BitCoin accelerates dramatically, maybe even exponentially, over time. It's likely that at one time BitCoin WAS less impactful than gold mining, though I don't have the data to show when exactly that would have been. Any way you look at it though, it doesn't seem to be an ecologically or financially sustainable model, and sooner or later the needs of the system as a whole will become more expensive to operate than the profit they create. When that happens, I'd expect a massive market crash, and a bunch of people will be left holding a worthless currency.


----------



## Rassah (May 13, 2021)

Jackpot Raccuki said:


> It’s the reason I hate new graphic cards coz they’re all sold out by people mining.


Bitcoin has nothing to do with graphics cards. You can't mine Bitcoin with graphics cards. It's all the copycat and scam coins that use those.


----------



## Rassah (May 13, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> I see some claims that Bitcoin is lower emissions than say Gold mining.
> Emissions of Bitcoin vs other things like gold mining
> Seems that Bitcoin operations are responsible for more emissions than gold mining annually:
> View attachment 109630
> ...



Nope, it's less than gold mining, by a lot.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1392606182422900739Worse, your source digiconomist is the source for a lot of Bitcoin energy use claims, and it's been debunked years ago https://medium.com/crescofin/the-reports-of-bitcoin-environmental-damage-are-garbage-5a93d32c2d7
So your initial statement is based on flawed data, and also ignores the massive problems caused by the current system that Bitcoin is aiming to fix. Like, for example, do you think one trillion dollars worth of energy and resources is a lot to waste? How about two trillion? That's what our US military did when it just "lost" that money on accounting errors. Did anyone who is concerned about energy even peep about it? Not really. But that's exactly what bitcoin will solve.



Faustus said:


> It's worth noting that the disparity in opinions may be because BitCoin, by its nature, is a finite resource. The more that gets mined, the longer it takes to mine the same amount. This translates directly into more energy and more emissions.


That's not how that works. The amount of bitcoin mined has nothing to do with how long it takes to mine or how much energy it uses. Mining isn't even done to create bitcoin, it's done to secure a financial network. We now spend $2 billion to secure a $1 trillion financial network, which is a pretty good deal. The new coins, along with transaction fees, just goes to pay those miners for the work of verifying transactions and securing the network. When all bitcoins have been mined, miners will still exist, continuing to mine in exchange for those transaction fees. The only reason bitcoin uses more and more energy is because the network is more and more valuable. But that doesn't translate into more emissions either, because bitcoin tries to find the cheapest energy available, so it's pretty much always just waste energy we would've thrown away anyway. Like unused hydro power, or geothermal, or even vented gas at oil drill sites, which is generated but then just thrown away. So if bitcoin was to suddenly disappear, all that energy use would still be there. It would just be dumped and thrown away.



Faustus said:


> Anyone with the space and knowledge to set up a home server can start mining BitCoin, and the outlay is much much lower.



You need at least $10,000 for just one specialized mining commuter, and a very good deal on electricity to just break even. Current average electricity prices for home use are $0.13 per kWh. Bitcoin miners are using electricity that costs $0.03 or less. So if you actually wanted to mine Bitcoin and make any money, you would need knowledge, at least $50,000 in equipment plus equipment to hook it up, monitor it (those miners have to be connected to a regular server with a good internet connection), equipment to cool it, and a space that will let you store it and provide you with very cheap source of electricity, which would probably cost you another $50,000 to lease for a year. Plus ongoing costs of electricity, internet, and someone to keep an eye on it. In other words it's a very competitive and pricey business that not just anyone can start in their homes.




Faustus said:


> This would mean that there would continue to be a steady increase in computational needs to maintain the currency, even after the last bitcoin ever was mined, because those trading histories will only get longer and more complicated to process.


It doesn't take any extra computational power to process a more recent transaction than it does an older one. Actually processing transactions takes almost no computational power whatsoever. My Raspberry Pi can process a block of 3000 of them in a second or less. They're specifically designed to be easy and cheap to process. The history takes some time to process just to verify that it's correct, but you only need to do that once when you're setting up a server for the first time. And if you have a copy of the transaction history that you already trust, you don't even need to do that. Once you're done, you already know all the balances on all the addresses, so processing a transaction just means verifying a signature from one address to another, which is almost instant. The history of the transaction no longer meters because you already verified it up to the present point, and you can even discard that history if you need to free up storage. The heavy processing power is only for signing and time stamping "blocks" of transactions to make sure past transactions can't be messed with. The computational power to do that has nothing to do with the number of transactions or how long the Bitcoin network existed. That power is just based on the total number of miners looking for these block signatures. The more people mining, the higher the processing power needed. Less people mining, less processing power needed. That's it.



Faustus said:


> Now, I don't have historic data to back this up, but logically speaking, this could mean that the CO2 cost of BitCoin accelerates dramatically, maybe even exponentially, over time. It's likely that at one time BitCoin WAS less impactful than gold mining, though I don't have the data to show when exactly that would have been.


Bitcoin is still less impactful than gold mining. Check the data in my previous post. And it's not much of an impact on CO2.



Faustus said:


> Any way you look at it though, it doesn't seem to be an ecologically or financially sustainable model, and sooner or later the needs of the system as a whole will become more expensive to operate than the profit they create.


This is where that mining power difficulty adjustment based on number of people mining comes in. That adjustment is based on a target goal of someone mining a block every ten minutes. If lots of people start mining, they will find blocks faster, and two weeks later the Bitcoin system will look back, see that blocks are found an average of less than every 10 minutes, and make mining more difficult. Let's say this makes the cost of electricity to mine a block too high and unprofitable, and a bunch of miners pull out. When they do, there will be less mining power finding blocks and blocks will be more rare. Two weeks later the system will look back and see that on average it took more than 10 minutes to find a block, and lower the mining difficulty. That will make Bitcoin more profitable again. Thanks to this automatic adjustment it will never be unprofitable to mine Bitcoin, but that also means it can never be too profitable, other than during short periods when the price spikes. Long term, Bitcoin automatically keeps mining profits close to zero. It's a system that is self regulating that can never fail as long as people find use in having money that no one can inflate, control, or censor.

If of anyone is going to continue to use any sources based on digiconomist, then you might as well pretend that we're all dead zombies already 








						Bitcoin Could Use Up All of the World's Energy by 2020
					

Projections suggest bitcoin mining will require all of the world's current energy production within three years.




					www.newsweek.com
				




And don't worry, just like with a zombie apocalypse, there's nothing you can do to stop it anyway.


----------



## Fallowfox (May 14, 2021)

Raever said:


> They might mean the Economy...?
> It could've been a mistake in wording.
> But hell if I know lol.



75% of the world's Bitcoin is mined by servers in China, fuelled mostly by coal. 

The emissions of Bitcoin have grown rapidly in recent years and will soon eclipse the carbon foot print of Egypt- a nation of 100m people. 
This was the reason Elon Musk's company Tesla recently gave for refusing to sell their cars in Bitcoin.

(although it's hard to believe Tesla was not already aware of this environmental issue; they may simply be cynically manipulating the price for their own purposes. The value of Bitcoins declined 10% after Tesla's announcement. Musk has previously been accused of price manipulation in other areas of business. If you manipulate the price of regular companies, there is potential jail time- but there isn't a structure to prevent people doing that to cryptocurrency values)


----------



## creamyfox (May 14, 2021)

some people buy and sell bitcoin without thinking about it. it's just like... a gamble? people lose lots of money.

i read a person's e-mail address got hacked and the hackers stole 131.000 dollars on binance. that equals more than 1 million lira in my country. (a teacher's salary is about 5.000 lira)

people should be careful.


----------



## Raever (May 14, 2021)

This entire thread feels a little weird to me. I don't know if it was supposed to come off as curious or judgmental - based on some of the replies.


----------



## TyraWadman (May 14, 2021)

Raever said:


> This entire thread feels a little weird to me. I don't know if it was supposed to come off as curious or judgmental - based on some of the replies.


For real.

"I'm confused and am asking questions"
"Here is a general statement that answers none of my questions"
" Well that doesn't make me feel confident in the product at all, or how I'm supposed to benefit from having it. I think I'll put my time and money elsewhere"
*Insert defensive snark about how we're missing out on securing our future*

This is what I typically find on any thread revolving around any kind of cryptocurrency and I hate it.


----------



## Raever (May 14, 2021)

TyraWadman said:


> For real.
> 
> "I'm confused and am asking questions"
> "Here is a general statement that answers none of my questions"
> ...



I agree. 

I'm all for loving technology and being proud of something, and even wanting to share that knowledge with another...but judging someone for choosing to avoid it is kinda whack yo.  

Example: I'm a HUGE PC fan, and find consoles to be arguably less useful overall unless circumstances demand otherwise (ex. Someone enjoys them more by default or for nostalgia, someone wants the short term cheaper product, someone wants exclusives, someone supports the consoles company heavily, etc). Almost all of my friends play on console primarily. I don't tell them about why they should change to PC, or judge them for choosing what they're comfortable with. I just offer to buy them steam games if I want to play something with them, and ask them about streaming certain exclusives that I'm not able to play so I can enjoy it with them. 

Obviously this isn't the same as a currency system. But the respect should be the same in the end. Let people do as they like, answer questions if they have them (preferably with sources), and then move on ~


----------



## Rassah (May 15, 2021)

On Bitcoin's energy use https://mises.org/wire/critics-claim-bitcoin-threat-environment-theyre-wrong
@TyraWadman and @Raever  hopefully this helps add to the reasons you would benefit from it (Do you want to save energy? Want to stop wars and wasteful spending? It's a bit bigger of an impact than just how convenient it is to play videogames.)


----------



## MechaMegs (May 16, 2021)

digital currency would stop wars and wasteful spending? That sounds like a load of malarky not gonna lie. Like telling people to put their money into a digital currency that at the drop of a word from Elon Musk tanks 10k per unit is capable of such things feels negligent.


----------



## Rassah (May 17, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> digital currency would stop wars and wasteful spending? That sounds like a load of malarky not gonna lie. Like telling people to put their money into a digital currency that at the drop of a word from Elon Musk tanks 10k per unit is capable of such things feels negligent.


The drop happened because it's still small and because there were a lot of leveraged buys that got wiped out in what's called a long squeeze (it's like the opposite of a short squeeze, where a leveraged buy is forced to be liquidated and bitcoins are sold to cover the leverage, causing the price to go down, causing other leveraged buys to get liquidated, etc. Look it up). Musk lowered the price a bit, enough to trigger it, but the long squeeze was what dropped it. This is still part of growing pains of adoption, but is taking more and more to do. For example this time it took someone with over a billion in bitcoin to cause it, which btw he said he's not selling. And once bitcoin takes over as a reserve currency (sounds crazy but it's inevitable for a number of reasons) no one will dump it because what would you dump it into? Actually come next year once USD starts to inflate a lot and cause havoc in the stock market, institutional investors may not have anywhere to go BUT Bitcoin.

Regarding wars and wasteful spending, the only way US can afford to wage wars is because it can keep printing money to. That's it. If we had to pay for all the wars and military spending through taxes, US would have gone bankrupt as far back as WW2, if not WW1. Wars that all modern countries wage are only possible to fund through inflation. If (when) people switch to deflationary Bitcoin that no government can control or print, no government will be able to conjure money out of thin air to keep funding wars. If our government wants to get us involved in a war, it would have to convince us why we want to be in it and convince us to raise our taxes to pay for it.
Wasteful spending I think I explained earlier. If you have a company that burns energy and resources and just loses you money, say 2% a year, you wouldn't invest in it because it's obviously a bad investment. But if the money inflation is at 3%, meaning your cash is losing 3% a year, suddenly that 2% loss seems good, since your investment looks like it's getting you a 1% return by staying ahead of inflation. So investors and businesses invest in these companies that waste energy and destroy our environment producing things people don't need, only because of inflationary USD. And that's just the tip of it. Military wasteful spending, people buying cheap garbage from China just because their money is losing value and they want to get rid of us, the WHOLE consumerist culture where we don't save and even go into debt to buy more and more crap, all of that is caused by dollar (and other government currency) inflation. A deflationary currency fixes all that. And Bitcoin is the best option we have.
Elon is the one who is being negligent, spreading misinformation about Bitcoins' energy use, manipulating the market, and convincing people to invest in a cryptocurrency that is actually designed not to work and always be useless, since it was designed as a joke from the beginning (Doge). But Bitcoin won't care. The dip is temporary, like they all have been. Real money that's in Bitcoin (other billionaires and institutional funds who understand it) don't give a crap what he thinks because they know he's wrong.


----------



## MechaMegs (May 17, 2021)

if all of these issues stem from a capitalistic venue than why not just be rid of all of it? get rid of currency and see where we go instead of just playing a shell game from one currency to the next especially when the proposed next is one that the overly wealthy could play into and manipulate and harm the smaller investors much like they do with the stock market.

Like tbh at the core of it all bit coin and digital currency is just another stock market really money pooled into one tank that increases the value of the represented piece that can then tank down when people pull their own money out of it.


----------



## Rassah (May 17, 2021)

Regarding


Fallowfox said:


> 75% of the world's Bitcoin is mined by servers in China, fuelled mostly by coal.


FALSE.
Less than 40% of Bitcoin is mined in China, fueled by excess hydro power that those power stations can't get rid of. China built hydro stations way out in the middle of nowhere thinking people will move there, but they didn't, and it's too inefficient to transmit that power over long distances where it's actually needed. But Bitcoin miners can set up shop nearby and use that power that would otherwise go to waste. It's estimated that about 75% of Bitcoin mining uses green or "excess" energy that gets generated and thrown away (I can find sources, but my main one is that I know a lot of these big miners in China and around the world personally).



Fallowfox said:


> The emissions of Bitcoin have grown rapidly in recent years and will soon eclipse the carbon foot print of Egypt- a nation of 100m people.
> This was the reason Elon Musk's company Tesla recently gave for refusing to sell their cars in Bitcoin.



FALSE. Emissions from Bitcoin are negligible, and since they use green or excess energy, of Bitcoin were to disappear, emissions wouldn't even change. The estimates for emissions ALL come from a single guy, Alex de Vries, who put together a site called Doginomics, but he's not an economist, knows nothing about power or electric grids, apparently doesn't know how Bitcoin works exactly, most of his numbers are based on guesses that are completely BONKERS (based on his figures Bitcoin will use ALL of the world's energy by 2020... which didn't happen), and he actually lies by claiming his research is sourced and verified by third parties, but when you go to those third parties you find out that they're just articles written based on HIS OWN false data.
Elon used this wrong information for his reason because Elon doesn't understand or know any better. But he also said he's not selling any of the bitcoin he's got and will accept it again once it's more energy efficient. It is more energy efficient, and new innovations like Bitcoin's Lightning Network make it way way more energy efficient still.



Fallowfox said:


> (although it's hard to believe Tesla was not already aware of this environmental issue;


It's very likely. Tesla is in the business of getting Green Energy tax credits and reselling them to other car manufacturers like Chrysler who use them for tax deductions, which pretends to be a car company (without those credits Tesla has never been profitable). He's not in the business of crypto or anything related to it, so it's not surprising he wouldn't know. He even thinks Doge is a better alternative, which is just nuts.




Fallowfox said:


> Musk has previously been accused of price manipulation in other areas of business. If you manipulate the price of regular companies, there is potential jail time- but there isn't a structure to prevent people doing that to cryptocurrency values)


There is. Cryptocurrency is treated like a security by US, so the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) can come after him for this. They already issued him warnings for other similar shenanigans. But I think his bigger issue may be people coming up to him at exclusive parties - people who run funds and banks that have invested billions into Bitcoin - who may be giving him a "stern warning" to knock it off.


----------



## Rassah (May 17, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> if all of these issues stem from a capitalistic venue than why not just be rid of all of it? get rid of currency and see where we go instead of just playing a shell game from one currency to the next especially when the proposed next is one that the overly wealthy could play into and manipulate and harm the smaller investors much like they do with the stock market.
> 
> Like tbh at the core of it all bit coin and digital currency is just another stock market really money pooled into one tank that increases the value of the represented piece that can then tank down when people pull their own money out of it.


These issues stem from a "people need to trade things and need a reliable measure of value" venue. We used gold as a universal and reliable measure of value, but then governments took it and gave us paper they claimed was backed by it, and eventually the power to just make more money to pay for whatever they want became too enticing, so they dropped the gold backing. But we need currency because we need to be able to measure value, just like we need units of length, weight, and temperature to measure those things. Economies, trade, and production itself can't exists without it.
Bitcoin is the first one in history that can't be changed or manipulated because it's secured by math. So it's the first unit of measure of value that can be used reliably by anyone in the world without worry that some big government or big bank will take it over and screw with it for their own benefit at your expense.
It will take a while for it to grow to where it becomes the main money, mainly because it's taking a while to convince people why it's a better money. Especially in countries like US and Europe where we're VERY priviliged to have somewhat stable currency and a modern financial system (though those are also getting closer and closer to failure). But it's happening inevitably bit by bit. And once it gets there, what will people pull their money out of Bitcoin into? Something that depends entirely on your corrupt government's whims that's rapidly losing money to hyperinflation?

Oh, also there's no "next one" when it comes to cryptocurrency. Bitcoin is like the internet, a decentralized protocol network that's also completely open source. There's no reason to have a next one just like there's no reason to have a next internet. If you have an improvement that is sufficiently good that everyone will want to adopt it, just add it to Bitcoin itself, just like we make improvements to internet itself instead of creating a whole new one.

And regarding negligence, I wonder who was more negligent, me who understands the how and why of Bitcoin telling people here to invest in and move their money into it when it was $100 or less years ago? Or Fallow and others telling people that it's a stupid idea that is just a ponzi scheme or fake money that will crash to zero any time now even though they don't understand it or anything about it? How many people missed out on and lost possibly life changing opportunities because someone who knows nothing about it gave their ignorant opinion on it?


----------



## MechaMegs (May 17, 2021)

Get rid of the capital system and it is all worthless anyway. Then there would be no worry about this digital funny money that is just as flawed as any other currency outside of actual coin of physical value and use or material products for trade in general.

A society less inclined to be driven by monetary gain, not entirely inclined because resources are still a thing regardless, but at least the dollar sign is gone, is in reality the one that draws closer to one less inclined to waste and war. The path isnt to reinforce capital but to be against it or to be ancap for short hand really.


----------



## Rassah (May 17, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> Get rid of the capital system and it is all worthless anyway. Then there would be no worry about this digital funny money that is just as flawed as any other currency outside of actual coin of physical value and use or material products for trade in general.
> 
> A society less inclined to be driven by monetary gain, not entirely inclined because resources are still a thing regardless, but at least the dollar sign is gone, is in reality the one that draws closer to one less inclined to waste and war. The path isnt to reinforce capital but to be against it or to be ancap for short hand really.


You can't get rid of the capital system because it's based on people having the freedom to own and trade things. No matter how much you try to restrict them or force them to give things up, they will always fight to regain their freedom and keep their possessions. And even if you succeed, that still won't make things worthless, since people will always value certain things more than others and be willing to trade things they value less for things they value more.

A society that isn't driven by monetary gain and avoids the use of money is always much more wasteful because it has no means by which to even measure waste and efficiency. For instance, say you're a factory that makes socks. For each pair of socks you have 50¢ worth of electricity, 25¢ worth of cotton and materials, and 25¢ worth of labor, which comes up to $1 for a pair of socks. And since people are willing to pay $1.10 for a pair, you know your company is providing 10¢ worth of value for your community (trusted brand, convenience, or whatever). You also know that you are spending exactly 50¢ on energy and 25¢ on materials. Now let's say you decide to use a less efficient source of energy that drives up the cost of electricity to 70¢, or you decide to use fancier more resource intense-to-procure cotton (maybe shipped from overseas) that costs 45¢. Your socks now cost $1.20 worth of energy/resources to produce. But people feel that $1.20, or even $1.30 if you include your cut, is too expensive for a pair of socks, because they would rather spend that extra money on something they value more, so they don't buy the pricier socks and only buy the old $1.10 version. That tells you that the extra energy/material is wasting resources because people don't want it.
Or let's say you're making those same normal socks, and you find a way to use your electricity more efficiently where it costs you 45¢ of electricity instead of 50¢ to produce the same socks. Now you can have fewer costs go into making socks, and either earn more money, or sell them for 5¢ less, since you're making them with a more efficient method.

Now imagine all money and ways to measure things went away. How would you know how much energy and resources you're using? You wouldn't. How would you know that the fancier more expensive socks are a waste of resources? You wouldn't. And in fact without price people will only want the fancier socks - the fancier the better - since they don't know what the energy costs are. So this system would waste more and more energy and resources, not knowing that it's a waste. And how will you know that your production method is more efficient and that it's actually worth it? Sure you can measure watts, but how do you measure which material is more efficient to use? And if using less electricity results in lower quality, how would you know if the tradeoff is worth it? Worse, if there are no prices or costs, why would you even bother trying to be more efficient? Without price and profit motive, where the more efficient you make something the more you earn, there's no incentive to be more efficient at all. This is what's called the "Economic Calculation Problem." And, incidentally, USSR was a society not driven by monetary gain, where profit was illegal and all prices were determined by government planners and based on people's needs rather than markets, and it was the most wasteful, polluting, and warring country in the last century.

To add to this, say you calculate the cost of electricity to be 50¢ and cost of materials to be 25¢, but then the central bank issuing the money you use for calculations prints a bunch more, where the value of money suddenly drops. Now your electricity use and materials went up to 60¢ and 30¢. But is this because your production became less efficient? Did your electricity provider break something at their power plant or your cotton provider started using less efficient delivery methods? Or is it just inflation? You don't know. This kind of money manipulation really distorts the markets and makes measures of efficiency and cost difficult to track. Great big example of that was the 2008 housing boom, where companies wasted BILLIONS of materials and energy building new houses, thinking they were using resources efficiently for things people wanted, only to have the market come crashing down and all those projects become abandoned or even unfinished, all because the money printing for the years before distorted the market, making housing look better than it actually was. This act of controlling and expanding the money supply is like trying to build a house while someone keeps changing and increasing the size of an inch. It's difficult at the least.
This is what bitcoin fixes by providing a stable (in quantity) and impossible to manipulate unit of measure for value. You know that when you measure some value relative to bitcoin, the amount of bitcoin will be fixed and unchanging. Once bitcoin is adopted by the whole economy, the only change in its value is relative to the economy growing as a whole, which is much easier to predict and calculate. Things like the housing bubble would be impossible, since there will be no unknown distortions in the money supply.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 17, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> Get rid of the capital system and it is all worthless anyway. Then there would be no worry about this digital funny money that is just as flawed as any other currency outside of actual coin of physical value and use or material products for trade in general.
> 
> A society less inclined to be driven by monetary gain, not entirely inclined because resources are still a thing regardless, but at least the dollar sign is gone, is in reality the one that draws closer to one less inclined to waste and war. The path isnt to reinforce capital but to be against it or to be ancap for short hand really.


How are you going to measure the value of something if you get rid of the capital system? What are you going to replace the system with?


----------



## Rassah (May 17, 2021)

Remember that the anti-bitcoin crowd is openly advocating for the continued suffering of hundreds of millions of people around the world. Check your financial privilige.



			Check Your Financial Privilege | Bitcoin Magazine - Bitcoin News, Articles and Expert Insights


----------



## Fallowfox (May 17, 2021)

This thread is silly.

Apparently it's also causing people I have on my block-list to try to contact me in order to advocate bitcoins to me. .-.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (May 18, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> This thread is silly.
> 
> Apparently it's also causing people I have on my block-list to try to contact me in order to advocate bitcoins to me. .-.



It's only silly because you don't like bitcoin (or any cryptocurrency for that matter) and your rebuttals to its validity and merit as an alternative currency suck.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (May 18, 2021)

Just wanted to pose two questions because I'm curiosity what the response will be and haven't seen them answered.

1. If cryptocurrencies issued and sustained by private institutions and groups are somewhat successful, what is to stop public institutions like the central banks of governments from creating their own cryptocurrencies, which would presumably be stronger since they could very well be backed by the full faith and current of the issuing government, be considered legal tender, and have the advantage of benefiting from governments' ability to invest more in cryptocurrency infrastructure for its own cryptocurrency?

2. What are sound plans for mitigating investment risk as more governments seek to ban or regulate cryptocurrencies? (For example, India is about to draft a major bill that could negatively affect Bitcoin and other currencies.)


----------



## MechaMegs (May 18, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Just wanted to pose two questions because I'm curiosity what the response will be and haven't seen them answered.
> 
> 1. If cryptocurrencies issued and sustained by private institutions and groups are somewhat successful, what is to stop public institutions like the central banks of governments from creating their own cryptocurrencies, which would presumably be stronger since they could very well be backed by the full faith and current of the issuing government, be considered legal tender, and have the advantage of benefiting from governments' ability to invest more in cryptocurrency infrastructure for its own cryptocurrency?
> 
> 2. What are sound plans for mitigating investment risk as more governments seek to ban or regulate cryptocurrencies? (For example, India is about to draft a major bill that could negatively affect Bitcoin and other currencies.)


or what is to stop an entire government from pouring a chunk of its money into the coin to effectively have control over its value.
they could inflate and deflate it at a whim much like the overly largess of the rich already can and do, but on an even larger scale depending on the country.


Yakamaru said:


> How are you going to measure the value of something if you get rid of the capital system? What are you going to replace the system with?



How did people measure the value of things prior to currency? Ape didn't turn upright and pull drachme from the dirt it is a concept that just wound up being backed by the powers over the people. We don't need capital to survive. Humans are social creatures that are capable of supporting eachother without any gain needed to force it. we live together in group//village we protect eachother we survive with eachother one gets fish another pig some crops, together those who can defend from wolf and mountain cat. currency isnt needed a concept isnt needed value is in everything and the coin just makes it seem more valuable by slapping an arbitrary number to it and generating commoditization. Without that what incentive is there for waste and such what are you chasing for by stripping the earth of its resources and polluting its airs?


----------



## TyraWadman (May 18, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> or what is to stop an entire government from pouring a chunk of its money into the coin to effectively have control over its value.
> they could inflate and deflate it at a whim much like the overly largess of the rich already can and do, but on an even larger scale depending on the country.
> 
> 
> How did people measure the value of things prior to currency? Ape didn't turn upright and pull drachme from the dirt it is a concept that just wound up being backed by the powers over the people. We don't need capital to survive. Humans are social creatures that are capable of supporting eachother without any gain needed to force it. we live together in group//village we protect eachother we survive with eachother one gets fish another pig some crops, together those who can defend from wolf and mountain cat. currency isnt needed a concept isnt needed value is in everything and the coin just makes it seem more valuable by slapping an arbitrary number to it and generating commoditization. Without that what incentive is there for waste and such what are you chasing for by stripping the earth of its resources and polluting its airs?


I would prefer not to have to fetch 1000 pelts for a computer. So I don't mind currency.

 Its just the greed, and the fact that no matter what form it takes or how hard you try to regulate, greed will continue to adapt, which is why the whole save the world statement seems like a joke to me. 

People have started wars over less. People will do just as much damage to gain a virtual currency.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 18, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> How did people measure the value of things prior to currency? Ape didn't turn upright and pull drachme from the dirt it is a concept that just wound up being backed by the powers over the people. We don't need capital to survive. Humans are social creatures that are capable of supporting eachother without any gain needed to force it. we live together in group//village we protect eachother we survive with eachother one gets fish another pig some crops, together those who can defend from wolf and mountain cat. currency isnt needed a concept isnt needed value is in everything and the coin just makes it seem more valuable by slapping an arbitrary number to it and generating commoditization. Without that what incentive is there for waste and such what are you chasing for by stripping the earth of its resources and polluting its airs?


I'm fairly sure I am using plain, easy-to-understand English, using simple questions. Can I take this reply of yours as "I haven't the faintest idea"?


----------



## Fallowfox (May 18, 2021)

ASTA said:


> It's only silly because you don't like bitcoin (or any cryptocurrency for that matter) and your rebuttals to its validity and merit as an alternative currency suck.



I actually think it's silly because people are having a _genuine debate_ about 'getting rid of the capital system' whatever _that_ means.

As for the idea that my comments are a 'rebuttal to bitcoin's validity,'

I've made only two comments in the thread,
and they both come from sources which are neutral towards the merit of cryptocurrencies:

-That hyperlinks to child pornography had been included as arbitrary data in the blockchain.








						A Quantitative Analysis of the Impact of Arbitrary Blockchain Content on Bitcoin
					

Blockchains primarily enable credible accounting of digital events, e.g., money transfers in cryptocurrencies. However, beyond this original purpose, blockchains also irrevocably record arbitrary data, ranging from short messages to pictures. This does not come...




					link.springer.com
				




-75% of bitcoin 'hashing power' is concentrated in China, a major portion of which is currently supported by coal.
This was sourced from a recent paper published in Nature:








						Policy assessments for the carbon emission flows and sustainability of Bitcoin blockchain operation in China - Nature Communications
					

The growing energy consumption and carbon emissions of Bitcoin mining could potentially undermine global sustainability efforts. Here, the authors show the annual energy consumption of the Bitcoin blockchain in China is expected to peak in 2024 at 296.59 Twh and generate 130.50 million metric...




					www.nature.com


----------



## Rassah (May 18, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Just wanted to pose two questions because I'm curiosity what the response will be and haven't seen them answered.
> 
> 1. If cryptocurrencies issued and sustained by private institutions and groups are somewhat successful, what is to stop public institutions like the central banks of governments from creating their own cryptocurrencies, which would presumably be stronger since they could very well be backed by the full faith and current of the issuing government, be considered legal tender, and have the advantage of benefiting from governments' ability to invest more in cryptocurrency infrastructure for its own cryptocurrency?



That would be a threat. A government or a private institution issuing its own currency and promising to never inflate it no matter what, never mess with its interest rates, never manipulate its value, and never restrict or censor its users from sending it to whomever they want in the world, would be a legitimate threat to bitcoin and would very likely kill it. But governments have never been able to hold such a promise because printing and inflating money for their own benefit has always been impossible for powerful people to resist. And, since they have thousands of years of such history, even if they make such a currency and make that promise it's unlikely people will believe them that "this time they really will keep their word." They don't have to trust anyone for that with bitcoin though. The fact that no one controls it and that it's so globally decentralized and secured is what gives it its value, not someone standing behind it.




Miles Marsalis said:


> 2. What are sound plans for mitigating investment risk as more governments seek to ban or regulate cryptocurrencies? (For example, India is about to draft a major bill that could negatively affect Bitcoin and other currencies.)



It's the same plan that was created from the very beginning. Bitcoin is so decentralized that banning it is logistically impossible. It only takes 250 kilobytes to send a transaction, which lots of different communication mediums can easily handle. If a country bans mining or running Bitcoin nodes, miners will continue to work all over the rest of the world, and nodes can just remain anonymous. And tracking who is using Bitcoin is becoming more and more impossible. Basically for a country like India to ban Bitcoin would be as difficult as them banning Facebook. Only way to really do it is to shut down the internet, which would bring a whole host of other catastrophes, and wouldn't even affect Bitcoin or anyone else in the world. It would be no different from, say, Russia shutting off their internet to punish America.
On the investment side, every time a country banned Bitcoin, its use went way up in that country. Most recently Nigeria hinted at banning Bitcoin last March, and from that its demand in Nigeria shot up so high that it was selling for over $75k there. Streisand Effect + government admitting to people what money gives them the freedom from that government's financial controls.


----------



## Rassah (May 18, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> or what is to stop an entire government from pouring a chunk of its money into the coin to effectively have control over its value.



Good question. For one, most people won't sell it to them in the first place. If an entire government starts to buy it up, that will result in driving the price up, which in turn will get more and more other people to start buying it up and holding it hoping for the price to go even higher. In an extreme situation that would trigger a Bitcoin Speculative Attack on the government's own currency, which would completely wipe it out. This is why governments are afraid of stocking up on Bitcoin even just to get it in reserves in case it does take over. The very action of stocking up reserves to protect against a speculative attack could trigger it.
And...



MechaMegs said:


> they could inflate and deflate it at a whim much like the overly largess of the rich already can and do, but on an even larger scale depending on the country.


Ownership of Bitcoin, no matter how much you own, gives you no control over it whatsoever. You can send and receive it all you want, but just owning even a majority of it doesn't give you the power to block anyone else's transactions (censorship) or to change the monetary policy (inflate and deflate at a whim). That's why it's considered a coin that gives people financial freedom and equality. No one has any advantage when they use it.



MechaMegs said:


> How did people measure the value of things prior to currency? Ape didn't turn upright and pull drachme from the dirt it is a concept that just wound up being backed by the powers over the people.


All value is relative and subjective. Meaning every person values some things more than others. I might value eggs more than milk, and you value milk more than eggs. So I may trade a lot of buckets of milk from my cow for one of your chickens. Eventually this evolved into owing a debt of chickens or milk in trade, and these debts were recorded in writing (clay tablets and papirus). Then it evolved to using a common medium of exchange for such trades, like gold, cowry shells, glass beads, or bags of rice. The medium of exchange had to be something that was difficult to obtain so that no one can just go out and make themselves rich by making a bunch more of that money, and devaluing everyone else's savings in the process. This is why gold became the dominant money: it's very difficult to mine and increase the supply of compared to everything else (and it has other properties of money superior to alternatives). Bitcoin is just the next step in that, which improves on gold by being even more difficult to increase the supply of (actually impossible to increase past 21 million) and making it easy to use in our digital economy.




MechaMegs said:


> We don't need capital to survive. Humans are social creatures that are capable of supporting eachother without any gain needed to force it. we live together in group//village we protect eachother we survive with eachother one gets fish another pig some crops, together those who can defend from wolf and mountain cat.


That survival only allows us to live in very basic and very primitive societies. Civilization requires capital, because it allows us to delay gratification, store up our value, and save for bigger projects in the future. For example, if you lived near a beach you could spend all day fishing by hand or with primitive spears, and just catch what you need, likely working all day to do it. That's what life would be like without capital. But if you delayed yourself food and went a bit hungry each day, stocking up fish for later, you can then spend a day of surviving off that stock while making a fishing net. Then you can catch even more fish every day, stock up more fish and spend a week not fishing but building a boat instead. At that point not only will you have way more fish, but even fish you never had before because it was always far out at sea. The fish that gets stocked up is the capital and the store of value. Money is just another more universal alternative (not everyone wants fish and it doesn't store well). Thanks to capital we went from fishing just to immediately eat, to investing a decade or more to build complex fishing boats that can stay out at very rough sea for days and bringing in more fish that anyone could ever catch by hand, with just a small group doing enough to feed a small country. This long term storing up of capital (savings) is what allows us to plan and invest in big things and what has given us practically everything we use and depend on today, from cars to phones to groceries to houses. Capital is what allows you to have free time at home to post to forums and enjoy furry art, instead of working all day just to barely survive.



MechaMegs said:


> currency isnt needed a concept isnt needed value is in everything and the coin just makes it seem more valuable by slapping an arbitrary number to it


The value of a coin is no more arbitrary than how many chickens you would trade for a cow.



MechaMegs said:


> Without that what incentive is there for waste and such what are you chasing for by stripping the earth of its resources and polluting its airs?


The incentive would be to improve trading efficiency, and to somehow store up value over the long term so we could invest it in making something better. So the incentive would drive us to just create money all over again, just like every human civilization on earth - from Europe to Africa to Asia to ancient Americans - did.

@TyraWadman :"People have started wars over less. People will do just as much damage to gain a virtual currency."

The difference is that to obtain bitcoin they would have no choice but to offer something of equal value in trade. They can't just print it and force it on people like countries do when they take over and force citizens to use their own inflationary money, and they can't just plunder it by invading like they do with plundering gold and taking over banks. Bitcoin, by staying on individuals' encrypted phones, is a lot harder to seize than money controlled by a single government or bank.


----------



## Rassah (May 18, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> I've made only two comments in the thread,
> and they both come from sources which are neutral towards the merit of cryptocurrencies:
> 
> -That hyperlinks to child pornography had been included as arbitrary data in the blockchain.
> ...



Irrelevant. They're not child pornography itself, they're just old links to websites that have been taken down a long time ago, and links to child pornography exist on the internet itself, so... Let's ban the internet?



Fallowfox said:


> -75% of bitcoin 'hashing power' is concentrated in China, a major portion of which is currently supported by coal.
> This was sourced from a recent paper published in Nature:
> 
> 
> ...



Your article doesn't provide anything to support the claim that 75% of Bitcoin mining is in China. It just makes that claim. Which I know for a fact it's false because I know a lot of people in the Bitcoin mining industry (people who raise as much as $250 million in investment to set up these mines). At most only about 40% of Bitcoin is mined in China, especially after China started cracking down on illegal Bitcoin mines that were buying electricity illegally under the table many years ago.

And, your research paper gets ALL of its information about Bitcoin's energy use from other sources, such as this one cited as #13 https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30255-7 which get THEIR information from... That's right, Digiconomist again. Meaning its flawed data that was pulled out of some 20 year old's ass who knows nothing about economics, Bitcoin, and ESPECIALLY not energy industry or china. Your article and its claims are bunk that was debunked years ago by actual energy industry experts and actual researchers right here https://medium.com/crescofin/the-reports-of-bitcoin-environmental-damage-are-garbage-5a93d32c2d7

If you want to know the truth about this energy use nonsense, listen to this guy.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (May 18, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Irrelevant. They're not child pornography itself, they're just old links to websites that have been taken down a long time ago, and links to child pornography exist on the internet itself, so... Let's ban the internet?


I've heard from various colleagues in cybersecurity and law enforcement that it is still a recurring problem, but more concretely, this article was written in 2019, which is far from a long time ago. Putting aside the moral implications, which I would be very slow to do, sensible investors are going to look at other investment vehicles other than cryptocurrencies whose blockchain contains links to illegal content and whose records will need to be potentially amended to remove those links on a regular basis. Bonds, stocks, funds, real estate, and savings accounts don't need to be watched for having links to child pornography.


Rassah said:


> Your article doesn't provide anything to support the claim that 75% of Bitcoin mining is in China. It just makes that claim. Which I know for a fact it's false because I know a lot of people in the Bitcoin mining industry (people who raise as much as $250 million in investment to set up these mines). At most only about 40% of Bitcoin is mined in China, especially after China started cracking down on illegal Bitcoin mines that were buying electricity illegally under the table many years ago.
> 
> And, your research paper gets ALL of its information about Bitcoin's energy use from other sources, such as this one cited as #13 https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30255-7 which get THEIR information from... That's right, Digiconomist again. Meaning its flawed data that was pulled out of some 20 year old's ass who knows nothing about economics, Bitcoin, and ESPECIALLY not energy industry or china. Your article and its claims are bunk that was debunked years ago by actual energy industry experts and actual researchers right here https://medium.com/crescofin/the-reports-of-bitcoin-environmental-damage-are-garbage-5a93d32c2d7
> 
> If you want to know the truth about this energy use nonsense, listen to this guy.


The article Fallow cited contains citations and links detailing the majority of Bitcoin mining is done in China and hard numbers on the coal consumption claim, which tracks since 57% of China's power comes from coal.

You didn't read the article.


----------



## PercyD (May 18, 2021)

Real talk, whenever someone comes at me about bitcoin it feels like an advanced MLM scheme-


----------



## MechaMegs (May 18, 2021)

TyraWadman said:


> I would prefer not to have to fetch 1000 pelts for a computer. So I don't mind currency.
> 
> Its just the greed, and the fact that no matter what form it takes or how hard you try to regulate, greed will continue to adapt, which is why the whole save the world statement seems like a joke to me.
> 
> People have started wars over less. People will do just as much damage to gain a virtual currency.


Why would you need to fetch 1000 pelts?

we should gather what we need to facilitate what we need and live together within that premise. the hunters gather meat and pelts for all the farmers harvest for all  the security defends for all teachers teach for all. its not about building one person or another to excess but to live with each other as we are and within the means as we require.
sure soon as you tie an arbitrary number to things it suddenly gets tainted but if it is within the realm of as we need to survive and no one is above each other and we share our harvests from our skills then it is all good.



Yakamaru said:


> I'm fairly sure I am using plain, easy-to-understand English, using simple questions. Can I take this reply of yours as "I haven't the faintest idea"?



Or you can try thinking beyond an abstract plane of this has a monetary value to it and instead think in the sense of what I am saying with the rhetoric of abolishing capitalism.


----------



## TyraWadman (May 18, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> Why would you need to fetch 1000 pelts?


Because if you get rid of the dollar, someone will put something else in its place. Think boring fetch quests in an MMO. Except YOU have to find a way to do it in real life.

We're not living in an age where we have to go berry-picking for a small family or village of ten. We're talking literal millions. Farmers already get treated like crap, so I wouldn't wish that kind of responsibility on any of them. And nurses? I'd hate to hear how many more people will outright quit because they're not getting paid. There goes anyone on life support/dying alone in a retirement home.

While I agree that not everything is dandy all around the world, and things could definitely be fixed, I enjoy my digital art-making, and I'm not about to drop it just because someone else deems my creative outlet as 'unnecessary'.


----------



## Rassah (May 18, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Sensible investors are going to look at other investment vehicles other than cryptocurrencies whose blockchain contains links to illegal content and whose records will need to be potentially amended to remove those links on a regular basis. Bonds, stocks, funds, real estate, and savings accounts don't need to be watched for having links to child pornography.



Actually that's EXACTLY why sensible investors keep flocking to Bitcoin and will continue to do so. They're looking for something that can't be changed, "cleaned," or in any way controlled by anyone, specifically because they're looking for something that doesn't require them to trust someone to not change it to their detriment. That Bitcoin even has those kind of links and STILL nobody can do a thing about it is the strength of that money, not its weakness.



Miles Marsalis said:


> The article Fallow cited contains citations and links detailing the majority of Bitcoin mining is done in China and hard number on the coal consumption claim, which tracks since 57% of China power comes from coal.
> 
> You didn't read the article.


I skimmed it. I found a ton of numbers that made no sense based on what I know in reality, and claims that were just outright wrong or stupid. So I checked the sources, having suspicions about them. Found out the sources are all based on lies and fraud by some 20-yo kid whom I've known about for many years now. I believe MIT researchers, those who work in the power grid industry, and those who actually work in mining, over the guys who wrote your article who couldn't even be bothered to check if their numbers make sense, and aren't based on someone who uses those who reference HIS OWN WEBSITE as a reference for his claims (highly unethical circular reference).

In case you missed it, read this https://medium.com/crescofin/the-reports-of-bitcoin-environmental-damage-are-garbage-5a93d32c2d7



PercyD said:


> Real talk, whenever someone comes at me about bitcoin it feels like an advanced MLM scheme-



You don't have to convince anyone else to get it. If a bomb is falling and you get into a bomb shelter, you don't get to convince others to get in to benefit from being in that shelter. Bitcoin is the bomb shelter where the bomb is hyperinflation and currency controls. But if you live in a priviliged country it's not for you.



MechaMegs said:


> Or you can try thinking beyond an abstract plane of this has a monetary value to it and instead think in the sense of what I am saying with the rhetoric of abolishing capitalism.


Most people like things like clothes, nutritious food, warm safe housing, modern healthcare, and furry porn. Those don't happen without capitalism, so I doubt you'd convince many people to give it up.


----------



## MechaMegs (May 18, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Most people like things like clothes, nutritious food, warm safe housing, modern healthcare, and furry porn. Those don't happen without capitalism, so I doubt you'd convince many people to give it up.


You think people weren't cared for without monetary incentives? You think art didnt happen without monetary incentives? Housing? Food? Clothes?
Before capitalism these things existed and still advanced. the only thing capitalism has really done is increased the rate at which we wastefully strip resources beyond what is needed and dispose of food that would impact the capital gains if flooded into the market for sale or incentivize wars, etc.

All it has lead to is an acceleration in the decent of the planet being thrown into a climate crisis and this species being blinded by greed to realize that we should drop the pursuit of dollars to fix that.

Heck capitalism even limits and restricts the things you outline and leaves many without even though there are surpluses. like the amount of homeless in America? there are what 4 or 5 houses uninhabited held by banks for every 1 homeless person? The kids who cant afford lunches or food? lets go back to the waste of destroying crops so as to not over supply and hurt the price at sale? Healthcare? good luck if you call an ambulance that is 900 baseline before any care from the emt's on top of the cost for the hospital itself.

Capitalism is a system that rewards the greediest and rewards the destruction of the planet it is realistically one of the worst creations of our species.

And a digital currency wont be fixing that nor will it stop governments from waging their wars either. It like my dream of a non capitalist world is a pipedream that while it may seem fanciful to you wont come to bear the fruit you seem to desire.

And trying to sell it to others as some island to save them is really idk... dangerous? like what if it does tank and someone loses all they put into it and now they cant afford healthcare housing food clothes or anything from the capitalist environment? or if governments divine a method to bar the currency from being useable outside of darkweb transactions?




TyraWadman said:


> Because if you get rid of the dollar, someone will put something else in its place. Think boring fetch quests in an MMO. Except YOU have to find a way to do it in real life.
> 
> We're not living in an age where we have to go berry-picking for a small family or village of ten. We're talking literal millions. Farmers already get treated like crap, so I wouldn't wish that kind of responsibility on any of them. And nurses? I'd hate to hear how many more people will outright quit because they're not getting paid. There goes anyone on life support/dying alone in a retirement home.
> 
> While I agree that not everything is dandy all around the world, and things could definitely be fixed, I enjoy my digital art-making, and I'm not about to drop it just because someone else deems my creative outlet as 'unnecessary'.


It is sad that you feel as though if people where to be afforded a society where they dont have to worry about monetary compensation but instead are able to get what they need that you think they would abandon professions like healthcare and such.


----------



## TyraWadman (May 19, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> It is sad that you feel as though if people where to be afforded a society where they dont have to worry about monetary compensation but instead are able to get what they need that you think they would abandon professions like healthcare and such.


I'm not saying *everyone* would. But there wouldn't be enough to *support* our current population. Heck, we don't even have enough in the medical field as is!


----------



## PercyD (May 19, 2021)

Rassah said:


> You don't have to convince anyone else to get it. If a bomb is falling and you get into a bomb shelter, you don't get to convince others to get in to benefit from being in that shelter. Bitcoin is the bomb shelter where the bomb is hyperinflation and currency controls. But if you live in a priviliged country it's not for you.


Yea, thats the thing. Any time someone tries to sell me something with sensationalism I completely shut down. Trying to frighten me with terms like "hyperinflation" and "currency control" won't work. I have an understanding of how the economy works and how investing works. Don't insult my intelligence. Further, trying to shame me with privileged talk aint it either. I don't know you from Adam, and you don't know me either, so you need to watch your tone.

The whole thing that happened with Gamestop happened because you have to have a hedgefund to really game Wallstreet. You have to have access to traders to really invest in the latest and greatest thing. If you don't have the resources to be agile, you stand to lose ALOT of money. Cryptocurrency is just another one of those things.

If you have a retirement account with hundreds of thousands of dollars saved back, for example, the only way to insulate yourself from inflation are trusted commodities like gold or silver. The only thing is, you already have to have a large sum of cash to invest in things like precious metals- they don't make you money, they just protect you from inflation. Cryptocurrency just aint it. And it also requires a lot of people to buy into its value in order for it to have value. Thats how currency works. 

Any way. The language people use to talk about it, it has the same context as an MLM. And I don't like it.


----------



## MechaMegs (May 19, 2021)

TyraWadman said:


> I'm not saying *everyone* would. But there wouldn't be enough to *support* our current population. Heck, we don't even have enough in the medical field as is!


and there are plenty people out there who would like to be in the medical field but are barred from it due to the shackles of capital preventing them from being able to get their foot into even pursuing the knowledge to become a member of the medical field.
Capital isnt a freeing mechanism it is an imprisoning one that holds people back and withholds what people need in order to live as I had outlined in my previous post here.


----------



## TyraWadman (May 19, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> and there are plenty people out there who would like to be in the medical field but are barred from it due to the shackles of capital preventing them from being able to get their foot into even pursuing the knowledge to become a member of the medical field.
> Capital isnt a freeing mechanism it is an imprisoning one that holds people back and withholds what people need in order to live as I had outlined in my previous post here.



Just because someone volunteers doesn't mean they'll be qualified.

I don't see Capital as the problem, whereas the rules and laws surrounding it are. But that would be treading into politics methinks so I'll avoid that discussion.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 19, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> Or you can try thinking beyond an abstract plane of this has a monetary value to it and instead think in the sense of what I am saying with the rhetoric of abolishing capitalism.


How are you going to be able to pay or compensate the farmer for the produce he makes without a universal currency? How are you going to be able to compensate the manufacturer for spending their time manufacturing goods?


----------



## ConorHyena (May 19, 2021)

I feel like Bitcoin is proof that hyperdeflation is as problematic as hyperinflation.

other than that


----------



## MechaMegs (May 19, 2021)

Yakamaru said:


> How are you going to be able to pay or compensate the farmer for the produce he makes without a universal currency? How are you going to be able to compensate the manufacturer for spending their time manufacturing goods?


same as how you'd pay those who provide protection or those who heal or those who build or teach and everyone else as I have stated prior... they get to partake in the yields of the others. you dont need a currency you just need to de-incentivize greed which is really a problem that gets magnified by capitalism and currency.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (May 19, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Actually that's EXACTLY why sensible investors keep flocking to Bitcoin and will continue to do so. They're looking for something that can't be changed, "cleaned," or in any way controlled by anyone, specifically because they're looking for something that doesn't require them to trust someone to not change it to their detriment. That Bitcoin even has those kind of links and STILL nobody can do a thing about it is the strength of that money, not its weakness.


I feel that is debatable since investors and researchers have already been exploring ways to excise the links from the blockchain ledger or using altered copies for verification, since they probably would rather not use a cryptocurrency backed by blockchain that contain links to active child pornography sites. 


Rassah said:


> I skimmed it. I found a ton of numbers that made no sense based on what I know in reality, and claims that were just outright wrong or stupid. So I checked the sources, having suspicions about them. Found out the sources are all based on lies and fraud by some 20-yo kid whom I've known about for many years now. I believe MIT researchers, those who work in the power grid industry, and those who actually work in mining, over the guys who wrote your article who couldn't even be bothered to check if their numbers make sense, and aren't based on someone who uses those who reference HIS OWN WEBSITE as a reference for his claims (highly unethical circular reference).
> 
> In case you missed it, read this https://medium.com/crescofin/the-reports-of-bitcoin-environmental-damage-are-garbage-5a93d32c2d7


Reading is fundamental, Rassah.

I don't know where you are pulling that the authors are cites themselves and or faulty evidence, because the paper specifically other academic papers but more importantly the statistics on btc.com and you can trace the disclosures by the utility companies where the mining pools are located. It is widely accepted that at least 75% of all Bitcoin mining is done in China and that 57% of the country's power comes from coal. (It should also be noted that a crackdown on cryptocurrencies in China would deal a serious blow to cryptocurrencies worldwide, particularly to Bitcoin.) Furthermore, the mining pool locations correspond with rural areas that use coal power to fuel their operations.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (May 19, 2021)

I also asked about risk of government crackdowns and bans on cryptocurrencies because I saw this coming down the pipeline, which I'm sure you did too, given your suddenly revived interest in promoting Bitcoin here and experience in the industry. 

This certainly can't bode well for Bitcoin.


----------



## MechaMegs (May 19, 2021)

Really if you think about it those who try to push others into bitcoin are akin to those who run pyramid schemes.
Like here I am with my bitcoins
'Oh hello my young chap would you like to be wealthy etc etc etc?'
~Young chap listening in~
'Then get bit coin, tut tut tut'
~young chap gets into bitcoin, person already with bitcoin increases their own wealth through that. Young chap now needs more people to get into bitcoin before their wealth increases now~

So much like a pyramid scheme you gain nothing unless and until others get into it as well while those already in it reap the rewards of you putting your currency into it.

Feels very divisive and predatory really and again very seemingly motivated by the greed of those already in bitcoin to try and get others into it as they will just increase their own wealth.


----------



## Deleted member 144185 (May 19, 2021)

All I know is it is a very shady crypto currency used for private transactions.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 19, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> same as how you'd pay those who provide protection or those who heal or those who build or teach and everyone else as I have stated prior... they get to partake in the yields of the others. you dont need a currency you just need to de-incentivize greed which is really a problem that gets magnified by capitalism and currency.


And if someone refuse you to partake? Then what?


----------



## MechaMegs (May 19, 2021)

Yakamaru said:


> And if someone refuse you to partake? Then what?


And if someone refuses to partake in the capitalism? Then What?
That is how the question sounds if pointed back to you.
Though thing is people as a whole arent so lazy to just stop because there is no currency involved currency just became an extra step in things to make for more control over the populace and to enforce an abstract hierarchy in society based on presumed power due to amassing of currency.
People lived together progressed together advanced together before currency came into the picture and it can continue to do such without currency in the picture and would likely be the better for it as it would lift many of the gates that bar many from care that they need.


----------



## Raever (May 19, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> How did people measure the value of things prior to currency?



I don't mind differing opinions on currency, but due to how present-day economics works a measurable value with intricacies is needed to sustain the way humans live. We may have - at one point, - traded goods. That just isn't something we can feasibly do anymore. Not just because of an arguable ill-prepared society, but due to it's sheer size. As trading goods for services was down in very small, manageable areas (and...this was also taken advantage of by local area leaders/lords in some cases as well --- causing many to starve or die from sickness). Hate digital currency all you like, but hating current modern currency and wishing for it to disappear is idiotic. From a logical standpoint. We simply have too big of a population to do that.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (May 19, 2021)

Just interjecting, but this book provides some valuable insights into the history and nature of money, trade, and obviously debt:









						Debt: The First 5000 Years - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




I don't agree too much with the man's politics, but his economic and historical insights are on the money.


----------



## PercyD (May 19, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> Really if you think about it those who try to push others into bitcoin are akin to those who run pyramid schemes.
> Like here I am with my bitcoins
> 'Oh hello my young chap would you like to be wealthy etc etc etc?'
> ~Young chap listening in~
> ...


Thats what I'm saaayiiin~. It's so skevvy! It's a multi-level marketing scheme!


----------



## Yakamaru (May 19, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> And if someone refuses to partake in the capitalism? Then What?
> That is how the question sounds if pointed back to you.
> Though thing is people as a whole arent so lazy to just stop because there is no currency involved currency just became an extra step in things to make for more control over the populace and to enforce an abstract hierarchy in society based on presumed power due to amassing of currency.
> People lived together progressed together advanced together before currency came into the picture and it can continue to do such without currency in the picture and would likely be the better for it as it would lift many of the gates that bar many from care that they need.


I am asking you. If someone refused to give parts of their yield, then what? What would happen then?


----------



## Raever (May 19, 2021)

Yakamaru said:


> I am asking you. If someone refused to give parts of their yield, then what? What would happen then?



Sickness and death, most likely, which often did happen.
Unless they couldn't get mutual benefits elsewhere (and didn't choose to just take the other side by force anyway).

The brutality of history is a fun thing to dive into. Makes me grateful that we put stock into currency as a whole. This sort of stock prevents wars you know, even nuclear ones. I think I'll take my horrible capitalist greed and run with it over being stabbed for not giving someone my only loaf of bread for the week (or my farming land, or my firstborn daughter, or a goat, etc.).


----------



## Rassah (May 19, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> You think people weren't cared for without monetary incentives? You think art didnt happen without monetary incentives? Housing? Food? Clothes?
> Before capitalism these things existed and still advanced. the only thing capitalism has really done is increased the rate at which we wastefully strip resources beyond what is needed and dispose of food that would impact the capital gains if flooded into the market for sale or incentivize wars, etc.
> 
> All it has lead to is an acceleration in the decent of the planet being thrown into a climate crisis and this species being blinded by greed to realize that we should drop the pursuit of dollars to fix that.
> ...


I explained what capitalism is and why without it society can't exist beyond basic huts and subsistence farming. Without capital - a store of value that can be saved, invested, and traded - it's impossible for people to safe up for the long term to build projects that take years to develop. Without it it's impossible to divide labor into specialties that allows us to build complex things with thousand of people independently working on their own pieces. Sure, you can have houses and food and clothing, but it will be the most basic of things that you only make yourself for immediate use and consumption. Go search YouTube for "I, Pencil" for a good explanation. Our system can't exist on barter alone.

Or don't, and just accept that it's impossible to eliminate capitalism, and no one actually wants to. And that a lot of the things you are attributing to capitalism aren't. I don't care.

P.S. outside of living with your parents, you will never live in a society where people will simply give you stuff for nothing. Stop wishing for handouts and come to terms that you will have to work and contribute to others to get anything back.


----------



## MechaMegs (May 19, 2021)

Rassah said:


> I explained what capitalism is and why without it society can't exist beyond basic huts and subsistence farming. Without capital - a store of value that can be saved, invested, and traded - it's impossible for people to safe up for the long term to build projects that take years to develop. Without it it's impossible to divide labor into specialties that allows us to build complex things with thousand of people independently working on their own pieces. Sure, you can have houses and food and clothing, but it will be the most basic of things that you only make yourself for immediate use and consumption. Go search YouTube for "I, Pencil" for a good explanation. Our system can't exist on barter alone.
> 
> Or don't, and just accept that it's impossible to eliminate capitalism, and no one actually wants to. And that a lot of the things you are attributing to capitalism aren't. I don't care.
> 
> P.S. outside of living with your parents, you will never live in a society where people will simply give you stuff for nothing. Stop wishing for handouts and come to terms that you will have to work and contribute to others to get anything back.


Society has and can exist and progress without currency and capitalism.

P.S. I didn't know your sona was a donkey ;P
Or to spell it out your assumptions and comprehension of what was being said both are flat.
I was not saying a society where no one works and there are free handouts just that your incentive to working and contributing isnt some currency but that you dont have to worry about your needs like housing and food. It is a system that would still keep the standards of today without all the waste due to greed.



Yakamaru said:


> I am asking you. If someone refused to give parts of their yield, then what? What would happen then?


And if someone refused to give their labor to the corpo man to then be given a currency that has no intrinsic value, then what? What would happen then?

Really... put a mirror to the current system because it couldnt be any worse than the outcome under capitalism.


----------



## Rassah (May 19, 2021)

PercyD said:


> Yea, thats the thing. Any time someone tries to sell me something with sensationalism I completely shut down. Trying to frighten me with terms like "hyperinflation" and "currency control" won't work. I have an understanding of how the economy works and how investing works. Don't insult my intelligence. Further, trying to shame me with privileged talk aint it either. I don't know you from Adam, and you don't know me either, so you need to watch your tone.


Wasn't trying to shame you with privilege. Don't even care if someone is. Good for them. It was just the best term to describe you living in a very comfortable position of having strong currency and a strong banking system that just works. It works for you so you don't need what Bitcoin provides, and thus you wouldn't understand why it has benefits. What you have is clearly better. For the other about 4 billion people, they don't have that, so they do see and use the benefits.
There are other reasons to use Bitcoin besides sensationalism - it's a much better money than anything else, it's like the TCP/IP of money with the current banking system being landline telephones, so not only is it taking over inevitable, but the things we will build on top of it are exciting and even beyond our current imagination like the internet it, it's an exciting time to live in with all the innovation happening on bitcoin and it just a fun hobby to follow, etc, etc, etc. But at least in my opinion, it being a safety to escape from in our current global economic environment is just the most important one.



PercyD said:


> The whole thing that happened with Gamestop happened because you have to have a hedgefund to really game Wallstreet. You have to have access to traders to really invest in the latest and greatest thing. If you don't have the resources to be agile, you stand to lose ALOT of money. Cryptocurrency is just another one of those things.



Cryptocurrency isn't a company or even a product. It's not a stock. It's an open source platform. Basically internet, or POP3/SMTP email of money, expect you can build a lot more on top of it. So it doesn't compare to Gamestop or hedge funds or anything like that at all.



PercyD said:


> If you have a retirement account with hundreds of thousands of dollars saved back, for example, the only way to insulate yourself from inflation are trusted commodities like gold or silver. The only thing is, you already have to have a large sum of cash to invest in things like precious metals- they don't make you money, they just protect you from inflation. Cryptocurrency just aint it. And it also requires a lot of people to buy into its value in order for it to have value. Thats how currency works.



Eh... kinda? The only reason gold has value is because of its limited scarcity. We know that no one can just go out and create tons more of it. Bitcoin has better scarcity. That's why gold is no longer a good investment: big investors are dumping gold for bitcoin. So I wouldn't recommend gold right now. And at least for now bitcoin will make you money, because adoption is still growing. Even after it's done and accepted as money, it will still grow a little bit, simply because it will grow relative to economy as a whole. And, everything requires a lot of people to buy into its value for it to have value. Gold, stock, dollars, Bitcoin. Every currency works that way. Thanks to bitcoin having a lot of technical and monetary uses that nothing else has, I suspect people will keep buying into it. Creating an alternative is very unlikely at this point.



MechaMegs said:


> same as how you'd pay those who provide protection or those who heal or those who build or teach and everyone else as I have stated prior... they get to partake in the yields of the others. you dont need a currency you just need to de-incentivize greed which is really a problem that gets magnified by capitalism and currency.



How do you make sure everyone takes their fair share when they partake in these yields? No one has been able to solve this problem outside of tracking contributions with money.



Miles Marsalis said:


> I feel that is debatable since investors and researchers have already been exploring ways to excise the links from the blockchain ledger or using altered copies for verification, since they probably would rather not use a cryptocurrency backed by blockchain that contain links to active child pornography sites.



They haven't, because it's impossible. That's all.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43485572


Miles Marsalis said:


> Reading is fundamental, Rassah.
> 
> I don't know where you are pulling that the authors are cites themselves and or faulty evidence, because the paper specifically other academic papers but more importantly the statistics on btc.com and you can trace the disclosures by the utility companies where the mining pools are located. It is widely accepted that at least 75% of all Bitcoin mining is done in China and that 57% of the country's power comes from coal. (It should also be noted that a crackdown on cryptocurrencies in China would deal a serious blow to cryptocurrencies worldwide, particularly to Bitcoin.) Furthermore, the mining pool locations correspond with rural areas that use coal power to fuel their operations.



I did read. Did you read what I wrote? The article you provided found real sources of China's power grid, but then used other for the amount of energy Bitcoin uses and for where Bitcoin miners are located, and as I pointed out, THOSE sources in turn used Digiconomist as their source. So the conclusions this article makes is based on made-up numbers. You can keep posting links to articles, like this new one to CNBC that claims that 75% of miners are in China burning fossil fuels, but that article just talks about stuff "according to a study published this week," and when I click on that study and go down to the sources for their data, I once again find this
13. Stoll, C., Klaaßen, L. & Gallersdörfer, U. The carbon footprint of bitcoin. Joule 3, 1647–1661 (2019)
Which, if I go to, once again points to Digiconomist and Alex de Vrie's fake made-up numbers. Hell, even that article quotes one of the people with actual in-the-know about this topic as saying "that the paper “leaves a lot to be desired.”" Maybe you should actually read what I posted with that link debunking Digiconomics (since reading is fundamental). Or read what someone who has been in this industry for over a decade now is saying (that's me). Or hell, even consider the logical absurdity that believing Bitcoin mines can be powered by EXPENSIVE coal make zero sense when current competitive bitcoin mining electricity rate is $0.03 or even $0.02 per kWh, and the ONLY way you can get those kind of prices is if you offer to buy electricity that no one else wants to pay for. Nobody is going to spend money mining coal, trucking it to a power plant, burning it, and then selling it for practically nothing. But if you have a hydro plant sitting around just spinning its turbines for nothing, it costs you nothing extra to make that power, and whatever you make, even if it's $0.02 per kWh, is still pure profit.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 19, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> And if someone refused to give their labor to the corpo man to then be given a currency that has no intrinsic value, then what? What would happen then?
> 
> Really... put a mirror to the current system because it couldnt be any worse than the outcome under capitalism.


Why are you avoiding the question and deflecting onto something else? It's plain as day to see what you're trying to do.

It was a simple question, a hypothetical one but also a scenario that could quite easily arise in this system of yours without capital, currency.

One last time: What happens if someone say no to your partaking of the yield that they have produced?


----------



## MechaMegs (May 19, 2021)

Rassah said:


> How do you make sure everyone takes their fair share when they partake in these yields? No one has been able to solve this problem outside of tracking contributions with money.


Capitalism really hasnt solved that when you have corpo leaders taking 300 times the yield of their labor forces effort. All capitalism has done is made it easier to control the labor force and keep them in line with the hierarchy or who has the most coin.
Unlike capitalism where greed is rewarded over all a no capital system doesnt incentivize taking more than you need what woiuld be the point to take more than you need to survive?


Yakamaru said:


> Why are you avoiding the question and deflecting onto something else? It's plain as day to see what you're trying to do.
> 
> It was a simple question, a hypothetical one but also a scenario that could quite easily arise in this system of yours without capital, currency.
> 
> One last time: What happens if someone say no to your partaking of the yield that they have produced?



Then they can keep their yield for whatever it is worth to them and as people arent savages they can still reap the benefits of the efforts of the whole while their excess goes without use. 

Now in capitalism?:


----------



## Rassah (May 19, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I also asked about risk of government crackdowns and bans on cryptocurrencies because I saw this coming down the pipeline, which I'm sure you did too, given your suddenly revived interest in promoting Bitcoin here and experience in the industry.
> 
> This certainly can't bode well for Bitcoin.


Oh, yes, I thought I addressed it. I said that governments can't ban bitcoin because there is no way to enforce the ban. Yes, everyone saw government bans coming down the pipeline. Satoshi himself, the guy who invented it, saw it. And that's why he specifically designed Bitcoin to be decentralized, peer to peer, anonymous (if needed), and impossible to actually ban. You can ban bitcoin about as much as you can ban people from speaking a language. 
As for that article, it's that famous "Fake News" that Trump used to talk about. This isn't a new ban, it's just China reaffirming the same bad it had in 2017, and adding that banks aren't allowed to have bank accounts denominated in cryptocurrency, which they weren't allowed to have to begin with. It doesn't bode like anything for bitcoin, because you don't need banks to hold it or to send it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯



MechaMegs said:


> ~young chap gets into bitcoin, person already with bitcoin increases their own wealth through that. Young chap now needs more people to get into bitcoin before their wealth increases now~


Young chap doesn't, actually. Young chap just has to sit on his money, safe from central bankers and mega corps devaluing the old money with stimulus checks and corporate bailouts, and watch his money grow by comparison. Even if zero new people buy bitcoin, US dollar drops 5% this year, bitcoin stays the same or goes up just from it's use in the economy where people who already have it use it to trade, and this young chap's money goes up by 5%+. Bitcoin's benefit ISN'T the rise in price. It's being independent from having your wealth being stolen by our current financial system (among others). That will work regardless of how many people buy into it.



MechaMegs said:


> And if someone refuses to partake in the capitalism? Then What?



Nobody is forcing you to partake in capitalism. You and your commune friends are free to live on your own and build your own housing, make your own clothing, and grow your own food. Go be Amish.


----------



## Rassah (May 19, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> Society has and can exist and progress without currency and capitalism.



How? Did you see this video yet?





People in society work together on parts for things they don't even know go together. How would society organize where people make things they don't even know what they're used for, without money and price motivating them to and telling them how much of those things they need to make?



MechaMegs said:


> I was not saying a society where no one works and there are free handouts just that your incentive to working and contributing isnt some currency but that you dont have to worry about your needs like housing and food. It is a system that would still keep the standards of today without all the waste due to greed.



If you did MUCH less than the labor it takes to make a house or grow food, and then took food from that exchange, then someone else who DID do much more labor to build that house or grow that food is essentially giving you a freebie. Like, if furry porn costs $10, one meal costs $10, and you "contribute" one furry porn art to the community and then eat two meals that day, you essentially took a freebie. This might work for a short term, but eventually those guys working hard to build a house or grow food will decide they don't want to be taken advantage of and will just quit, probably drawing furry porn or writing erotic furry stories themselves. It's easier and they still get the food they need, so why not? And that's how all the massive famines that killed tens of millions in countries that tried it ended up happening.



MechaMegs said:


> And if someone refused to give their labor to the corpo man to then be given a currency that has no intrinsic value, then what? What would happen then?


They can give their labor to someone else who isn't a corpo, or they can work to make their own stuff and sell it, or they can start their own business, or they can work with their friends to start their own corpo, or they can be Amish.


----------



## Rassah (May 19, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> Capitalism really hasnt solved that when you have corpo leaders taking 300 times the yield of their labor forces effort.


Corpo leaders are wage labor too. Their labor is just valued more, same as labor of a surgeon or a coder is valued more than the labor of a janitor.  Valued by whom? Us, society, whoever hires them. Corpo leaders are hired wage earners, and if the investors who own the corp feel like paying them a lot, who cares, it's their money.




MechaMegs said:


> All capitalism has done is made it easier to control the labor force and keep them in line with the hierarchy or who has the most coin.


And created practically everything you use, where without it you'd be living in a mud hut, wearing rags, and eating dirt. Capitalism doesn't even "control" or care about the labor force. It's just people owning things (like money to pay wages with, or skills and tools to labor with) and them willingly trading things with each other.



MechaMegs said:


> Unlike capitalism where greed is rewarded over all a no capital system doesnt incentivize taking more than you need what woiuld be the point to take more than you need to survive?
> 
> Then they can keep their yield for whatever it is worth to them and as people arent savages they can still reap the benefits of the efforts of the whole while their excess goes without use.
> 
> Now in capitalism?:



All systems reward greed. Your system without money? Greedy people will simply take much more from the community without having to compensate for it. Community growing lots of food, building houses, and making clothing? No money, no prices, no markets, so nothing to stop the greedy from taking most of the food, taking the biggest houses, and taking the most and best clothing. Greed doesn't need a "point." They want more. Resources will always be scarce, so having more means you're not the one who's hungry, you have the best place to live, and should some disaster strike, you have the most resources to get through it.
Under capitalism voluntary trade must happen. So if you're greedy, the only way to get "rewarded" it so make something others will be willing to trade for to give you more of their money. Greed is not a problem because it can only be satisfied by serving your fellow man.

But, meh, whatever. Nice thing about Bitcoin is it's money can even government can't ban or get rid of, so with it existing I'm not concerned about anyone ever eliminating capitalism.


----------



## MechaMegs (May 19, 2021)

@Rassah Could you not do three posts in a row quoting me and also lie about how things wouldnt be made if not for capitalism?

Like yeesh take a tic tac or something or eat a snickers.

Also I am sure the government like China's for instance can do things to block bitcoin, and really if every government bars it as a currency then it will be left to transactions where? the dark web? for what end? More bitcoin child porn sales?

Its just an elaborate pyramid scheme to get those in on it like a pyramid scheme more wealth as others climb in at the bottom getting nothing until they haul more bodies into the crypt.
As seen through Muskyboy and such it is just as volatile as stonks and really why would you want to get people to put their money into something that can fluctuate so hard and cripple their own personal economy?

But yeah whatever keep hailing capitalism the system that has driven the planet to the climate crisis it is in now thanks to the over abundant incentives of the greed it rewards so heavily. All the capital won't save anyone at the end of it anyway.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (May 19, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Oh, yes, I thought I addressed it. I said that governments can't ban bitcoin because there is no way to enforce the ban. Yes, everyone saw government bans coming down the pipeline. Satoshi himself, the guy who invented it, saw it. And that's why he specifically designed Bitcoin to be decentralized, peer to peer, anonymous (if needed), and impossible to actually ban. You can ban bitcoin about as much as you can ban people from speaking a language.
> As for that article, it's that famous "Fake News" that Trump used to talk about. This isn't a new ban, it's just China reaffirming the same bad it had in 2017, and adding that banks aren't allowed to have bank accounts denominated in cryptocurrency, which they weren't allowed to have to begin with. It doesn't bode like anything for bitcoin, because you don't need banks to hold it or to send it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


I'm going to state the obvious in case you missed it, but if Bitcoin is illegal in major countries like India, China, and Nigeria, that has major ramifications for legitimate investors looking to enter the market as well as law-abiding investors who are and aren't citizens of those countries since they can invest in Bitcoin or its associated industries without engaging in criminality.

Which legitimate and law-abiding investors aren't going to do because they will not open themselves open to legal exposure from the governments that have banned Bitcoin or their own governments for dealing in illegality abroad.

Even if you go with the risky assumption that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies will continued to see some usage in China and India, citizens using the currencies in those countries risk having their assets seized and cryptocurrency mining operations will be shut down under the increased crackdown now that the grace period the Chinese government gave is expiring.

To use an example, illicit drug dealing may be profitable, but most investors aren't about dive into exciting opportunities in that black market sector because there are real legal consequences for doing so.

Along with having 65-75% of the mining operations go offline, it's no wonder the major banking institutions aren't considering cryptocurrencies an asset class.


Rassah said:


> I did read. Did you read what I wrote? The article you provided found real sources of China's power grid, but then used other for the amount of energy Bitcoin uses and for where Bitcoin miners are located, and as I pointed out, THOSE sources in turn used Digiconomist as their source. So the conclusions this article makes is based on made-up numbers. You can keep posting links to articles, like this new one to CNBC that claims that 75% of miners are in China burning fossil fuels, but that article just talks about stuff "according to a study published this week," and when I click on that study and go down to the sources for their data, I once again find this
> 13. Stoll, C., Klaaßen, L. & Gallersdörfer, U. The carbon footprint of bitcoin. Joule 3, 1647–1661 (2019)
> Which, if I go to, once again points to Digiconomist and Alex de Vrie's fake made-up numbers. Hell, even that article quotes one of the people with actual in-the-know about this topic as saying "that the paper “leaves a lot to be desired.”" Maybe you should actually read what I posted with that link debunking Digiconomics (since reading is fundamental). Or read what someone who has been in this industry for over a decade now is saying (that's me). Or hell, even consider the logical absurdity that believing Bitcoin mines can be powered by EXPENSIVE coal make zero sense when current competitive bitcoin mining electricity rate is $0.03 or even $0.02 per kWh, and the ONLY way you can get those kind of prices is if you offer to buy electricity that no one else wants to pay for. Nobody is going to spend money mining coal, trucking it to a power plant, burning it, and then selling it for practically nothing. But if you have a hydro plant sitting around just spinning its turbines for nothing, it costs you nothing extra to make that power, and whatever you make, even if it's $0.02 per kWh, is still pure profit.


Rassah, as an economist, you should know that coal is the least expensive energy source in China and one of least expensive for the world. Disclosures in the study and separate studies have confirmed coal as the primary and secondary source for most Bitcoin mining operations in China.

Furthermore, for the Bitcoin mining operations in China that do utilize hydroelectric power, you are missing are some crucial about how hydroelectric power in the country is at times supplemented by fossil fuels like coal. Vox goes into depth on this, including about de Vries.









						Bitcoin is an energy hog. Where is all that electricity coming from?
					

A new report claims it’s mostly powered by renewables. Be skeptical.




					www.vox.com
				






> Hydropower in particular has huge regional environmental effects and *sometimes has to be backed up by fossil fuels*. China’s bitcoin mining industry is a case in point:





> Production of hydropower is high in the wet season during the summer months and low in the dry season during the winter months. As a result, seasonal variability in hydropower is already higher than 30% and expected to increase further because of climate change. In Sichuan, specifically, ‘‘the average power generation capacity during the wet season is three times that of the dry season.’’





> “As such, the carbon intensity of purchased electricity in Sichuan is much higher than you’d expect based on pure hydro,” de Vries said in an email. And since miners are concerned about energy costs above all else, a glut in coal, oil, or natural gas could make burning them much more attractive.


Furthermore, due to the ban mentioned here, the remains of the Bitcoin mining insustry in China are about to move to regions in the country where they will consume more coal they did before, making the cryptocurrency mining industry even worse for the environment than they were before.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (May 19, 2021)

Rassah said:


> They haven't, because it's impossible. That's all.
> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43485572


I would say pruning is above the technical capabilities of most users, but possible, though I'd also say that if we accept your premise, there is the problem of child pornography links being inextricably stuck in the blockchain, which could pose a risk to potential and extant Bitcoin investors. 

This article details pruning to address scalability issues rather than security issues, by the way.


----------



## Raever (May 19, 2021)

I feel like we're getting a little carried away here...and for some members, there doesn't seem to be any middle ground being met. Can we all agree that currency is and has proven to be an ever-evolving and unfortunate necessity for the sake of societal structure? Then move on from there? Also, I feel that people who have never held a job or don't understand how money and taxes work at a basic level for their country shouldn't have much of an opinion on economics. Mostly due to a lack of exposure and personal understanding leading to naive and contradictory statements. 

For their own credibility, it's best for them to avoid that sort of discussion.


----------



## Ramjet (May 19, 2021)

I do know that a literal meme coin making it to the top 5 crypto spot should've been ample enough warning for everyone that the top was in this tulip mania cycle.


----------



## TyraWadman (May 19, 2021)

Ramjet said:


> I do know that a literal meme coin making it to the top 5 crypto spot should've been ample enough warning for everyone that the top was in this tulip mania cycle.
> 
> View attachment 110564


WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH MY SON!?!?!
*Beats you with my purse until you look like your old icon*


----------



## PercyD (May 19, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Wasn't trying to shame you with privilege. Don't even care if someone is. Good for them. It was just the best term to describe you living in a very comfortable position of having strong currency and a strong banking system that just works. It works for you so you don't need what Bitcoin provides, and thus you wouldn't understand why it has benefits. What you have is clearly better. For the other about 4 billion people, they don't have that, so they do see and use the benefits.
> There are other reasons to use Bitcoin besides sensationalism - it's a much better money than anything else, it's like the TCP/IP of money with the current banking system being landline telephones, so not only is it taking over inevitable, but the things we will build on top of it are exciting and even beyond our current imagination like the internet it, it's an exciting time to live in with all the innovation happening on bitcoin and it just a fun hobby to follow, etc, etc, etc. But at least in my opinion, it being a safety to escape from in our current global economic environment is just the most important one.


Sensationalism is NEVER reason to do any thing, by the by. And it seems like you lack understanding on what bitcoin actually is. Perhaps *Blockchain *can be equated to TCP/IP since theres a lot of handshaking and registries involved. Blockchain is how Bitcoin can even work. However, Bitcoin is not some more evolved form of currency. Your comparison is a fallacy. In fact, Bitcoin is more liken to the ledgers antiquated societies used to use back in the day. Except, instead of doing trading with marks on a tablet, we have computers do it for us. It's not more advanced. 

I doubt Bitcoin is ever going to become mainstream. Countries are actively making laws against it. In the U.S the only legal tender allowed for exchange is the U.S dollar. And even for countries with less developed economies, they aren't interested in Bitcoin. How the heck are you going to have a reliable way to trade bitcoin when most of these said countries don't have reliable internet...? Any way, most countries you're talking about are investing in more stable commodities like gold. I know, because I'm around a lot of African and Carribean folks. The people back in their countries are putting their money into gold bullion.


----------



## PercyD (May 19, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Eh... kinda? The only reason gold has value is because of its limited scarcity. We know that no one can just go out and create tons more of it. Bitcoin has better scarcity. That's why gold is no longer a good investment: big investors are dumping gold for bitcoin. So I wouldn't recommend gold right now. And at least for now bitcoin will make you money, because adoption is still growing. Even after it's done and accepted as money, it will still grow a little bit, simply because it will grow relative to economy as a whole. And, everything requires a lot of people to buy into its value for it to have value. Gold, stock, dollars, Bitcoin. Every currency works that way. Thanks to bitcoin having a lot of technical and monetary uses that nothing else has, I suspect people will keep buying into it. Creating an alternative is very unlikely at this point.


Bro. I can guarantee you no real person is dumping gold for bitcoin. Absolutely no one. I'm not sure who you're talking to, but they're probably a fool.

Bitcoin is also not scarce because it's not real. You have literal servers 'mining' it. It's value is purely based on what people decide how much it is. It's not a company, as you said, but it is something that is exchanged. -Just like stocks, just like commodities, just like other currency.

I don't think you have an understanding of how the economy, finances, or even trading works bro. It's fine if you don't. I don't know a lot of shit either. Pretending that you do and trying to argue with someone who understands the subject better than you do... You come out sounding foolish. Just quit while you're ahead, theres no shame in it.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (May 19, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> All capitalism has done is made it easier to control the labor force and keep them in line with the hierarchy or who has the most coin.



This situation was infinitely worse under more restrictive societal models like feudal administrative systems where land and other physical assets were primarily controlled by a tiny collection of oppressive dynasties (and where personal freedoms were considered an afterthought at best). Your average person making 40k/year in the "developed" world today ranks among the top 1 percent of wealthy individuals across the globe. This wasn't the case even two centuries ago (which is no time at all in the complete chronology of humanity's existence).

I have my beefs with capitalism (mainly the entirely unregulated derivative that utopian libertarians seem to fawn over), but historical trends show us that the degree of personal freedom afforded to the average man and woman has been on an upward trend throughout the course of collective human civilization.

You can also decrease the amount of control that the higher classes have over you by exercising personal agency and self-control. The biggest and most widely-tolerated "ball-and-chain" that the higher classes use to indirectly oppress the lower classes is consumerism fueled by debt. Avoid the student loan trap, new car trap, credit card trap, marriage trap (this one mainly applies to men), and mortgage trap and you will enjoy an almost unparalleled degree of freedom in your personal life. Invest the money you saved from not doing any of the aforementioned stupid and you could retire before 50.

The most some stupid "boss" can do to me is fire me from some limp dicked job that will be rendered obsolete within the next fifteen years.

I'll shrug, take a self-funded two-month vacation filled with copious amounts of gaming and ebiking, and get another stupid job that pays fifteen dollars/hour within about a week or two after the self-funded vacation is over. I'll have the money that I blew during those two months back within 1.5 months.

The more you divorce yourself from the abject lunacy that is modern consumerist culture and the mewling of useless and irrelevant people who defend it directly and indirectly, the more fuck-you money you can accumulate and the less you're oppressed by people like Elon Musk.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (May 20, 2021)

PercyD said:


> How the heck are you going to have a reliable way to trade bitcoin when most of these said countries don't have reliable internet...?



People in undeveloped nations have access to cheap cellphones, cheap cellphone plans, and solid cellular coverage. You can use a cellphone as a physical crypto wallet (though this is probably a bad idea) and you can sell, buy, and send bitcoin using mobile payment services like cash app. Technical support for crypto will increase if it continues to be adopted by the investor class.


PercyD said:


> don't think you have an understanding of how the economy, finances, or even trading works bro. It's fine if you don't.



I'm pretty sure he majored in economics, hails from a poor Eastern European country (he came over to the US as a child with his parents IIRC), and self-made his way to millionaire status.


----------



## PercyD (May 20, 2021)

ASTA said:


> People in undeveloped nations have access to cheap cellphones, cheap cellphone plans, and solid cellular coverage. You can use a cellphone as a physical crypto wallet (though this is probably a bad idea) and you can sell, buy, and send bitcoin using mobile payment services like cash app. Technical support for crypto will increase if it continues to be adopted by the investor class.
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure he majored in economics, hails from a poor Eastern European (he came over to the US as a child with his parents IIRC), and self-made his way to millionaire status.


Your link there is behind a paywall, so I can't see what you are talking about. I still don't really think thats the case for most people who are in developed countries since conscious development is still a thing- basically, developing websites to be viewed in developing countries.  I doubt bitcoin is doing that. Hell, there are places in the U.S where internet isn't that reliable for that level of trading.

Also, you said so yourself that using your cellphone as a crypto wallet is a bad idea. Thats a risk that someone in a developing country is not going to take. (And if they do, they're probably making some REALLY poor choices). Also, most people in the 'investor class' are not really taking cryptocurrencies that seriously. And when I say 'investor class' I mean like hedge funds.

If he majored in economics, one, he can tell me himself. Two, he's really discrediting himself with some of the things he's saying. That last bit, he's gonna have to talk about that himself too. After someone discredits themselves after trying to insist on arguing with me, THEY need to be doing the explaining. If he has what you say he has, he should be able to explain himself just fine.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 20, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> Then they can keep their yield for whatever it is worth to them and as people arent savages they can still reap the benefits of the efforts of the whole while their excess goes without use.


So in other words, the no-currency system you want implemented does not make the problem go away, it only now creates more problems because we don't have a universal currency to pay for various goods and services.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 20, 2021)

PercyD said:


> I don't think you have an understanding of how the economy, finances, or even trading works bro. It's fine if you don't. I don't know a lot of shit either. Pretending that you do and trying to argue with someone who understands the subject better than you do... You come out sounding foolish. Just quit while you're ahead, theres no shame in it.


A self-made millionaire from a poor background from an Eastern European country.. don't know how money/investment/Bitcoin works? What? 

Recommend you stop assuming things about people whom you literally know nothing about, as a friendly recommendation/advice.


----------



## MechaMegs (May 20, 2021)

Yakamaru said:


> So in other words, the no-currency system you want implemented does not make the problem go away, it only now creates more problems because we don't have a universal currency to pay for various goods and services.


So in other words you didnt read much of anything I have said here.
Cool story~




Yakamaru said:


> A self-made millionaire from a poor background from an Eastern European country.. don't know how money/investment/Bitcoin works? What?
> 
> Recommend you stop assuming things about people whom you literally know nothing about, as a friendly recommendation/advice.


Okay and I come from a family that migrated out of what is now Ukraine, and I live with the privilege of little worry thanks to the success of the co-op farm I am part of do I now get some special medal from coming from a poor east europe background as a person lacking melanin in america who was fortunate enough to have friends that where of like mind and shared a passion for agg? There are always details, like the stories of starting out of garages and such, like many times those stories have the under text of also with a loan of 100g or 1M or that their father had stakes in blood emeralds or some such thing and rarely the self-made is without some luck or privilege, like even todays smaller 'success' stories of "how I wound up paying off all my student loan debt in a year" underlined with the fact that it was someone who lived with their parents after college rent free for a year, but isnt often brought up as most would read the headline and carry on with just that statement.

And what was the secret to becoming a self-made millionaire? Bitcoin? Guiding people to bitcoin to inflate its worth so that he would become wealthy through their earnings inflating its price?


Also funny that some people are so adamantly pushing for it at the moment after it dropped what? 38+% so far this month? trying to reinflate and make up for those losses to the net worth?

It is a pyramid scheme with some extra steps and a different snake oil speech plain and simple.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 20, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> So in other words you didnt read much of anything I have said here.
> Cool story~
> 
> 
> ...


I had to ask you three times to come up with some sort of answer to a basic question. Kinda says a lot about someone when they for the love of them have to be asked three times just to provide an answer.

Whatever is going on in whatever commune you may be part of is not applicable anywhere else. What happens in your commune could quite easily be exclusive. A thought that from the looks of it doesn't seem to have crossed your mind it seems.


----------



## Rassah (May 20, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> @Rassah Could you not do three posts in a row quoting me and also lie about how things wouldnt be made if not for capitalism?
> 
> Like yeesh take a tic tac or something or eat a snickers.



I didn't say no things will be made, I said most things we have today wouldn't be made, because they're too complex to be made without a massive global system of trade and exchange, which is only possible with capitalism. Snickers included, which get their ingredients from all around the world from people who don't know each other and have no incentive to work together.


MechaMegs said:


> Also I am sure the government like China's for instance can do things to block bitcoin, and really if every government bars it as a currency then it will be left to transactions where? the dark web? for what end? More bitcoin child porn sales?


China can't even ban communications on their internet, even though they're trying really hard to censor and restrict everything. Bitcoin is just a form of communication that can run on any communication medium, not just internet. If every government bars every person in the world from using it as a currency, people can just keep trading it among themselves and leave government out of it. But since governments hate each other, I doubt they will be willing to work together to do that. For instance if US makes it illegal because they are afraid that it bypasses sanctions and weakens their dollar, China, Russia, Iran, and many others will like in support for it just to fuck with US.



MechaMegs said:


> Its just an elaborate pyramid scheme to get those in on it like a pyramid scheme more wealth as others climb in at the bottom getting nothing until they haul more bodies into the crypt.


How is this pyramid scheme any different from any other form of money, or anything else of value at all, like commodities like gold, sugar, or oil, in that sense?



MechaMegs said:


> As seen through Muskyboy and such it is just as volatile as stonks and really why would you want to get people to put their money into something that can fluctuate so hard and cripple their own personal economy?


Because the fluctuations are temporary, because they get smaller and rarer as it grows, and because the fluctuations keep going in a single trend, that being up? The fluctuation dropped the price all the way down to $30k. It was $10k in November. And, of course, because of all the massive technological, financial, and privacy benefits that it provides.



MechaMegs said:


> But yeah whatever keep hailing capitalism the system that has driven the planet to the climate crisis it is in now thanks to the over abundant incentives of the greed it rewards so heavily. All the capital won't save anyone at the end of it anyway.


----------



## Fallowfox (May 20, 2021)

I suppose this thread has shown a couple of things which are timely in the news surrounding Bitcoin, such as 'Greenwash' and its exposure to policy decisions in China- the value fell by 30% in one day after China announced it was closing some loopholes that allowed online transactions.

I think both of these issues intersect with Chinese subsidy of their electricity price, which both attracts miners to use very large amounts of energy in region where a large portion of the energy mix is fossil fuels, and causes them to experience exposure to Chinese policy decisions.


----------



## PercyD (May 20, 2021)

Yakamaru said:


> A self-made millionaire from a poor background from an Eastern European country.. don't know how money/investment/Bitcoin works? What?
> 
> Recommend you stop assuming things about people whom you literally know nothing about, as a friendly recommendation/advice.


To be honest, when I talk to him I feel like he's lying about who he is and what he does. Especially since it seems like he needs 3 other people to stand up for him instead of explaining himself. He hasn't said ANYTHING to the contrary yet. If someone insists on arguing with me, THEY need to explain themselves. 

Also, if you have a business in New York thats not making at least 1 million dollars annually, your business is operating in poverty. A millionare aint much, honey. It takes a solid million to buy decent houses in parts of the US. Something here just isn't adding up.

Someone who has a degree in economics isn't going to say things like "investors are dropping gold for bitcoin". I've actually worked in a Hedge Fund. I've actually worked with investors. I've actually done research helping investors teach people how to invest. They err on the side of stability, not new aged gimmicks. Half of them don't want to let FORTRAN go because Financial institutions are notorious for not updating their tech. They're not taking bitcoin seriously. This shit aint adding up.


----------



## Rassah (May 20, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I'm going to state the obvious in case you missed it, but if Bitcoin is illegal in major countries like India, China, and Nigeria, that has major ramifications for legitimate investors looking to enter the market as well as law-abiding investors who are and aren't citizens of those countries since they can invest in Bitcoin or its associated industries without engaging in criminality.



You've only been stating the obvious that's understood by laymen who aren't involved in this. I'm trying to explain the less obvious. Major countries like China did make a lot of cryptocurrency uses illegal. Big legitimate investors didn't get deterred, they actually invested even more in it, specifically because Bitcoin gives them options Chinese banking system does not. There are a lot of legitimate investors in China who have bought millions in Bitcoin for no other reason than that Bitcoin allows them to move their money out of the country easily and without restrictions. When their money was stuck in Chinese banks and bitcoin wasn't available, their only option was to use casinos in Southeast Asia to "gamble" massive amounts, break even, and cash out those chips in another currency to another bank. All of which itself was costly and risky. As I keep saying, countries HAVE made it illegal. And its biggest legitimate investors aren't law abiding citizens, but people who know that the laws are unjust and oppressive, who are looking to escape their totalitarian dictatorships.




Miles Marsalis said:


> Which legitimate and law-abiding investors aren't going to do because they will not open themselves open to legal exposure from the governments that have banned Bitcoin or their own governments for dealing in illegality abroad.



These people make up a tiny and insignificant amount of investors in the world. Most people don't kiss dictator boots THAT much. And those who do, seriously, fuck them.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Even if you go with the risky assumption that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies will continued to see some usage in China and India, citizens using the currencies in those countries risk having their assets seized and cryptocurrency mining operations will be shut down under the increased crackdown now that the grace period the Chinese government gave is expiring.



The whole benefit of Bitcoin is that it keeps your assets from being seized. They don't need to mine it there. Miners can be on the other side of the planet for all they care. All they need to know is that they have money that no one knows about, can track, can stop from being sent, and which can't be seized. Gold can be seized. Money in your bank account can be seized. Money no one knows you have that is in a password-protected file can't be.


Miles Marsalis said:


> Along with having 65-75% of the mining operations go offline, it's no wonder the major banking institutions aren't considering cryptocurrencies an asset class.



What the hell are you talking about? Major banking institutions have already invested billions into bitcoin. Major insurance companies, major investment funds and hedge funds. And major payment processors like PayPal, Square, VISA, and Mastercard have already said they are committed to working to implement it as a form of payment and settlement.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Rassah, as an economist, you should know that coal is the least expensive energy source in China and one of least expensive for the world. Disclosures in the study and separate studies have confirmed coal as the primary and secondary source for most Bitcoin mining operations in China.


Coal is not cheaper than Hydro that does not require constant work to add more energy. Once the government builds the hydro station, the only costs are the minor operating costs to keep it running. Your document says that a lot of China uses coal. It says nothing about whether Bitcoin miners use coal. It just makes the silly assumption that "If China uses coal to produce X of its power, and Bitcoin miners use Y of China's total energy to mine, then Bitcoin miners use Y/X energy from coal." Coal doesn't create waste energy that no one wants to use. If that's coal's problem, STOP ORDERING COAL. Done.
It's not just that I'm an economist who can follow basic logic here. It's that I know the people who run a lot of the major mines in China, who also know their competitors and the mining industry there. They don't use coal. They go to hydro plants that are just spinning their turbines for nothing and low-ball them offers that coal would never even pay for itself.




Miles Marsalis said:


> Furthermore, for the Bitcoin mining operations in China that do utilize hydroelectric power, you are missing are some crucial about how hydroelectric power in the country is at times supplemented by fossil fuels like coal. Vox goes into depth on this, including about de Vries.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If there are energy shortages and hydro has to be supplemented with coal, then hydro sells its energy to the public for normal prices together with coal. Miners stop mining for that period of time. They won't pay the high prices. They don't need to anyway, since it's easier just to wait it out for a short while.
Your new article again cites the debunked Joule case, makes this claim:
"According to the bitcoin energy consumption tracker at Digiconomist, bitcoin currently consumes 66.7 terawatt-hours per year"
which is completely false and is that made up number pulled out of that guy's ass I was talking about. It cited University of Cambrige study that, AGAIN, just references Digiconomist, again. Do you understand that if a source of numbers for "How much energy Bitcoin uses" and "Where miners are located" is COMPLETELY made up, no amount of articles that you pull up that cites those COMPLETELY made u numbers makes any difference whatsoever? You're a smart logical guy who loves to back up at and cite sources. Why can't you get this? At best de Vries says "IF there is a glut of coal it MIGHT make it cheaper to use it up for mining." But that's just his complete lack of any knowledge of the power industry talking. If there's  glut of coal, stop mining, and ship it cheaply to whoever actually needs it.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Furthermore, due to the ban mentioned here, the remains of the Bitcoin mining insustry in China are about to move to regions in the country where they will consume more coal they did before, making the cryptocurrency mining industry even worse for the environment than they were before.



That article is bunk too. First, this:
"According to the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, roughly 70% of the hashrate for mining Bitcoin—that is, the processing power for verifying transactions on the blockchain’s ledger—is generated in China."
is again based on Diginomics numbers and is completely false. At most maybe 40% of hash rate is in China.
And second, this ban already happened in much of China. I can't read the article because it's behind a paywall, but they could be referencing an old ban from many years ago, just like Reuters accidentally referenced a 2017 ban where China forbade banks from dealing with it, making it seem like it just passed it. that old ban where miners where kicked out of a few Chinese provinces was why mining dropped down to below 40% there. The rest of it is using geothermal in Iceland, Washington State, and elsewhere, buying waste energy from remote regions in Europe, Russia, and South America, and setting up solar panels in other places.

Seriously dude, you're quoting badly sourced articles written by "journalists" who know jack shit about energy, cryptocurrency, and mining, and trying to prove you're right to someone who works closely in this field personally. These stupid claims of "most miners are in China" and "they use coal" keeps coming up every few years, but every time I ask my friends Brock Pierce (guy who invented the idea of mining digital currency by setting up a huge mining company in China to mine WoW gold) or Marshal Long (guy who owns the biggest crypto mines in China and other parts of the world) or Matt McKibbin (guy who connects crypto businesses to investors and is helping a huge mining company raise hundreds of millions to build a solar mining farm) they all tell me that the "majority of mining is in china" is bullshit, and all independently say it's less than 40%, with most miners fleeing the hostile Chinese state a long time ago.

I'm going to restate the obvious since you keep missing it: I know this stuff. Intimately. You don't.


----------



## Rassah (May 20, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I would say pruning is above the technical capabilities of most users, but possible, though I'd also say that if we accept your premise, there is the problem of child pornography links being inextricably stuck in the blockchain, which could pose a risk to potential and extant Bitcoin investors.
> 
> This article details pruning to address scalability issues rather than security issues, by the way.



You can't "prune" any data because each block of data is hashed (digitally signed) with a reference to a previous block. Any changes in data would completely invalidate that signature and all signatures after. You as a node operator or a miner can prune all the data you want, but it's impossible to start, synchronize, and verify the entire list of transactions from scratch when starting a new node without having all that data. So at least someone will have to keep a copy of it. But, in reality, everyone just keeps all the data, because no one gives a crap about child porn links that don't work and require a bunch of coding even to extract from those blocks. Seriosuly, NO ONE CARES about those links.



PercyD said:


> Sensationalism is NEVER reason to do any thing, by the by. And it seems like you lack understanding on what bitcoin actually is. Perhaps *Blockchain *can be equated to TCP/IP since theres a lot of handshaking and registries involved. Blockchain is how Bitcoin can even work. However, Bitcoin is not some more evolved form of currency. Your comparison is a fallacy. In fact, Bitcoin is more liken to the ledgers antiquated societies used to use back in the day. Except, instead of doing trading with marks on a tablet, we have computers do it for us. It's not more advanced.



Bitcoin and blockchain are not two separate things. They're inextricably linked. You literally can't have one without the other. I'll try to explain.
A blockchain by itself is just a database. There's absolutely nothing special about it. And anyone can just run one such database for every coin and transaction in existence. That's basically what VISA does. What makes blockchain special is that this database can be maintained by a whole bunch of people who don't know and don't trust each other, but somehow they keep their copies of the blockchain database in sync, without being able to make changes to it themselves to steal from each other. And the only way that can be accomplished is because miners secure every single transaction by spending massive costs to create very complex, impossible-to-forge signatures to sign off on transactions. Any change in those transactions would be immediately discovered because the digital signature won't match. And the ONLY reason those miners spend that money doing that is because they get paid, buy that database, to do it, where every time they find a strong enough signature, the database allows them to pay themselves. They can't be paid by these database operators directly, because it would be to easy to bribe and corrupt the system. So, without bitcoin, there's no mining. Without mining there's no security of transactions. And without security of transactions there's no decentralized distributed and trustless blockchain. All you have is a bunch of individuals running their own Excel spreadsheets.

But the reason I said Bitcoin is like TCP/IP is not because it's just "money, but digital proof of ownership. Bitcoin at it's core isn't "money," it's a smart contract with a digital signature that provides proof of ownership. One of the first functions of that digital contract is money. But it can, and is, being used for lots of other proofs of ownership already, such as identity (like your "Login with Google/Facebook"), tokens like stocks and other securities, as I recently found out, your online chat ID in a decentralized chat platform similar to Telegram that runs entirely on top of Bitcoin (https://sphinx.chat/). And lots of other new ideas are being created. It's TCP/IP that adds "ownership/identity" to TCP/IP's data packets, but like the internet keeps it completely decentralized.




PercyD said:


> I doubt Bitcoin is ever going to become mainstream. Countries are actively making laws against it. In the U.S the only legal tender allowed for exchange is the U.S dollar. And even for countries with less developed economies, they aren't interested in Bitcoin. How the heck are you going to have a reliable way to trade bitcoin when most of these said countries don't have reliable internet...? Any way, most countries you're talking about are investing in more stable commodities like gold. I know, because I'm around a lot of African and Carribean folks. The people back in their countries are putting their money into gold bullion.



Countries are actively making laws against weed, illegal file downloading, and lots of other things they can't seem to stop. And people largely don't care about what the laws say. They care about having freedom, independence, not being stolen from, having more convenience, and having more wealth. Bitcoin provides all these things, even while countries keep passing more and more laws to clamp down, and keep stealing more and more from people through inflation. You're wrong about "In the U.S the only legal tender allowed for exchange is the U.S dollar." First of all legal tender applies ONLY for paying back debts. It has nothing to do with trade or using bitcoin to buy things. And the law doesn't state that it's "the only." You can accept anything you want for loans. The only thing the law says is that if someone offers dollars you must accept them for debt. That's it.

Here are some stories from people about countries with less developed economies and how they are very much interested in bitcoin https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/check-your-financial-privilege
It's not unusual to see a tiny village in Africa with mud huts with straw roofs, and a "community shared" smart phone hooked up to a solar panel sitting on the roof to provide internet to anyone who needs it. And cheap satellite internet is coming.
Gold doesn't help those people, and only hurts them. It creates massive environmental destruction, most of it is collected by poor exploited miners who get paid almost nothing, and then gets shipped out to richer countries, it's hard to store because if anyone knows you have it you could get robbed and killed, and it's completely worthless in a global economy, trapping those who have it to their own under-developed economy. Bitcoin has none of these problems and lets those people trade with anyone in the world.



PercyD said:


> Bro. I can guarantee you no real person is dumping gold for bitcoin. Absolutely no one. I'm not sure who you're talking to, but they're probably a fool.


Small investors and common persons, no. Big investors with A LOT of money, big investment funds, big companies, yes. Michael Saylor and other super rich are slowly convincing more and more billionaires about it, and more and more of them are dumping their gold and moving into Bitcoin. The fools (like Peter Schiff) are the ones sticking with gold.








						Investors are rapidly dumping gold for Bitcoin, Bloomberg analyst says By BTC Peers
					

Investors are rapidly dumping gold for Bitcoin, Bloomberg analyst says




					www.investing.com
				











						Why African Investors Are Officially Dumping Gold for Bitcoin - FinSMEs
					

With Bitcoin, and cryptocurrency trading in general, increasing globally, especially in African countries, there have been numerous concerns over the trade in Gold decreasing as Bitcoin trading is on the rise




					www.finsmes.com
				







PercyD said:


> Bitcoin is also not scarce because it's not real. You have literal servers 'mining' it. It's value is purely based on what people decide how much it is. It's not a company, as you said, but it is something that is exchanged. -Just like stocks, just like commodities, just like other currency.



Of course it's scarce. Miners are mining it, but at an exponentially decreasing rate, until they will not be able to mine any more of it. There will never be any more than 21 million bitcoin, because that number is mathematically locked into Bitcoin's function, and anyone who changes it will not be able to transact with the bitcoin network. It's more scarce than gold, which will inflate forever, and can explode in quantity if we actually start bringing those gold asteroids back to earth. And, all value is based on what people decide how much it is. Gold included.




PercyD said:


> I don't think you have an understanding of how the economy, finances, or even trading works bro. It's fine if you don't. I don't know a lot of shit either. Pretending that you do and trying to argue with someone who understands the subject better than you do... You come out sounding foolish. Just quit while you're ahead, theres no shame in it.



Why do you think that I don't know how those things work, and that you understand the subject better than you do? How did my almost 20 years of investing experience, my Bachelor in Business Finance, my Master's in Global Finance and Economics, my decade of experience in global business and investing, and my mere than a decade of experience, study, analysis of markets and money, and reading on topics of economy, finances, money, and economic and monetary history have failed me? Can you point to anything specific please? I mean, I don't know what YOUR job is and won't presume to know, but all this has literally been my career, and a pretty successful one, for over a decade now. Especially in crypto.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 20, 2021)

PercyD said:


> To be honest, when I talk to him I feel like he's lying about who he is and what he does. Especially since it seems like he needs 3 other people to stand up for him instead of explaining himself. He hasn't said ANYTHING to the contrary yet. If someone insists on arguing with me, THEY need to explain themselves.
> 
> Also, if you have a business in New York thats not making at least 1 million dollars annually, your business is operating in poverty. A millionare aint much, honey. It takes a solid million to buy decent houses in parts of the US. Something here just isn't adding up.
> 
> Someone who has a degree in economics isn't going to say things like "investors are dropping gold for bitcoin". I've actually worked in a Hedge Fund. I've actually worked with investors. I've actually done research helping investors teach people how to invest. They err on the side of stability, not new aged gimmicks. Half of them don't want to let FORTRAN go because Financial institutions are notorious for not updating their tech. They're not taking bitcoin seriously. This shit aint adding up.


Who said anything about New York? New York have not been mentioned by anyone here apart from you. Are you trying to imply Rassah is from New York? I did recommend earlier you stop assuming things about people when you literally do not know them. It makes you look silly.

I see a ton of people investing in Bitcoin and altcoins alike, including but not limited to friends and coworkers as we speculate and discuss it on a daily basis. Bitcoin went from barely a Dollar a pop when it first started out and was at its highest recently at, what, $63,500? There is currently more cryptocurrency in value for trading on various online markets than there are Dollars in circulation. 








						There Is Now More Cryptocurrency Than There Are U.S Dollars In Circulation - Wonderful Engineering
					

Advertisement Would the government print trillions of more dollars now? Cryptocurrency paces ahead of all US dollars in circulation and experts are vi




					wonderfulengineering.com
				



$2.25 Trillion USD. That's slightly over half of the US government's annual spending, to put it into perspective. And it's only going to grow further from here as more and more people become interested in cryptocurrency, average Joe and investors alike. And not just as a forms of saving but also as a form of investment. Bitcoin have seen nothing but a value increase since its inception and have made quite a lot of average people a lot richer if not millionaires as a result of long-term investments into this.


----------



## PercyD (May 20, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Bitcoin and blockchain are not two separate things. They're inextricably linked. You literally can't have one without the other. I'll try to explain.
> A blockchain by itself is just a database. There's absolutely nothing special about it. And anyone can just run one such database for every coin and transaction in existence. That's basically what VISA does. What makes blockchain special is that this database can be maintained by a whole bunch of people who don't know and don't trust each other, but somehow they keep their copies of the blockchain database in sync, without being able to make changes to it themselves to steal from each other. And the only way that can be accomplished is because miners secure every single transaction by spending massive costs to create very complex, impossible-to-forge signatures to sign off on transactions. Any change in those transactions would be immediately discovered because the digital signature won't match. And the ONLY reason those miners spend that money doing that is because they get paid, buy that database, to do it, where every time they find a strong enough signature, the database allows them to pay themselves. They can't be paid by these database operators directly, because it would be to easy to bribe and corrupt the system. So, without bitcoin, there's no mining. Without mining there's no security of transactions. And without security of transactions there's no decentralized distributed and trustless blockchain. All you have is a bunch of individuals running their own Excel spreadsheets.
> 
> But the reason I said Bitcoin is like TCP/IP is not because it's just "money, but digital proof of ownership. Bitcoin at it's core isn't "money," it's a smart contract with a digital signature that provides proof of ownership. One of the first functions of that digital contract is money. But it can, and is, being used for lots of other proofs of ownership already, such as identity (like your "Login with Google/Facebook"), tokens like stocks and other securities, as I recently found out, your online chat ID in a decentralized chat platform similar to Telegram that runs entirely on top of Bitcoin (https://sphinx.chat/). And lots of other new ideas are being created. It's TCP/IP that adds "ownership/identity" to TCP/IP's data packets, but like the internet keeps it completely decentralized.
> ...


I didn't say Blockchain and Bitcoin are two separate things. I actually said that bitcoin depends on blockchain to even function. Thats how I got my clay tablets example. Its the same thing, essentially, just now done with computers.  What I did say is calling Bitcoin IP/TCP and calling regular banking phonelines is incorrect. Fundamentally it's not, even if one is newer than the other.  Novelty isn't a reason to do something-- ESPECIALLY in fiance. Thats my point. 

Also, I still doubt that big investors like hedgefunds are dumping gold for bitcoin. Gold isn't a way to make money, of course, so most hedgefunds aren't gonna play too much with gold any way. I was just using it as an example for what people use to hedge their fortunes against inflation. Its trusted. You can trust people will always accept gold. Thats why you see it in a lot of savvy IRAs.

Like I said also, large firms barely want to update their tech. I highly doubt they're going gunhoe for cryptocurrency. Especially because it's hard to put stock in something thats being legislated against. You got me on source saying to contrary, but honestly I don't trust it. It sounds like more sensation to me, which can push the market one way or the other. They even have an embedded tweet and I'm not buying it. Bitcoin is new, not trusted, and still depends on people accepting it. It MAJORLY depends on people accepting it. Thats why this whole conversation about laws is important. Weed and drugs are an irrelevant conversation- people aren't trying to trade those like a commodity. It what leads me to believe that this tweet is to push the market and not to actually state a fact. 

What makes me think that you don't know how these things work is that you came at me with sensation and not facts. You can tell me you did this for 20 years. You can tell me you got a Bachelors in Fiance, and a Masters. However, you haven't really shown me much by what you're saying. It's a lot of jargon and sensation. People with a Masters don't talk like that. If you really are about all this as much as you say, you need to be more careful not to discredit yourself. People who know whats up are watching you, and it's really easy to make yourself look like you don't know what you're talking about. You can't sell an idea at the expense of your merit. You gotta explain it. 

This all goes back to why I'm not about how people talk about Bitcoin. It comes off as an MLM scheme. I know what those sound like, I've had to suffer through many of them. If bitcoin really is this great thing, the way y'all are talking about it just aint it.


----------



## PercyD (May 20, 2021)

Yakamaru said:


> Who said anything about New York? New York have not been mentioned by anyone here apart from you. Are you trying to imply Rassah is from New York? I did recommend earlier you stop assuming things about people when you literally do not know them. It makes you look silly.
> 
> I see a ton of people investing in Bitcoin and altcoins alike, including but not limited to friends and coworkers as we speculate and discuss it on a daily basis. Bitcoin went from barely a Dollar a pop when it first started out and was at its highest recently at, what, $63,500? There is currently more cryptocurrency in value for trading on various online markets than there are Dollars in circulation.
> 
> ...


I'm trying to imply that Rassah needs to talk for himself cause you're not doing him any favors the more you try to talk for him. Thats SPECIFICALLY what I'm trying to say. Rassah sounds like he's 3 times your age too so he doesn't need your help, sweetie.

Do you even know what we are even talking about? I also didn't say anything about no one investing in cryptocurrency. I just need Rassah to come and explain himself, thank you.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 20, 2021)

PercyD said:


> I'm trying to imply that Rassah needs to talk for himself cause you're not doing him any favors the more you try to talk for him. Thats SPECIFICALLY what I'm trying to say. Rassah sounds like he's 3 times your age too so he doesn't need your help, sweetie.
> 
> Do you even know what we are even talking about? I also didn't say anything about no one investing in cryptocurrency. I just need Rassah to come and explain himself, thank you.


He is fully capable of speaking for himself, yes. And I am letting him do exactly that. I addressed your perceived notions about someone whom you don't know, asking you to stop assuming things about people. It's silly. What makes you feel he is lying, exactly?

And stop using sweetie, please. I find it rather condescending in the way you use it.


----------



## PercyD (May 20, 2021)

Yakamaru said:


> He is fully capable of speaking for himself, yes. And I am letting him do exactly that. I addressed your perceived notions about someone whom you don't know, asking you to stop assuming things about people. It's silly. What makes you feel he is lying, exactly?
> 
> And stop using sweetie, please. I find it rather condescending in the way you use it.


I meant it to be condescending because I very much dislike your behavior. Its annoying. You don't need to speak for him. If I were him, I'd find it agitating. We're having a conversation and your intrusion into it is unappreciated. You don't even know what we are talking about, and if you do, it doesn't matter. Rassah needs to speak for himself.


----------



## Rassah (May 20, 2021)

ASTA said:


> The biggest and most widely-tolerated "ball-and-chain" that the higher classes use to indirectly oppress the lower classes is consumerism fueled by debt.


This is why those silly libertarians fawn over Bitcoin. It makes debt fueled consumerism impossible 



PercyD said:


> Someone who has a degree in economics isn't going to say things like "investors are dropping gold for bitcoin". I've actually worked in a Hedge Fund. I've actually worked with investors. I've actually done research helping investors teach people how to invest. They err on the side of stability, not new aged gimmicks. Half of them don't want to let FORTRAN go because Financial institutions are notorious for not updating their tech. They're not taking bitcoin seriously. This shit aint adding up.


Well, since you have some experience in investing, let's look at the state of the world as it is today.


Dollars: US just printed something like 25% to 30% new dollars, and Biden is wanting to add about $6 trillion more to our economy. Propaganda papers are now saying "Oops, we were wrong, I guess there IS more inflation that expected, where we thought it would be 3.8%. But don't worry, it's only up to 4.2%"(I say propaganda because this admission of guilt and then making up numbers to make it not THAT bad is pretty common from my native USSR). Serious investors are worried about inflation hitting double digits. So, you can't hold your hundreds of millions in dollars.
Stocks: Stock market has been on a continual climb, even despite the global economy being shut down for a year, and keep hitting new records. Everyone knows stock prices are just bullshit at this point. The only decent explanation anyone has been able to come up with is that all the new stilumus dollars are making investors fear inflation, so they're dumping their money into "real" assets like company stocks. If they're wrong, then the stock market is in a massive bubble and is ready to pop. If they're right, then that will just result in companies doing crazy risky things - ANYTHING - just to try to stay head of that inflation, which will make the market even more risky, and eventually can cause that crack-up boom thing. So stocks are definitely out (and if you've been reading financial news recently, you know big money is dumping billions of stocks right now).
Bonds: Same bubble. Plus corporate and government debt is garbage when it's denominated in dollars that can inflate faster than the bond rate.
Real estate/property: Inflation drives up taxes and costs, but wages are always slow to keep up. Costs go up, tenants aren't paying because they quickly get to a point where they can't afford to. And all that massive rise in real estate values you'll have is just more inflation, which when you sell you end up paying huge capital gains taxes on, even though you didn't actually make any money and all of that gain was inflation. Plus real estate is considered to be overinflated and in a bubble too.
What's left, really? Gold? Gold hasn't moved much. Gold is stuck in vaults and is very costly to secure and store in large amounts. Gold has problems of those who store it not being able to prove if they have what they have, or that it isn't filled with tungsten as was discovered a few years ago at one big vault I forget where. And what do the wealthy fear most right now? Wealth taxes. US is talking about them, Europe is talking about them, Russia and China haven't been, but they just take your money without asking anyway. Gold won't protect you from wealth taxes, because the feds just march into the vault and confiscate what they want. Bitcoin is cheap and easy to store and secure. And if wealth taxes come, you pick up and move and take your hundreds of millions with you. No one will stop you at the border to seize them, because they're not "there." Why do you think Michael Saylor, Elon Musk, Jack Dorsey, Tim Draper, and tons of other billionaires you likely never heard of are moving their wealth into Bitcoin (and buying second passports I might add)? Maybe the most interesting thing about Bitcoin is that there are a lot of billionaires who no one even knows they're billionaires, because they have all their wealth in bitcoin. I even know a guy who lives in long term stay hotels (free room service), has a dog, an old car, and a suitcase worth of stuff, who works online as a six figure software developer, who earns everything in bitcoin and pays for everything with bitcoin (paying for hotels with gift cards he buys with BTC). He's a millionaire many times over, but no one knows that he is, and he's free to move anywhere in the country or the world without anyone knowing he has all that money. I know two billionaires who are similar, where they live much nicer liestyles, moving around different countries, but where no one besides me and a few of their close friends even know they're billionaires. And the point of this is that soon you won't know that well-known wealthy people own bitcoin or are billionaires. For instance, my group knew Elon owned a whole lot of Bitcoin a few years ago, but no one publicly knew that until less than a year ago. So if you think "Most rich people don't own bitcoin!" how do you know?


----------



## Rassah (May 20, 2021)

PercyD said:


> I didn't say Blockchain and Bitcoin are two separate things. I actually said that bitcoin depends on blockchain to even function. Thats how I got my clay tablets example. Its the same thing, essentially, just now done with computers.  What I did say is calling Bitcoin IP/TCP and calling regular banking phonelines is incorrect. Fundamentally it's not, even if one is newer than the other.  Novelty isn't a reason to do something-- ESPECIALLY in fiance. Thats my point.


If you don't understand the difference between storing money in a bank and using bank transactions VS storing money using Bitcoin and using bitcoin transfers, then you haven't looked into Bitcoin closely enough. It's very similar to the difference between using post office and email. One works only a few hours a week, still does a lot of things manually, has national border barriers that make it more difficult to send to another country, is very insecure and susceptible to mistakes (I have one of my clients wiring me $170k for two weeks now, and last week it was stuck and lost somewhere for days because he didn't use the right name on the account. You can't type in a wrong bitcoin address), and worst of all completely depends on trusting a third party for ALL digital transactions. The other works 24/7, is completely automated, like email doesn't care where you send it to, is so secure that the system itself has not been hacked in over ten years, has tons of redundancies to make mistakes near impossible, and you don't have to trust anyone with your money. You hold it, you control it, and you decide how to spend it. It's literally like having your own bank.
And this doesn't even get into all the technology aspects, where the banking system is proprietary that no one can innovate on while bitcoin is an open source platform, and all the never before seen things like smart contracts, multisignature escrows, payment channels, contracts that can automatically pay based on certain conditions (e.g. you can make Kickstarter as just a transaction in Bitcoin), and it being the first currency that can be entirely owned and controlled by software without human intervention (before it all software had to be tied to a physical bank account with a human having a bank account) which itself has very crazy and sci-fi level implications for AI.




PercyD said:


> Like I said also, large firms barely want to update their tech. I highly doubt they're going gunhoe for cryptocurrency.


They don't have to "update their tech." They just need a few hardware wallets that cost ($100 each), or pay a service about $2000 that will store your digital keys among three separate escrows for you in a way that none of them can steal your money even if they wanted to. They don't even have to do anything other than buy it on an exchange and sent it to an address. You can pay maybe $300 to $2000 dollars to completely secure ten billion dollars worth of wealth. What other system lets you do that?



PercyD said:


> Bitcoin is new, not trusted, and still depends on people accepting it. It MAJORLY depends on people accepting it. Thats why this whole conversation about laws is important.



That's true. But those like me who saw it for what it is from the beginning, and those who are figuring it out now, understand the tech, network effects, and economics behind it to know that people will be accepting it more and more, even if they don't want to. It's like old people not caring for those stupid cell phones and internet things, and yet they still end up being forced to use them. Furries here who ABSOLUTELY HATE IT will end up using it every time they swipe their VISA or accept PayPal for commissions without even knowing about it.
Regarding laws, I think the thing you're not getting is just how much the world is changing. The old money is thinking about laws being good, secure, keeping them and their money safe, and that you should invest in things that government strongly regulates and protects. What's changing is that there is a whole hell of a lot of "HATE THE RICH!" sentiment taking over the world. Mostly the western world (North America, Europe, and Australia). The new laws that keep being proposed and are more and more likely are not the "keep the rich money safe and secure" kind of laws. They're laws that will try to seize and tax as much of that wealth as possible (which in hindsight is inevitable when countries exist on inflationary debt and start running out of wealth, and which libertarians have been warning about for a century -.-). So while you're thinking "law is important" as being a threat to Bitcoin, Bitcoin being designed to ignore and circumvent law actually makes lack of law and being able to ignore it a major benefit. Especially to these super-wealthy investors who are worried about these new laws, and the billions of people who still live under restrictive financial laws.




PercyD said:


> What makes me think that you don't know how these things work is that you came at me with sensation and not facts. You can tell me you did this for 20 years. You can tell me you got a Bachelors in Fiance, and a Masters. However, you haven't really shown me much by what you're saying. It's a lot of jargon and sensation. People with a Masters don't talk like that. If you really are about all this as much as you say, you need to be more careful not to discredit yourself. People who know whats up are watching you, and it's really easy to make yourself look like you don't know what you're talking about. You can't sell an idea at the expense of your merit. You gotta explain it.


I'm trying to explain it. I'm hoping I'm continuing to at least make some headway. I thought you meant I made some economic or logical blunder though. Maybe the issue you have with me is lack of sources?


----------



## Yakamaru (May 20, 2021)

PercyD said:


> I meant it to be condescending because I very much dislike your behavior. Its annoying. You don't need to speak for him. If I were him, I'd find it agitating. We're having a conversation and your intrusion into it is unappreciated. You don't even know what we are talking about, and if you do, it doesn't matter. Rassah needs to speak for himself.


I addressed the point of you not believing him being a self-made millionaire, and this point only. Could always search for Rassah and see what results you may get. Who knows, might surprise you. :>

Feel free to carry on with the conversation as I am done here.


----------



## PercyD (May 20, 2021)

Rassah said:


> This is why those silly libertarians fawn over Bitcoin. It makes debt fueled consumerism impossible
> 
> 
> Well, since you have some experience in investing, let's look at the state of the world as it is today.
> ...


I didn't say rich people don't own bitcoin. I said hedge funds and the investor class everyone is talking about is probably not investing in bitcoin. Too volitile. Its unlikely they keep the faith of their clients with it (right now). I also said its unlikely people in a developing nation with a weak economy is jumping into bitcoin too.
However, when you say that billionaires want to make their billion dollars disappear, thats something different entirely. 

Billionaires are the clientele of the Hedge Funds I'm mentioned before. Bitcoin might rise for the reasons you mentioned. It also might be a reason why that tweet came up. If the investors can make bitcoin seem more safe, they can start offering that product to their clients. Bitcoin might even be useful for them- but they aren't the people in developing countries that you're talking about. (Not all of them anyway, I know some undercover Billionaires in the African and Carribean countries I was talking about who might be doing just this).  

If the new trend is to be an undercover billionaire with your funds away from the feds, then yea. However, no ones dumping gold. Theres a whole culture around gold that goes back to antiquity. They have serials. They have measures to ensure their purity. Hell, the Feds actually don't tax commodities like precious metals the same way here in the U.S- so I'm really sure the feds aren't going into vaults taking gold. Thats why I thought you sounded crazy. No (normal) person is putting their IRA into bitcoin. Not in this current year of our Lord, 2021.

However, can't liquidate your gold without it becoming obvious you are a billionaire. If you want to talk about more bitcoin products as the trend goes towards disappearing billionaires, I'd be willing to listen to you.


----------



## Attaman (May 20, 2021)

I'm just going to lift the veil, stop the beating of around the bush, and get this song and dance over with so that the thread can presumably move on from questioning any individual users' history or academic / personal experience or whatnot.

People here are trying to sell their Bitcoins, and / or artificially jolt the market with more suckers to give it some more years of relative stability.

That's it. That's literally it. The majority of the vocal voices in here going on about a moral imperative to support Bitcoin, talk about how actually it's super-duper economically friendly, how it's a safer investment than banks, and so-on? Have long admitted to having investments in Bitcoin. Some of them even have a significant / majority share of their wealth in Bitcoin. And coincidentally, like clockwork, every single time one of these "Buy / Invest Bitcoin" threads shows up? It's on the heels of a market shock. Y'know, what leads to shareholders doing the exact same thing in the stock market under similar circumstances. Your biggest clue-in is that these threads go quiet when the market ticks back up ("Wait, my number's going up bigly again? FUCK YOU THOSE ARE MY COINS"), and then go right back to another "We're practically selling you the shirts off our back" round the second they rumble again.

Now, being entirely fair, people selling shit they have is an entirely legitimate use of FA and FA's services. There's an artist section dedicated to just that, after all, and FA doesn't really seem to have any particular anti-commercial rules (or rules in general for matters such as pyramid schemes, ponzi schemes, multi-layered marketing, or so-on: If it ain't an explicit scam which resulted in nothing more than money changing hands under duplicitous information, FA doesn't really care).

But that's really all there is to it the last couple pages. "Bitcoin is love. Bitcoin is life. Bitcoin is the One True And Safe Investment, and you have both a Moral and Environmental Imperative to Buy Bitcoin". "Oh, alright. Any idea how I can start?" "_Am I glad you asked_."

That's really all you need to know about why we've been having this dance the last couple pages. We've had this spiel earlier this year. We had it last year during the peak of the pandemic economic crisis. Hell, we had it during the invasion of the Ukraine. When Bitcoin fluctuates, its investors on FAF are going to try cashing out. Which, I mean, again is entirely in their right. But don't fall for the bells and whistles or waste time getting caught in a trap of debating with marketing spiels. For that matter, stop beating around the bush: Just make threads titled "Selling Bitcoin / Bitcoin farming equipment", and you'll save a lot of unnecessary derails, accusations, et al. Also cover your ass a lot better if somebody thinks they've been scammed after the fact and tries to take you to court. "I am selling [thing], PM me if interested" is a hell of a lot harder to claim legal action over than "Did you know that for every day you don't buy Bitcoin, five babies will have their ceberospinal fluid sucked out by a steppy 8' Romanian Vampire Woman to the backdrop of burning rainforests? Also it'll give you a bigger dick and hold its value for ten thousand years."


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (May 20, 2021)




----------



## Rassah (May 20, 2021)

PercyD said:


> I didn't say rich people don't own bitcoin. I said hedge funds and the investor class everyone is talking about is probably not investing in bitcoin.


Perhaps the problem IS that you just don't believe me. Which is fine. You don't know me and didn't google Rassah or "Michael Tozoni." So I'll just have others speak on my behalf.








						MicroStrategy buys more than $1 billion worth of bitcoin, adding to massive holdings
					

MicroStrategy said the average purchase price of all its bitcoin purchases is $23,985 per digital token




					www.cnbc.com
				





			Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
		









						Elon Musk's Tesla Has Invested $1.5 Billion Into Bitcoin - Decrypt
					

Tesla has invested $1.5 billion into Bitcoin, according to an SEC filing published today.




					decrypt.co
				



https://www.wsj.com/articles/galaxy...ypto-sectors-first-1-billion-deal-11620212281 and now holds16,402 BTC, according to bitcointreasuries.org
https://decrypt.co/52997/grayscale-hits-20-billion-in-aum-as-bitcoins-price-goes-wild now holds more than 3% of the Bitcoin total supply, with 656,166 BTC








						Ruffer Is the Latest Billion-Dollar Firm to Bet on Bitcoin - Decrypt
					

London-based asset manager, Ruffer, today said in an update to shareholders that it allocated 2.5% of its Multi-Strategies Fund to Bitcoin.




					decrypt.co
				











						Canada’s first Bitcoin fund now listed on Toronto Stock Exchange - Decrypt
					

3iQ, a Canadian crypto-asset portfolio manager, listed the first Bitcoin fund on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) on Thursday with Gemini as custodian.




					decrypt.co
				




There are more. I know big banks CTOs have told me personally when we were hanging out that their banks invested millions in crypto mining and other side industries without holding bitcoin directly. And I know private hedge fund managers who have expanded into bitcoin for their private clients. But that's just hearsay that you won't believe. Just now that these few articles only cover the biggest most public ones.




PercyD said:


> Too volitile. Its unlikely they keep the faith of their clients with it (right now).











						'Tesla has not sold any Bitcoin', says Elon Musk to end 'sell' speculations
					

Musk's comes a few days after he tweeted that Tesla has stopped taking Bitcoin as a mode of payment for its cars.




					www.livemint.com
				



https://www.barrons.com/articles/square-bitcoin-51620997374 (no plans to buy more, but is not selling what they have)
https://www.coindesk.com/institutional-investors-bitcoin-buy-the-dip-nydig (big investors are actually buying this dip, not dumping it)
https://coinmarketcap.com/alexandri...d-snap-up-1-2-billion-in-bitcoin-between-them This one is from the last one, but I guarantee you MicroStrategy bought more. Or you can read it here








						MicroStrategy Buys Dip, Accumulates 229 More BTC For $10 Million
					

Michael Saylor’s MicroStrategy has bought aggressively during the current bitcoin price dip, accumulating 229 BTC for $10 million.




					www.nasdaq.com
				







PercyD said:


> I also said its unlikely people in a developing nation with a weak economy is jumping into bitcoin too.











						Check Your Financial Privilege
					

While those comfortable in the dollar bubble deride Bitcoin, the stories of three emerging market users demonstrate why it is so important.




					bitcoinmagazine.com
				











						A Crisis in Venezuela Has Sparked Rabid Use of Bitcoin - Here's Why
					

Venezuela's economic crisis is triggering increased use of Bitcoin as the boliver plunges.




					www.thestreet.com
				











						Bitcoin Trading Is Booming in Uncertain Russia, With 350% Spike in New Users on Paxful – Exchanges Bitcoin News
					

Bitcoin trading is growing in Russia. That's despite attempts by the government to make it difficult for investors to do so. For years, Russian lawmakers




					news.bitcoin.com
				











						How The Use Of Bitcoin In Africa Continued To Grow In 2020
					

Africa has proven to be a hotbed of adoption for Bitcoin in 2020. But what fueled this growth? And what will next year look like?




					bitcoinmagazine.com
				











						Africa's quiet cryptocurrency revolution  – DW – 10/08/2020
					

Cryptocurrency transactions in Africa are growing rapidly. On a continent that already embraces mobile money, virtual currency offers advantages for a young, tech-savvy population.




					www.dw.com
				




Keep in mind that with newest bitcoin tech, bitcoin transactions cost almost nothing in fees and are instant.



PercyD said:


> Billionaires are the clientele of the Hedge Funds I'm mentioned before. Bitcoin might rise for the reasons you mentioned. It also might be a reason why that tweet came up. If the investors can make bitcoin seem more safe, they can start offering that product to their clients. Bitcoin might even be useful for them- but they aren't the people in developing countries that you're talking about. (Not all of them anyway, I know some undercover Billionaires in the African and Carribean countries I was talking about who might be doing just this).


The undercover billionaires were in Texas, St. Kitts, Japan, Thailand. Though they move often. I don't now any in Africa.



PercyD said:


> If the new trend is to be an undercover billionaire with your funds away from the feds, then yea. However, no ones dumping gold.











						Investors are rapidly dumping gold for Bitcoin, Bloomberg analyst says By BTC Peers
					

Investors are rapidly dumping gold for Bitcoin, Bloomberg analyst says




					www.investing.com
				








						Gold vs Bitcoin: pandemic-driven stimulus fuels growing rivalry
					

Bitcoin has gained ground to rival gold as a store-of-value investment because, like gold, it is a hedge against currency devaluation and volatility




					www.spglobal.com
				











						Bitcoin Could Replace Gold as a Refuge, BlackRock Says | Chief Investment Officer
					

The yellow metal now is in a funk, as the cryptocurrency keeps gaining.




					www.ai-cio.com
				




Bitcoin grew by a few hundred billion. Gold has been mostly flat. That alone says that investors are moving wealth to Bitcoin vs gold. And yes, people are dumping gold. Gold doesn't have any benefits over Bitcon whatsoever other than history.



PercyD said:


> Theres a whole culture around gold that goes back to antiquity. They have serials. They have measures to ensure their purity.



There are a lot of crazy old gold bugs that will not change their minds. Peter Schiff is a great example. But they're the guys I'm comparing to old folks refusing to get a cell phone. Bitcoin doesn't need easily copies serials and Shrodinger's Cat style measures to test their purity (is my gold real? was it replaced? Should I not measure so I don't accidentally find out it's fake before selling it to someone else?). Bitcoin "measures purity" automatically with every transaction.



PercyD said:


> Hell, the Feds actually don't tax commodities like precious metals the same way here in the U.S- so I'm really sure the feds aren't going into vaults taking gold.











						Executive Order 6102 - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				








						History of Gold Controls in Australia | The Perth Mint
					

Below is the text of a 1976 Australian Government press release annoucing the removal of restictions on the ownership and trading of gold in Australia. The attachment to the press release provides a history of controls over gold in Australia. PRESS RELEASE No 29 EMGARBO 6.00pm STATEMENT BY THE...




					www.perthmint.com
				











						Yes, Governments Do Steal Gold
					

Because gold is no longer central to the world's monetary system, so-called confiscation looks like a very 20th century phenomenon today, but that may well change.




					www.forbes.com
				



The whole Hitler stealing gold from his territories too.
Also, the fact that US strongarmed Switzerland of all places to open their vaults and release information on all their wealthy clients so they can tax and take their wealth shows me that they wouldn't have an issue doing that with just gold vaults in US or other governments doing it in their own countries.



PercyD said:


> Thats why I thought you sounded crazy. No (normal) person is putting their IRA into bitcoin. Not in this current year of our Lord, 2021.











						Bitcoin IRA™ | The Official Crypto IRA Retirement Platform
					

Bitcoin IRA is the 1st and most trusted crypto IRA platform that lets you self-trade cryptocurrency in a self-directed IRA. Open a crypto retirement account!




					bitcoinira.com
				











						How to Add Crypto to Your Retirement Account
					

Cryptocurrency is considered an alternative investment and under certain conditions can be placed into a retirement account. Learn how it works.




					www.investopedia.com
				











						Best Bitcoin IRAs of 2023 (with Reviews) | Retirement Living
					

Read reviews on the top cryptocurrency IRA companies, tips on how to invest in a bitcoin IRA and protect your retirement.




					www.retirementliving.com
				











						The Best Bitcoin IRA Companies of 2022
					

Bitcoin IRA companies can help you invest cryptocurrency for retirement. We reviewed the best Bitcoin IRA companies based on fees, options, and other factors to help you choose the right one.




					www.thebalance.com
				



"Bitcoin IRA customer assets are stored on offline cold storage through BitGo Trust, and it offers up to a $100 million insurance policy to give your assets additional security."



PercyD said:


> However, can't liquidate your gold without it becoming obvious you are a billionaire.


https://www.bitrefill.com/buy/?hl=en companies you can buy gift cards with bitcoin
http://purse.io  Buy anything off Amazon for about 15% off
https://bitpay.com/  reloadable Bitcoin funded MasterCard
https://paywithmoon.com/ one-time-use VISA cards for online use funded with Bitcoin
https://www.cheapair.com/ book flights and hotels with bitcoin

I've moved all my finances into Bitcoin, where all my money is in it, everything I earn goes in it, and I just use Bitcoin to pay for stuff, way back in 2014. It's highly liquid and a hell of a lot easier now than then.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (May 20, 2021)

Yakamaru said:


> A self-made millionaire from a poor background from an Eastern European country.. don't know how money/investment/Bitcoin works? What?
> 
> Recommend you stop assuming things about people whom you literally know nothing about, as a friendly recommendation/advice.


I'm going to try to balance between respecting Rassah's professional history (which is substantial over the decades if recall his biography correctly), having reservations about the assertions he is making regarding Bitcoin and its mining, and explaining to you that qualifications do matter here.

First off, PercyD is qualifed to talk about technical aspects of Bitcoin and blockchain because I do know PercyD has a background in information technology and cybersecurity. PercyD has talked professionally and proficiently on technical matters before here on the forums, with other experts, and was widely held to know what he was talking about. I didn't know PercyD had previously worked with a hedge fund, but that only qualifies PercyD more to speak on these matters. 

As for Rassah, I wholly acknowledge that man the has a storied resume which you could aspire to and that he is entrepreneur in the Bitcoin industry as well as someone with holding real estate, from what he has said here previously. I remember hearing about him before I knew he was a furry and was surprised he was a furry as well as by his general demeanor. I'll even admit admire his immigrant story from coming from Ukraine as child with his parents to flee communism and making the most of himself and his opportunities here, which is something you could take to heart.

That is he accomplished by some measure through decades of work isn't up for debate.

That said, I would, somewhat gauchely, ask what proportion what Rassah's assets are cryptocurrency as opposed to harder assets like cash or real estate. Because there a world of different between someone who is a millionaire in terms of the almighty American dollar and someone who has a million dollars' worth of Bitcoin. The dollar has proven record of strength and I've remember Rassah saying he was exchanging Bitcoin for "fiat currency" to pay for expenses, which speaks to ubiquity of the dollar. There is whole universe of goods and services that you can't buy with Bitcoin that you can with dollars. Complicating that is the extreme volatility and exchange risk posed by Bitcoin; we're talking about the merit of Bitcoin when this is the reality:











						Bitcoin falls further as China cracks down on crypto-currencies
					

The price of Bitcoin fell below $34,000 for the first time in three months after China imposed fresh curbs.



					www.bbc.com
				




I've had to explain with Rassah (and you) about how the Austrian school is fringe economic outlook, why pegging the dollar directly  to gold is foolish, how the fundamentals of the coal industry in China work, and that investors are generally turned off by extreme risk and illegality. I'm not surprised you are not steeped in economic theory, but Rassah should and probably does know better, deep down, in terms of most of these issues, especially the ones that relate to Bitcoin. 

This isn't to say that everyone supportive of Bitcoin is suspect; the OP also extensive experience in information technology and the intricacies of Bitcoin as well as other cryptocurrencies, but I'm sure they wouldn't take the extreme positions Rassah has staked out. I have degrees computer science and economics and I don't mind Bitcoin as a speculative investment for people above a certain net worth who can take a tax write-off, possibly, if the cryptocurrency takes a nosedive. But I'm not saying it is a safe investment and, more importantly, most financial institutions and central banks are warning against cryptocurrencies because of their volatility and regulation risk, which are the two biggest risks to Bitcoin.

Rassah hasn't adequately explained the deficiencies in his investment strategy yet and, worse yet, Bitcoin isn't doing terribly well at the moment either.

It's on him and you, if you can, to plug those holes.


----------



## Rassah (May 20, 2021)

Attaman said:


> People here are trying to sell their Bitcoins, and / or artificially jolt the market with more suckers to give it some more years of relative stability.



Anyone here trying to sell their bitcoins? Or care if anyone here buys some? You need at least $10,000,000 to even make a tiny blip in the market, let alone a "jolt" and I don't think anyone here is worth $10 mil, are they? I've never offered to sell anyone coins here, ever. At most I've sent a few users here $20 worth, privately, for free, just so they can try it out.  But if Attaman here is right and if you want to sell your bitcoins, I'll happily buy them off you. I'm even a registered and regulated financial business in US with my own Bitcoin ATMs and service that lets others buy and sell them (that's what one of my client's $175k wire is about). But I'm not selling mine, sorry.


----------



## MechaMegs (May 20, 2021)

Rassah said:


> How is this pyramid scheme any different from any other form of money, or anything else of value at all, like commodities like gold, sugar, or oil, in that sense?
> 
> View attachment 110642


Thank you for admitting that it IS a pyramid scheme and that by proxy from you trying to pedal it to others you are in fact serving your own benefit and wealth while they gain nothing until they get more people which will also increase your wealth yet again.

And no. Capitalism doesnt work because it incentivizes and rewards greed. As such we see how fast we have destroyed the planet and shoved neumerous species to being endangered or outright extinct.

If you dont reward greed and selfishness with more power and control over others the less selfish people may be and if the reward for working together in the sense that we dont have to worry for food and care or shelter the more likely they are to all work within that community.

Like for how great capitalism is why does America have one of the worst poverty issues of first world nations where most people can be economically destroyed by one medical mishap landing them into a hospital or missing work because of illness and such? Simple because greed has been incentivized as those with the most money have the most control so they want to suck up every cent they can even at the expense of underpaying their laborforces and stripping the planet of its resources to create scarcities and.or to control those resources.


Attaman said:


> I'm just going to lift the veil, stop the beating of around the bush, and get this song and dance over with so that the thread can presumably move on from questioning any individual users' history or academic / personal experience or whatnot.
> 
> People here are trying to sell their Bitcoins, and / or artificially jolt the market with more suckers to give it some more years of relative stability.
> 
> ...


Exactly they are pedaling the snake oiled schemes to inflate their own wealth as their coin's value continues to leak like a sieve.


----------



## Rassah (May 20, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> That said, I would, somewhat gauchely, ask what proportion what Rassah's assets are cryptocurrency as opposed to harder assets like cash or real estate.



I guess disclosure, about 90% bitcoin, 9.5% reale state, 0.5% stocks in an old 401k I don't really care much about. I hold no cash. I'm also in the process of liquidating all my real estate into bitcoin because it's a MUCH safer asset right now. Real estate has too much financial and political risk.




Miles Marsalis said:


> we're talking about the merit of Bitcoin when this is the reality:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bitcoin is back up over $40k. It dropped a bit again with news that IRS is asking large Bitcoin transaction processors to give them that information, but then shrugged it off again. Also still up 334% in the last 12 months. Also this massive crash was about 30%. Used to be massive crashes were 50%. Before then they were 80%. Market is still very new with a lot of room to grow, ut getting better. Current trend is bullish again.



Miles Marsalis said:


> I've had to explain with Rassah (and you) about how the Austrian school is fringe economic outlook, why pegging the dollar directly  to gold is foolish, how the fundamentals of the coal industry in China work, and that investors are generally turned off by extreme risk and illegality. I'm not surprised you are not steeped in economic theory, but Rassah should and probably does know better, deep down, in terms of most of these issues, especially the ones that relate to Bitcoin.



I'm looking forward to 2021, 2022, and 2023 when Austrians can point to the inflation, crack up boom, massive civil unrest due to people spending over 40% of their income on just food and basic survival, and all the other crazy issues, and continue to say "I told you so" 
And fundamentals of the coal industry in China, while important and interesting, are still irrelevant to Bitcoin mining.




Miles Marsalis said:


> But I'm not saying it is a safe investment and, more importantly, most financial institutions and central banks are warning against cryptocurrencies because of their volatility and regulation risk, which are the two biggest risks to Bitcoin.


Or they hate competition, which is why China keeps repeating that their banks are banned from using it. Jamie Dimon was shitting on bitcoin, saying it's garbage, too volatile, fake money with nothing to back it, etc. Then we find out he had a bunch. Gotta say public stuff to protect those bank shareholders ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Rassah (May 20, 2021)

Rassah said:
How is this pyramid scheme any different from any other form of money, or anything else of value at all, like commodities like gold, sugar, or oil, in that sense?


MechaMegs said:


> Thank you for admitting that it IS a pyramid scheme and that by proxy from you trying to pedal it to others you are in fact serving your own benefit and wealth while they gain nothing until they get more people which will also increase your wealth yet again.


So you're saying all money is a pyramid scheme? I kinda figured you would, actually.




MechaMegs said:


> And no. Capitalism doesnt work because it incentivizes and rewards greed. As such we see how fast we have destroyed the planet and shoved neumerous species to being endangered or outright extinct.


Nature incentivizes and rewards greed. You hunt more food because you're greedy for food? You have more food. You greedy for love so you go out and hunt for mates? You're rewarded with love. Everyone who is greedy for something and works to get it, nature tends to reward them for it. This is not something that's different in any other system. And yeah, I'm sure communist countries that literally made capitalism illegal, and nomadic tribes that didn't even have money, have never destroyed the environment on a massive scale, or hunted species to extinction. (Did cavemen have capitalism when they eliminated Mammoths?)




MechaMegs said:


> If you dont reward greed and selfishness with more power and control over others the less selfish people may be and if the reward for working together in the sense that we dont have to worry for food and care or shelter the more likely they are to all work within that community.


The thing that rewards greed and selfishness the most is... collectivism. Like I keep telling you, set up collectivism, communism, or any other form of centrally planned government, and those who are most greedy and selfish will flock to the top of it to get most power and most rewards. Take that away and leave them with just free markets, and the only way for them to get power is to make and sell you something.




MechaMegs said:


> Like for how great capitalism is why does America have one of the worst poverty issues of first world nations where most people can be economically destroyed by one medical mishap landing them into a hospital or missing work because of illness and such?


Because America is one of the least capitalist countries out of the developed first world nations. It's #20 on the list https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
Note which state in America has the WORST poverty, homelessness, and inequality. It ain't Texas. It's the MOST socialist state in the whole country https://nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2018/01/17/californian-income-inequality-tops-mexico/
Less capitalism, less trade and wealth creation, more cronyism and corruption, more greedy people getting into positions of power and stealing everything, and worse everyone is. But keep banging that ant-capitalism drum. I'm sure eventually you guys will achieve making all of US into California.
(that, or there will be a civil war with some states trying to GTFO)




MechaMegs said:


> Simple because greed has been incentivized as those with the most money have the most control so they want to suck up every cent they can even at the expense of underpaying their laborforces and stripping the planet of its resources to create scarcities and.or to control those resources.


Switzerland is the most capitalist country I know of. How's things with underpaying their labor forces in a country with no minimum wage, or stripping the planet of its resources in what is probably the most beautiful country I've ever been in?


----------



## PercyD (May 20, 2021)

Rassah said:


> If you don't understand the difference between storing money in a bank and using bank transactions VS storing money using Bitcoin and using bitcoin transfers, then you haven't looked into Bitcoin closely enough. It's very similar to the difference between using post office and email. One works only a few hours a week, still does a lot of things manually, has national border barriers that make it more difficult to send to another country, is very insecure and susceptible to mistakes (I have one of my clients wiring me $170k for two weeks now, and last week it was stuck and lost somewhere for days because he didn't use the right name on the account. You can't type in a wrong bitcoin address), and worst of all completely depends on trusting a third party for ALL digital transactions. The other works 24/7, is completely automated, like email doesn't care where you send it to, is so secure that the system itself has not been hacked in over ten years, has tons of redundancies to make mistakes near impossible, and you don't have to trust anyone with your money. You hold it, you control it, and you decide how to spend it. It's literally like having your own bank.
> And this doesn't even get into all the technology aspects, where the banking system is proprietary that no one can innovate on while bitcoin is an open source platform, and all the never before seen things like smart contracts, multisignature escrows, payment channels, contracts that can automatically pay based on certain conditions (e.g. you can make Kickstarter as just a transaction in Bitcoin), and it being the first currency that can be entirely owned and controlled by software without human intervention (before it all software had to be tied to a physical bank account with a human having a bank account) which itself has very crazy and sci-fi level implications for AI.
> 
> 
> ...


My issue is with sensation. I began my post with sensation being the absolute WORST way to convince me of any thing. In all the places where I worked, the people who lead with sensation are always charletons. It sounds like you may have a lot of worthy practical experiences. You forgoing those experiences for sensation is a huge red flag for someone like me. It's also my problem with a lot of people who talk about Bitcoin. 

I understand that sensation is how markets run. Whether we're in a Bull or Bear market really depends on what people are talking about and how investors feel. It's dumb to me, and talking to me about investing that way just ain't it. You come off discrediting yourself and sounding like a MLM person. To me, someone with a Masters in Economic Finance shouldn't sound that way. 

I understand the difference between Bitcoin and traditional currency at banks. Trust me, I do. However, using the novelty and newness of Bitcoin as a reason why we should move forward with it, that aint it. I'm in IT too, often teaching people how to move forward with the newest thing. Agile technology just isn't a thing in most banks and hedge funds. Here in the U.S, they have whole silos dedicated to compliance. I know, I had to work for one.

Hedgefunds aren't going to deal with an illegal currency just on that front. This makes liquidating Bitcoin for goods incredibly difficult. Obviously this may change, especially if people keep putting out tweets like the one your article had. Right now, though, that is not it. Does no good to disappear if it's difficult for you to liquidate your cache.


----------



## MechaMegs (May 20, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Nature incentivizes and rewards greed. You hunt more food because you're greedy for food? You have more food. You greedy for love so you go out and hunt for mates? You're rewarded with love. Everyone who is greedy for something and works to get it, nature tends to reward them for it. This is not something that's different in any other system. And yeah, I'm sure communist countries that literally made capitalism illegal, and nomadic tribes that didn't even have money, have never destroyed the environment on a massive scale, or hunted species to extinction. (Did cavemen have capitalism when they eliminated Mammoths?)


Odd because there werent issues with the wildlife suffering catastrophic loss until colonizers brought about the commodification of pelts to ship back to their countries for capital gains.
Also Mammoth extinction is more seriously attributed to the climate warming up and their habitats shrinking due to that rather than just being outright hunted to extinction.

I guess also since you say that America isn't real capitalism (though it is like let us be honest here) and even though I am not a communist myself perhaps Ill say the same as you then of real communism wasnt in the USSR. Though tbh my parents didnt have too much bad to say about the old country themselves as they recanted it to me as I grew up in the states.

Also who said anything about California? And why are we discussing politics in the first place why did you bring that up in an economics talk? You're an odd duck and really bad at fabricating false statements while denying facts others have brought up in this thread along the way because you didnt like the academic or journalistic sourcing.

mmmm >.> very peculiar. also more so that you do push so hard on bitcoin while stating most your finance is tangled up in bitcoin. as if you have much to gain from more bodies being tossed into the crypt....


----------



## Miles Marsalis (May 20, 2021)

Rassah said:


> You can't "prune" any data because each block of data is hashed (digitally signed) with a reference to a previous block. Any changes in data would completely invalidate that signature and all signatures after. You as a node operator or a miner can prune all the data you want, but it's impossible to start, synchronize, and verify the entire list of transactions from scratch when starting a new node without having all that data. So at least someone will have to keep a copy of it. But, in reality, everyone just keeps all the data, because no one gives a crap about child porn links that don't work and require a bunch of coding even to extract from those blocks. Seriosuly, NO ONE CARES about those links.


You and some others with a substantial stake in Bitcoin may care, but most prospective investors will have serious reservations about being associated with this or having their investment tied up in this controversy. Saying "no one cares" isn't an effective strategy for defending Bitcoin or attracting new investors. 


Rassah said:


> You've only been stating the obvious that's understood by laymen who aren't involved in this. I'm trying to explain the less obvious. Major countries like China did make a lot of cryptocurrency uses illegal. Big legitimate investors didn't get deterred, they actually invested even more in it, specifically because Bitcoin gives them options Chinese banking system does not. There are a lot of legitimate investors in China who have bought millions in Bitcoin for no other reason than that Bitcoin allows them to move their money out of the country easily and without restrictions. When their money was stuck in Chinese banks and bitcoin wasn't available, their only option was to use casinos in Southeast Asia to "gamble" massive amounts, break even, and cash out those chips in another currency to another bank. All of which itself was costly and risky. As I keep saying, countries HAVE made it illegal. And its biggest legitimate investors aren't law abiding citizens, but people who know that the laws are unjust and oppressive, who are looking to escape their totalitarian dictatorships.





Rassah said:


> These people make up a tiny and insignificant amount of investors in the world. Most people don't kiss dictator boots THAT much. And those who do, seriously, fuck them.


I'm speaking with experience in risk management and from advising clients of the regulation risk posed by the now occurring crackdown in China, though ban has in place for quite some time, certainly long enough that those invested in Bitcoin should have know this was imminent. 

However, I don't think you're connecting the fact that the usage and mining of cryptocurrencies in China is illegal with the fact that most investors are not going to invest in an illicit cryptocurrency they can't use in major markets ... or the fact that those cryptocurrency funds can be seized if found by the government and the investors themselves can be prosecuted for using or mining the cryptocurrency. 

That is why we saw the massive drop Bitcoin's exchange rate, along with Elon Musk's recent announcement. 

I'll wager that India's impending ban on cryptocurrencies is going to further drive down the price of Bitcoin along with the fact that the mining operations in China, which account for 75% of all Bitcoin mining, are going offline.


----------



## PercyD (May 20, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Perhaps the problem IS that you just don't believe me. Which is fine. You don't know me and didn't google Rassah or "Michael Tozoni." So I'll just have others speak on my behalf.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As a general rule- don't let others speak for you bro. They're probably not gonna do you justice. If you have what you have, have it. You're more than qualified to speak for yourself, but thats just me.

I didn't say that gold was better than bitcoin. I just brought it up because you brought up hyperinflation- and thats how most people regularly hedge their retirements against inflation with gold since it's stable. But gold isn't the way to make money. Hedge Funds make money work, we both know, and gold ain't it.

To your points about gold though- these are all examples from the 20th century. (Forbes is behind a wall I don't feel like navigating right now, so if it has a more recent example I apologize). Gold is a precious metal and a commodity. The U.S doesn't tax it the same way. They're not gonna seize it (again) because we have purely fiat money now. Its been about 40ish years since we freed up gold. I doubt they would reach for people's gold again, and the Forbes article in so much said that before the ad wall came up.

What I will say is that I have learned a little more about how liquid bitcoin can be. All I can say is good luck with your migration. I err on the conservative side when it comes to my money making.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (May 20, 2021)

Rassah said:


> I guess disclosure, about 90% bitcoin, 9.5% reale state, 0.5% stocks in an old 401k I don't really care much about. I hold no cash. I'm also in the process of liquidating all my real estate into bitcoin because it's a MUCH safer asset right now. Real estate has too much financial and political risk.


Your finances are your business, but if this is true, you are seriously overexposed in terms of your Bitcoin investment, especially with the shocks that market is expected to experience in terms of the mining pool shutdowns and regulatory risks coming out of China and India.


Rassah said:


> Bitcoin is back up over $40k. It dropped a bit again with news that IRS is asking large Bitcoin transaction processors to give them that information, but then shrugged it off again. Also still up 334% in the last 12 months. Also this massive crash was about 30%. Used to be massive crashes were 50%. Before then they were 80%. Market is still very new with a lot of room to grow, ut getting better. Current trend is bullish again.


Those crashes and the general volatility of Bitcoin are what turn the serious people in the financial industry off about the cryptocurrency. Those margins are way out of bounds for acceptable risk in the industry and with your experience, you should know that.


----------



## Rassah (May 20, 2021)

PercyD said:


> My issue is with sensation. I began my post with sensation being the absolute WORST way to convince me of any thing. In all the places where I worked, the people who lead with sensation are always charletons. It sounds like you may have a lot of worthy practical experiences. You forgoing those experiences for sensation is a huge red flag for someone like me. It's also my problem with a lot of people who talk about Bitcoin.
> 
> I understand that sensation is how markets run. Whether we're in a Bull or Bear market really depends on what people are talking about and how investors feel. It's dumb to me, and talking to me about investing that way just ain't it. You come off discrediting yourself and sounding like a MLM person. To me, someone with a Masters in Economic Finance shouldn't sound that way.
> 
> ...


Tesla bought $1.5 billion of bitcoin without moving the price. Price only moved up after they announced it publicly. Tesla then secretly sold $100 million of bitcoin without moving the price. Just to prove the point that there is enough liquidity now.

The sensationalism on my end is because I just find the tech so crazy and exciting with regards to possibilities. I had this same level of sensation back when Internet first came out (before that we were using BBS). Reading Snow Crash I imagined all kind of crazy stuff it could lead to, and we still didn't predict a lot of the things it gave us. Bitcoin is kind of the same for me, where it's taking a lot of the old tech, replacing it, and giving us things we couldn't even dream of. For instance I don't know if you've heard of the concept of autonomous entities? Imagine Uber + self driving car + bitcoin which software can own and control. You can have a car that owns itself, drives and earns money itself, then uses that money to pay for gas and repairs, and eventually maybe order more cars to be built so it can "reproduce." I mentioned Bitcoin gives us something for AI that we never had before, and that's possibility for true digital evolution. For instance, how does the rest of real biological life evolve? Behaviors that get it more food/energy are rewarded, and ones that lose it are punished. But we don't have any objective form of such "food" for software. Right now when we program an AI to do things, we have to teach it what behaviors are good and what should be avoided. It's entirely subjective based on the programmer's idea of what is good and what is bad. If we create an AI program, give it bitcoin that it can own and control all on its own, and teach it the basics of how to earn and use it - for example teach it to buy cloud storage and sell file sharing service like Megaupload - now that program has a real "food" to pursue - bitcoin to py for electricity and storage space - and a task in which it can collect that "food." It can then test different ways to present those files, hire people to modify its code or teach it to do different services, hire marketing, etc, experimenting with ways to see which ones can earn it more "food" all on it's own, with an objective standard of what works and what doesn't. And it can even buy more hosting space and "reproduce" by copying itself to other places. The idea actually came out from discussions about Megaupoad being taken down for copyright infringement and its owner getting arrested, and if such an AI was created an unleashed, there would be no one to arrest, since you can't exactly charge software with a crime. And such autonomous entities can be created and evolve to do lots of stuff, like accounting, management, possibly even entertainment.

And in bitcoin there are tons of these crazy ideas being experimented with. So, sorry if I can't NOT get excited XD

From an economic perspective, the things that get me most excited are replacing inflationary currency with deflationary, which would eliminate debt based consumerism, put a hard cap on what governments can spend so they can't just wage perpetual wars (without going bankrupt trying), eliminate the Cantillon effect that continuously transfers wealth from those at the bottom to those at the top, eliminate life long debt that everyone toils under because it's impossible to save up for anything when prices keep rising, make everything cheaper and put a stop to the constant climb is costs of living, eliminate the financial power that over half of the world's population lives under where they live in totalitarian countries that use it to control and keep them poor, eliminate business cycles and market bubbles created by too low interest rates and economic "stimulus,"  HUGELY reduce waste and pollution by eliminating malinvestment caused by bad investments that are just trying to stay ahead of inflation, and cause all the big bad corps who make terrible decisions only to get bailed out after to finally fall apart and get liquidated because there's no money to print to bail them out with. And yeah, there's a TON of economics and monetary history behind all of these things.

Less exciting and sensational, but still nice.


----------



## PercyD (May 20, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Tesla bought $1.5 billion of bitcoin without moving the price. Price only moved up after they announced it publicly. Tesla then secretly sold $100 million of bitcoin without moving the price. Just to prove the point that there is enough liquidity now.
> 
> The sensationalism on my end is because I just find the tech so crazy and exciting with regards to possibilities. I had this same level of sensation back when Internet first came out (before that we were using BBS). Reading Snow Crash I imagined all kind of crazy stuff it could lead to, and we still didn't predict a lot of the things it gave us. Bitcoin is kind of the same for me, where it's taking a lot of the old tech, replacing it, and giving us things we couldn't even dream of. For instance I don't know if you've heard of the concept of autonomous entities? Imagine Uber + self driving car + bitcoin which software can own and control. You can have a car that owns itself, drives and earns money itself, then uses that money to pay for gas and repairs, and eventually maybe order more cars to be built so it can "reproduce." I mentioned Bitcoin gives us something for AI that we never had before, and that's possibility for true digital evolution. For instance, how does the rest of real biological life evolve? Behaviors that get it more food/energy are rewarded, and ones that lose it are punished. But we don't have any objective form of such "food" for software. Right now when we program an AI to do things, we have to teach it what behaviors are good and what should be avoided. It's entirely subjective based on the programmer's idea of what is good and what is bad. If we create an AI program, give it bitcoin that it can own and control all on its own, and teach it the basics of how to earn and use it - for example teach it to buy cloud storage and sell file sharing service like Megaupload - now that program has a real "food" to pursue - bitcoin to py for electricity and storage space - and a task in which it can collect that "food." It can then test different ways to present those files, hire people to modify its code or teach it to do different services, hire marketing, etc, experimenting with ways to see which ones can earn it more "food" all on it's own, with an objective standard of what works and what doesn't. And it can even buy more hosting space and "reproduce" by copying itself to other places. The idea actually came out from discussions about Megaupoad being taken down for copyright infringement and its owner getting arrested, and if such an AI was created an unleashed, there would be no one to arrest, since you can't exactly charge software with a crime. And such autonomous entities can be created and evolve to do lots of stuff, like accounting, management, possibly even entertainment.
> 
> ...


I'm not gonna judge how liquid a currency/commodity is on the ability of a multi-billion dollar's company to sell it. If you are large player, any thing is liquid, honey. Even people, lol.
Get back to me when the guy down the street can get his PS5, his doritos, and redbull all in bitcoin for the weekend. Then bitcoin is liquid, and I might consider playing with it. Maybe by then it won't be as hot, but I don't usually move when it's hot. I move when its smart.

At this point you sound less sensational and more like a finance nerd, lol. But I can forgive that, I actually encourage it. With what I know about advancing AI we can either get the Matrix or we can get Star Trek (next Gen). I'm hoping more for Star Trek, but I don't know if large corporations can be reined in for that. For now, bitcoin will more than likely be a plaything for billionaires.


----------



## Rassah (May 20, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> Odd because there werent issues with the wildlife suffering catastrophic loss until colonizers brought about the commodification of pelts to ship back to their countries for capital gains.
> Also Mammoth extinction is more seriously attributed to the climate warming up and their habitats shrinking due to that rather than just being outright hunted to extinction.


You should look into "traggedy of the commons" That's what happens in an environment where instead of capitalism everything is just free for the taking. On the other hand, the biggest and most diverse African saffaris in the world? They are in Texas, on private land, owned and cared for by capitalists who raise their money in part by selling hunting rights. Carefully monitored and controlled of course. They're so well managed compared to free-for-all African ones that rely purely n altruism that they even have species that have already gone extinct in Africa. Also, with regards to capitalism and animals, how about them chickens and cows? Biggest capitalist animal thing we have. Those things are nowhere near extinction. Even the "Beepocalypse" where everyone was afraid of bees dying out was averted, because bees are a capitalist livestock species. Bee keepers just grew more of them and there's more bees now than ever.
When you have an incentive to protect something because you get money from it and because it's yours, you tend to care for it much more.




MechaMegs said:


> I guess also since you say that America isn't real capitalism (though it is like let us be honest here)


I didn't. I said "America is one of the least capitalist countries out of the developed first world nations. It's #20 on the list https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking"
It's still capitalist, but capitalism is dying here. It's being killed by socialism and regulations.




MechaMegs said:


> Also who said anything about California? And why are we discussing politics in the first place why did you bring that up in an economics talk?


You're right, it's too close to politics. I brought it up because California is the most economically restrictive country in all of US. It's the one that hates capitalism the most, and does the most to control or outright ban it. You really only have two economic systems:
1) people free to do what they want
2) people being controlled by someone else

Capitalism is generally the first one, with the added extra that people recognize each other's ownership and boundaries. You can try to get people to live like the Amish, but note that most people don't. It takes some heavy religious brainwashing to get people to live like this. So the other way to eliminate capitalism, where people freely trade things they own, is by eliminating their freedom to trade, which requires someone to have a lot of control over them. For instance, your dislike for money. How would you eliminate that? People like it. It's a useful tool. Can you get rid of it by any means other than using force, threats of violence, and if people use violence to resist, outright mass murder?



MechaMegs said:


> mmmm >.> very peculiar. also more so that you do push so hard on bitcoin while stating most your finance is tangled up in bitcoin. as if you have much to gain from more bodies being tossed into the crypt....



Hmmm... I notice you breathe oxygen and drink water a lot. Why would you be promoting that we keep those things clean and abundant so much? As if you have much to gain from more bodies tossed into the crypt... (whatever that means).

Yeah, if something is really awesome and it really benefitted me, why the heck WOULDN'T I tell others about it? I'm not greedy or selfish so I wouldn't keep this to myself. I want everyone I know to get into this while it's still early, before the old system collapses and they're left holding the bags full of worthless paper.


Miles Marsalis said:


> You and some others with a substantial stake in Bitcoin may care, but most prospective investors will have serious reservations about being associated with this or having their investment tied up in this controversy. Saying "no one cares" isn't an effective strategy for defending Bitcoin or attracting new investors.



$41k price and a rise of 1,600% since those were put in there really tells me that no one cares. Check out my earlier replies listing all the massive hedge funds, investment funds, insurance companies, and corps buying it up. They don't care.



Miles Marsalis said:


> I'm speaking with experience in risk management and from advising clients of the regulation risk posed by the now occurring crackdown in China, though ban has in place for quite some time, certainly long enough that those invested in Bitcoin should have know this was imminent.


Yep, they did, why many of them got out, and they do, why many of them operate on SHTF protocol where they can move or abandon things if they need to. A lot of them are also bribing local officials, so they are keeping an eye on when politics gets bad enough that such briberies get cracked down on. But even if china stops all mining, it won't really matter. Some transactions will cost a bit more for a week or two, then it's back to normal.



Miles Marsalis said:


> However, I don't think you're connecting the fact that the usage and mining of cryptocurrencies in China is illegal with the fact that most investors are not going to invest in an illicit cryptocurrency they can't use in major markets ... or the fact that those cryptocurrency funds can be seized if found by the government and the investors themselves can be prosecuted for using or mining the cryptocurrency.



Looks like investors aren't connecting that fact either. Millions more just poured into Bitcoin since this morning. It's because those are minor or non issues, as I keep telling you. Usage and mining of cryptocurrencies isn't illegal in China. Just usage of it by Chinese banks. Things are still gong same as they were last month. China is still running, but investors know that if China shuts itself off to Bitcoin, that only affects investors in China (who are buying Bitcoin to move the hell out). How do you think bitcoin funds can be "found" or "seized" by the government?




Miles Marsalis said:


> That is why we saw the massive drop Bitcoin's exchange rate, along with Elon Musk's recent announcement.



Nah, the drop was because Musk tweeted that on Wednesday, and Bitcoin always goes down over the weekend because the legacy banking system shuts down for the weekend. People can move their bitcoin into exchanges 24/7 to sell, but buyers can only move their money into exchanged for a few hours during weekdays. Elon's tweet caused a large drop right before the weekend, and during the weekend no one could buy that dip. And the combined drop in price triggered a liquidation of leveraged long positions (long squeeze, look it up), to the tune of something like $3.7 billion dollars. Basically there was so much optimism in Bitcoin that people borrowed $3.7 billion to hedge their bets on it going up, and when it went low enough to cause the first few liquidations, it created a selling cascades. China "news," and I saw "news" because it was false, triggered a few more long position liquidations and stop losses which drove it down further, but this time there was plenty of money waiting to get in, AND people quickly realized the china thing was FUD, so they bought the drop right up. Check it, it crashed to $30k Tuesday and was back to $40 by day end. Even today there was more FUD with news coming out saying IRS will demand large sales be reported, which made it drop from $42k, but then everyone realized it's BS and those get reported already ANYWAY, and the price is just on a continuing uptrend again.
In short, Elon and China weren't the causes of the sell-off, they were the triggers that set off the market clearing out WAY over-leveraged positions. And, just like previously we talked about it when it was $1,000 or $10,000, soon enough we'll be talking about it when it's $100,000 or more and you'll still be telling me that no investors take it seriously.



Miles Marsalis said:


> I'll wager that India's impending ban on cryptocurrencies is going to further drive down the price of Bitcoin along with the fact that the mining operations in China, which account for 75% of all Bitcoin mining, are going offline.


In India, short term, yes. Long term, Indians will flock to cryptocurrency as a result Again. Like they did when India banned their $20 bill. And China doesn't account for 75% of bitcoin mining. Stop being stupid. You have no valid source on that, and I'm the source telling you it's under 40%.


----------



## Rassah (May 20, 2021)

PercyD said:


> All I can say is good luck with your migration. I err on the conservative side when it comes to my money making.


So do I and my Bitcoin friends. Yes, we know that people think we're crazy when we say "I'm staying all in bitcoin and not selling out because I'm financially conservative and don't like risks." But once your portfolio gets high enough, it starts to make sense (remember the bullet points about where to move to?) In a way you just get trapped, since selling is capital gains tax, banks aren't insured to protect you for that much, suddenly there's all these questions of where did all this money came from, heh...


Miles Marsalis said:


> Your finances are your business, but if this is true, you are seriously overexposed in terms of your Bitcoin investment, especially with the shocks that market is expected to experience in terms of the mining pool shutdowns and regulatory risks coming out of China and India.



I'm more financially informed about this. I and everyone else don't care. The ones who will be hurt by this are Chinese and Indians, but bitcoiners. Seiously, it's like hearing someone say "Be careful with those Amazon and Google stocks! China can shut down their internet at any moment!"



Miles Marsalis said:


> Those crashes and the general volatility of Bitcoin are what turn the serious people in the financial industry off about the cryptocurrency. Those margins are way out of bounds for acceptable risk in the industry and with your experience, you should know that.


Read this again https://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/how-many-furries-know-what-bitcoin-is.1651083/post-7095662 Bitcoin is still the safest asset. It's why serious people in the financial industry are in it and more are moving in it. Hell, you really sound like this is still 2013, when no one owned it except a few computer geeks. Are these multibillion dollar companies and investment funds a joke to you? https://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/how-many-furries-know-what-bitcoin-is.1651083/post-7095736


----------



## PercyD (May 20, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I didn't know PercyD had previously worked with a hedge fund, but that only qualifies PercyD more to speak on these matters.


=u=// I worked on Wall Street in New York for some years doing migrations and in IT. I dealt with a lot of compliance. I also dealt a lot in fintech, (or "fintech" most financial institutions are 200% against novelty of technology over stability). 

*=u=// It was also soul sucking work and I hated it. *However, for my trouble, I did learn a lot about how the sausage is made. I'm now working in helping people get more value out of their small businesses, so I feel like I transferred the knowledge well enough. I much prefer operations over finance.  The emotional toil of uncertainty, trading and everything else makes me break out in hives, but I am certain I can make some sharp decisions when someone presents an 'opportunity' to me. If people can't tell me the numbers and how it operates, though, I cannot be convinced.


----------



## PercyD (May 21, 2021)

Rassah said:


> So do I and my Bitcoin friends. Yes, we know that people think we're crazy when we say "I'm staying all in bitcoin and not selling out because I'm financially conservative and don't like risks." But once your portfolio gets high enough, it starts to make sense (remember the bullet points about where to move to?) In a way you just get trapped, since selling is capital gains tax, banks aren't insured to protect you for that much, suddenly there's all these questions of where did all this money came from, heh...



I can definitely agree that bitcoin is more of a thing for people with much larger portfolios. It's not for mom and pop, college student operating in debt. It annoys me a bit that people make it sound like it's accessible for the small folks when it's really not.

Selling does come with a capital gains tax in the U.S for sure. I have a few well to do friends in Cambodia whose family invests heavily in land. It's a good investment in certain parts of the U.S, certainly! Especially in small towns in states like South Dakota that let outsiders buy property with very little strings attached to increase taxes coming in--
But the Cambodies bawked at our capital sales tax. Plus the tax you on land property too. Taxes are good to improve things for the people who live there, and I live in New York so I don't quite mind paying them as long as I can see the money doing good, but hoooo. A lot of states in the South, you really question where the hell the few taxes you are paying are actually going to.


----------



## MechaMegs (May 21, 2021)

Seeing someone equating the bullymonging of trying to shove people into investing into a volatile and financially dangerous for the everyday person 'digimunney' to being adamant about clean air water and not destroying the planet for greedy intent is a new one and kind of funny in a sad way.


----------



## ConorHyena (May 21, 2021)

I feel like people don't remember the gold standard desaster in the 1920s. Because that'd explain why someone would advocate for something like bitcoin to become an _actual _currency. 

I also feel like that most of the bitcoin people tend to sell their product with something along the lines of '... the world is going to end, goverments are going to implode, money will be worthless, buy our digital thing so you'll be safe'

Which reminds me of my late granddad. When someone tried to talk to him about politics his standard answer was

'If you'd have lived as long as I have, you will notice the empire is always in some sort of peril'


----------



## Yakamaru (May 21, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I'm going to try to balance between respecting Rassah's professional history (which is substantial over the decades if recall his biography correctly), having reservations about the assertions he is making regarding Bitcoin and its mining, and explaining to you that qualifications do matter here.
> 
> First off, PercyD is qualifed to talk about technical aspects of Bitcoin and blockchain because I do know PercyD has a background in information technology and cybersecurity. PercyD has talked professionally and proficiently on technical matters before here on the forums, with other experts, and was widely held to know what he was talking about. I didn't know PercyD had previously worked with a hedge fund, but that only qualifies PercyD more to speak on these matters.
> 
> ...


I hope you understand that this dip is only temporary...?


----------



## Miles Marsalis (May 21, 2021)

Yakamaru said:


> I hope you understand that this dip is only temporary...?


I mean, it just took a tweet from Elon Musk and ban from Chinese regulatory bodies, which has been expected in the financial industry for months, tank Bitcoin price by 30%. Those events shouldn't have been systemic shocks to Bitcoin market, but were nonetheless, demonstrating the inherent fragility of the market. 

Now, consider than India is going to introduce its own ban on cryptocurrencies, which will bar Bitcoin from two markets a billion-strong each. The Chinese ban also have major knock-on effects across the global Bitcoin market because 75% of Bitcoin, or the majority of Bitcoin, is mined is in China and that much of the mining going offline, along with the seizures of cryptocurrency funds the Chinese government is performing, will further drive down the market. Remember too that China is optimal for Bitcoin mining because of the inexpensive energy available and its extensive server infrastructure designed for mining Bitcoin, which will be harder to replicate cost-effectively elsewhere, even in the United States.

On top of that, United States Federal Reserve is coming out with its own set of regulations for Bitcoin and the Internal Revenue Service is looking at ways to implement taxation for it. The Federal Reserve is also giving considering issuing its own cryptocurrency, which would be back by the full faith and credit of the US government, along with central banks elsewhere. This US government cryptocurrency, along the national cryptocurrencies, will inherently drive down the price of Bitcoin and private cryptocurrencies just by virtue of being competitors, but also due their backing by their issuing government. Bitcoin can't compete with a cryptocurrency with the versatility of US dollar. 

So this latest crash is really indicative of a long-term downward trend for the Bitcoin market.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 21, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I mean, it just took a tweet from Elon Musk and ban from Chinese regulatory bodies, which has been expected in the financial industry for months, tank Bitcoin price by 30%. Those events shouldn't have been systemic shocks to Bitcoin market, but were nonetheless, demonstrating the inherent fragility of the market.
> 
> Now, consider than India is going to introduce its own ban on cryptocurrencies, which will bar Bitcoin from two markets a billion-strong each. The Chinese ban also have major knock-on effects across the global Bitcoin market because 75% of Bitcoin, or the majority of Bitcoin, is mined is in China and that much of the mining going offline, along with the seizures of cryptocurrency funds the Chinese government is performing, will further drive down the market. Remember too that China is optimal for Bitcoin mining because of the inexpensive energy available and its extensive server infrastructure designed for mining Bitcoin, which will be harder to replicate cost-effectively elsewhere, even in the United States.
> 
> ...


That's the problem now, isn't it? They have no control over Bitcoin.


----------



## Fallowfox (May 21, 2021)

Yakamaru said:


> That's the problem now, isn't it? They have no control over Bitcoin.



If China could be ignored, then the value of Bitcoin wouldn't have declined by 30% in response to their policy changes.
The alternative is that the investors whose decisions are currently determining the value of Bitcoin are irrational.

Ultimately I wouldn't be surprised if the value recovers over the long term, but it sets up a situation where you have to have some skepticism about the true value and purpose of cryptocurrencies, and whether the values they are ascribed are actually realistic.

For example, apart from criminal online enterprises, few people actually ever _use_ Bitcoin for its intended purpose as a currency. There's a feedback loop. Nobody wants to spend something that might double in value in a few years...and the supply remains low because nobody is spending it, and that artificial scarcity ends up contributing to the valuation.
If people _did_ start routinely using it, then the value would decline, more people would sell it and then the value would decline faster.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (May 21, 2021)

Yakamaru said:


> That's the problem now, isn't it? They have no control over Bitcoin.


Fallow's thoughts and observations more or less mirror my own on Bitcoin's prospects and he explained it well. So I'll just comment that while China's motives for cracking down on cryptocurrencies may not be entirely pure, it still stands that the China's actions, as well as India's impending stipulations, will have serious repercussions for the cryptocurrency market, however you feel about Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.


----------



## TrishaCat (May 21, 2021)

Fuck cryptocurrency
The environment is more important than currency formed through wasteful energy consumption


----------



## PercyD (May 21, 2021)

TrishaCat said:


> Fuck cryptocurrency
> The environment is more important than currency formed through wasteful energy consumption


Honey let me tell you about how precious metals and other commodities ruin the environment too--

Gold, silver, iridium, platinum, cadmium, (fuck, DIAMONDS)-- they literally leave putrid, chemical ridden, holes in the ground where nothing will ever grow again. Never mind the unsafe conditions for actual human beings who have to extract this shit. 

If we all just become low-impact sheep herders like @ConorHyena wants to, the most problem we will have is methane from sheep farts.


----------



## PercyD (May 21, 2021)

ConorHyena said:


> I feel like people don't remember the gold standard desaster in the 1920s. Because that'd explain why someone would advocate for something like bitcoin to become an _actual _currency.
> 
> I also feel like that most of the bitcoin people tend to sell their product with something along the lines of '... the world is going to end, goverments are going to implode, money will be worthless, buy our digital thing so you'll be safe'
> 
> ...


I remember it cause I had to research it, lol-

We need fiat money. We just do. Our economies are too large to base it on anything else. Thats just the thing. Precious metals and what not should remain commodities we trade. They don't work well as currency for what humanity is doing right now.

A question I have is, though, wouldn't bitcoin and these cryptocurrencies end up being like fiat money too? I know they aren't fiat cause theres no government issuing it. What is controlling it is essentially a system of registries in the cloud. But whats keeping it from being like fiat is now? @Rassah's probably certified to talk about this.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 21, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> If China could be ignored, then the value of Bitcoin wouldn't have declined by 30% in response to their policy changes.
> The alternative is that the investors whose decisions are currently determining the value of Bitcoin are irrational.
> 
> Ultimately I wouldn't be surprised if the value recovers over the long term, but it sets up a situation where you have to have some skepticism about the true value and purpose of cryptocurrencies, and whether the values they are ascribed are actually realistic.
> ...


These dips aren't exactly unusual for Bitcoin let alone cryptocurrencies in general. Since Bitcoin's inception we've had how many ups and downs now? I've lost count. If anything it was kind of expected. 

One of the biggest pros of Bitcoin is its decentralization. No one controls it, as how it's designed to operate. And is one of the biggest reasons the governments and banks hate it because they hate competition.

I do appreciate you replying to me in a more normal manner though, which is a pleasant surprise.


----------



## Ramjet (May 21, 2021)

PercyD said:


> I remember it cause I had to research it, lol-
> 
> We need fiat money. We just do. Our economies are too large to base it on anything else. Thats just the thing. Precious metals and what not should remain commodities we trade. They don't work well as currency for what humanity is doing right now.
> 
> A question I have is, though, wouldn't bitcoin and these cryptocurrencies end up being like fiat money too? I know they aren't fiat cause theres no government issuing it. What is controlling it is essentially a system of registries in the cloud. But whats keeping it from being like fiat is now? @Rassah's probably certified to talk about this.



A fixed limited supply of 21 million coins within Bitcoin's blockchain ecosystem that cannot be added or created outside of the fixed 21 million supply within the chain.New coins yet unlocked within that fixed supply can only be issued as a reward for miners that unlock a new block within the blockchain through proof of work verification on existing coin transactions that change hands within the ecosystem.

Problem is that fees to use Bitcoin in any fashion keeps getting higher as either the price of the asset goes up, or the reward for mining to unlock new coins becomes diminished as remaining coins within the blockchain become more scarce and harder to solve/unlock.Not to mention Bitcoin's halving cycles every 4 years reduces the amount of new Bitcoins issued to miners that solve and create new blocks to begin with, that alone raises the cost to use Bitcoin in anyway as fees to pay miners will rise to justify continuation of transaction verification that makes Bitcoin's ecosystem possible in the first place.

It'll never replace fiat.
At best, a much more volatile niche version of gold as a store of value.
At worst, regulators will rape it to irrelevancy.


----------



## Rassah (May 22, 2021)

China


----------



## Ramjet (May 22, 2021)

Rassah said:


> China
> View attachment 110847



Idk Rassah..
It's one thing to preemptively restrict banks involvement in the early stages of Bitcoin when it was strictly private investor driven price discovery with no institutional involvement vs now going after the very source that makes Bitcoin's ecosystem possible in the first place.


----------



## DieselPowered (May 22, 2021)

TLDR: Technological advancements have given people with too much money a new thing to gamble on. The rest of the world looks on, bemused as ever.


----------



## PercyD (May 22, 2021)

Ramjet said:


> A fixed limited supply of 21 million coins within Bitcoin's blockchain ecosystem that cannot be added or created outside of the fixed 21 million supply within the chain.New coins yet unlocked within that fixed supply can only be issued as a reward for miners that unlock a new block within the blockchain through proof of work verification on existing coin transactions that change hands within the ecosystem.


Where are you getting this fixed number from, though?


----------



## PercyD (May 22, 2021)

Ramjet said:


> It'll never replace fiat.
> At best, a much more volatile niche version of gold as a store of value.
> At worst, regulators will rape it to irrelevancy.


I wanna add too, while I'm here--
Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies will never replace fiat any way. Its the only way governments can function and (sometimes pretend) to provide for their people. Depending on billionaires to be philanthropists, I feel, just aint it.


----------



## PercyD (May 22, 2021)

Ramjet said:


> That's the fixed supply of coins that can be extracted from Bitcoin's blockchain ecosystem...
> 
> Miners exist to verify that each Bitcoin that moves from any place whether it be a personal offline "cold" storage wallet bringing Bitcoin/s back into online circulation either by direct trade via wallet to wallet address (peer to peer), or bringing said coins to an online exchange for trade for an alternative crypto, or an outright sale for exchange for fiat.
> Every single movement of that Bitcoin has to be verified by miners that act as neutral 3rd party witnesses that said coin being moved or exchanged/traded/or sold is indeed an authentic Bitcoin that originated from Bitcoin's blockchain ecosystem (literally every movement of every single Bitcoin is logged stored and recorded and public to everyone). Miners get compensated through those fees for each verification of movement, and through rewards of issued coins when a new block within the chain is completed (which gets harder as less are available to unlock within that finite supply).


Right, but where are you getting that number from? Is it a blockchain formula? Is it based on the size of the register?


----------



## Yakamaru (May 22, 2021)

PercyD said:


> Where are you getting this fixed number from, though?


 Bitcoin is designed around the idea of a finite supply, in the case of this crypto in particular, 21 million. 









						Why is Bitcoin’s supply limit set to 21 million? - Decrypt
					

Like many other cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin was designed around the principle of a finite supply. That means there will only ever be 21 million Bitcoin.




					decrypt.co


----------



## Ramjet (May 22, 2021)

PercyD said:


> Right, but where are you getting that number from? Is it a blockchain formula? Is it based on the size of the register?



That's the finite supply that exists within Bitcoin's Blockchain ecosystem...

No coin can be created out of thin air as every single movement of any Bitcoin that's ever been mined from the blockchain from it's inception needs to be verified through 3rd party miners that act as witnesses and authenticate every single movement of said coin that can be correlated back to Bitcoin's blockchain (which every movement is public and avaliable to anyone)...Whether it be from personal peer to peer address trade from a "cold" storage offline wallet, or moving said coin to an exchange or elsewhere for trade/sale/purchase.

Miners are rewarded by verifying those transaction through fees, and completion of a new block within the chain unlocks new coins as payment to miners within that 21 million finite supply.
As the the amount of new coins available to be unlocked in the chain are becoming more and more scarce (and Bitcoin mining rewards halving every 4 years), miners will have to eventually rely on a return based solely on those fees sometime in 2100 something something when it's estimated when all coins avaliable will be fully mined.
Trouble is those fees are already  up to 20 something USD per transaction...

great I guess if your moving larges amount of that asset from anywhere to anyone, but imagine paying 20 usd in fees for a simple coffee purchase...lol


----------



## PercyD (May 22, 2021)

Yakamaru said:


> Bitcoin is designed around the idea of a finite supply, in the case of this crypto in particular, 21 million.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The tech nerd in me really wants it to be based on the size of the blockchain register. Like it's actually only x^2, and X is the number of whatever slots there are with some space for authentication (just like IP packets)--

But the article says its based on the 4 year lifecycle for each unit, basically, which makes more sense.


----------



## PercyD (May 22, 2021)

Ramjet said:


> great I guess if your moving larges amount of that asset from anywhere to anyone, but imagine paying 20 usd in fees for a simple coffee purchase...lol


We already do that in Starbucks around Manhattan, lol-

Bitcoin seems to be not for small purchases, since theres a finite amount. It seems like you'd  be more likely use bitcoin to slice up your large debts like mortgage or student loans.


----------



## Rassah (May 22, 2021)

Ramjet said:


> Idk Rassah..
> It's one thing to preemptively restrict banks involvement in the early stages of Bitcoin when it was strictly private investor driven price discovery with no institutional involvement vs now going after the very source that makes Bitcoin's ecosystem possible in the first place.


They're not though. They "banned" mining many times too.
And, let's say the claim that 75% of mining is in China is true (it's less than 40%) and China DOES ban it. What will happen?

Miners will pack up their hardware and go elsewhere, since, unlike @Miles Marsalis says, it's not "extensive server infrastructure designed for mining Bitcoin, which will be harder to replicate cost-effectively elsewhere," it's just a bunch of small specialized boxes that do nothing but mine, a basic computer to manage them, and they just need a place that can provide a lot of electricity and a very basic internet connection. They're easy to pack and move.
And in the meantime, while they're moving, since miners are responsible to find blocks and provide transaction confirmation even 10 minutes, is 75% of them disappear which would mean transaction confirmation times will go up to 40 minutes. Since bitcoin difficulty gets automatically adjusted every set number of blocks which on average takes two weeks, if China blinks out of existence and all that mining hardware disappears instead of just being moved, it may take over a month for this to get resolved.
Because of that, miners around the rest of the world will be making a whole lot more money, since lower block frequency means people paying higher fees to try to get their own transactions in first. That will be a huge incentive for existing miners to add more hardware to try to get all those extra fees, and for miners to get out of China to set up at a new location as soon as they can to earn the extra profits. Which will also speed up confirmation times, and shorten the time until new difficulty adjustment.
Once the difficulty adjustment time is reached, because block time went from 10 minutes to 40 minutes, difficulty will be reduced by 1/4th (or less, if more mining hardware joins or Chinese miners move over). That means that for the next week blocks will be confirmed once every 2.5 minutes or so, and, again, miners will be able to make a ton of money in a short amount of time, which will give another incentive for miners from China to set up again as fast as possible.
You make have heard about the coal mine flood in China, during which China, for some weird reason, shut down the whole power grid in that province, including cutting off all hydro power miners from power. What I described is basically what happened. Transaction confirmation times went up, transaction fees went up from about $5 to $17, then difficulty adjusted down by about 18%, after which blocks were found much sooner and the entire backlog of transactions was cleared out with transaction fees dropping to less than a dollar.

So, in short, in the very worst case scenario of China ACTUALLY banning bitcoin mining and actually seizing and destroying all the mining hardware, the result is mind of "meh."



Miles Marsalis said:


> On top of that, United States Federal Reserve is coming out with its own set of regulations for Bitcoin and the Internal Revenue Service is looking at ways to implement taxation for it. The Federal Reserve is also giving considering issuing its own cryptocurrency, which would be back by the full faith and credit of the US government, along with central banks elsewhere. This US government cryptocurrency, along the national cryptocurrencies, will inherently drive down the price of Bitcoin and private cryptocurrencies just by virtue of being competitors, but also due their backing by their issuing government. Bitcoin can't compete with a cryptocurrency with the versatility of US dollar.



Miles, this is dumb. The United States Federal Reserve backing the US Dollar by the "full faith and credit of the US government, along with central banks elsewhere," is exactly WHY Bitcoin was created and WHY bitcoin value has been going up exponentially. It's not because it's digital. The dollar is digital and can be used to pay for things quickly and easily online already. Again, the whole reason Bitcoin exists and the whole reason it has wealthy people moving literally billions of dollars into it is because it doesn't require fleeting and weak things like "full faith and credit of the US government" or any government to back it. Governments have already proven consistently that they can't be trusted to back anything, and will always debase/inflate it every chance they get. You can't debase or inflate Bitcoin, and you don't need to trust governments, central banks, or anyone else to use it. The only way a government currency can compete with bitcoin is if government makes it impossible for them to control and impossible for them to inflate. But, that would be impossible for any government to create, too.

@Miles Marsalis - "So this latest crash is really indicative of a long-term downward trend for the Bitcoin market."

ROFL! WTF are you even talking about? Long term downward trend? Did you ever even LOOK at Bitcoin's long term trend? It's not down, it's not even just an up line, it's a hockey stick growing exponentially  XD


----------



## Rassah (May 22, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> For example, apart from criminal online enterprises, few people actually ever _use_ Bitcoin for its intended purpose as a currency. There's a feedback loop. Nobody wants to spend something that might double in value in a few years...and the supply remains low because nobody is spending it, and that artificial scarcity ends up contributing to the valuation.
> If people _did_ start routinely using it, then the value would decline, more people would sell it and then the value would decline faster.


Just need to point out that this is an economic fallacy, which unfortunately is too often repeated by Keynesian economists. First, when people don't spend money because it will doubt in a few years, why do they do that? To spend it in a few years. People don't save for the sake of just having lots of money, they save it to spend it later. So at worst this would result in the exact same level of spending, but just offset for a while, with a period of low spending and saving as people transition from crap inflationary currency to better deflationary one. And second, you can't just "not spend money." We have needs for food, water, bills to pay, and we want things like nice electronics, entertainment, luxuries, maybe travel. So people have no choice but to spend money. And third, money that grows in value has a "wealth effect," where the more your money grows, the more "wealthy" you feel, and the more likely you are actually to spend it. Think about if, if your savings were $200 and dropping, you probably won't feel good spending $700 on a new fancy phone. Your safety net is tiny. But if your savings are at $2000 and rapidly growing, you'll feel much safer making such a purchase.
This people-won't-spend "feedback loop" is one of the things that are used as an excuse for why deflation is bad and why so-called deflationary spirals happen. It's an excuse bankers and governments use to tell you why they should be allowed to keep printing money to buy more and more real assets for themselves while making you poorer. And it's a lie that is economically illogical.



PercyD said:


> A question I have is, though, wouldn't bitcoin and these cryptocurrencies end up being like fiat money too? I know they aren't fiat cause theres no government issuing it. What is controlling it is essentially a system of registries in the cloud. But whats keeping it from being like fiat is now?


Fiat can be controlled by a central bank which can control its supply on the market by issuing more or controlling its interest rates. It's a way to centrally plan our economy through monetary policies.  No one is able to change the supply of bitcoin without cutting themselves off from the rest of the network. That's because every user of it verifies all transactions and rules every time they use it, and if someone changes rules, everyone's software will just ignore their messages/blocks/transactions. The only way for bitcoin to change is for 100% of the people to agree to implement that change on their own software, which is very unlikely. And changes to monetary policies have economic incentives against it. While miners would love to increase how much they get paid for mining blocks, and stop the exponential decline in rewards, users wouldn't go for it because that would devalue their savings and investments. While users would love to increase the number of blocks per minute so transaction fees are lower, miners won't go for it because it decreases their income from transaction fees. There's a ton of economic incentives built into the system to keep it working right. It's not just based on tech.



Ramjet said:


> Problem is that fees to use Bitcoin in any fashion keeps getting higher as either the price of the asset goes up, or the reward for mining to unlock new coins becomes diminished as remaining coins within the blockchain become more scarce and harder to solve/unlock.Not to mention Bitcoin's halving cycles every 4 years reduces the amount of new Bitcoins issued to miners that solve and create new blocks to begin with, that alone raises the cost to use Bitcoin in anyway as fees to pay miners will rise to justify continuation of transaction verification that makes Bitcoin's ecosystem possible in the first place.



Fees on the block chain will keep getting higher. It's not because miners costs rise. Miners have no control over what they earm. For them they just mine if it's profitable to, and stop if block rewards or lack of fees make it unprofitable. What causes transaction fees to go up is because each block is only 1 meg in size, and the more people start using on chain transactions the more they have to compete and pay higher fees to try to fit their transaction into one. The more you pay, the more chance miners will take your transaction in the next block over someone else's.
BUT, this is just on-chain. Lightning Network transactions work now, and they let you make transactions on a second layer above Bitcoin's blockchain. You need to make one transaction with a normal fee to get your coins secured on a Lightning Network layer, but once you do, your transaction fees drop to between a few cents and zero. And transactions on Lightning are instantly confirmed, no need to wait 10 minutes. Since Lightning Network transactions don't require anything on the blockchain besides the initial opening, and in emergencies (or in special cases) another transaction to close and settle, the only expensive transactions on the network in the future will be these Lightning Network channel opens and closes, and large value transfers such as settlements between large banks and exchanges. Lightning Network requires your bitcoin to be connected, so it's not practical for large values in "cold storage" stores safely offline. More and more wallets are adding support for Lightning now, a few exchanges already support deposits and withdrawals in Lightning and many of the biggest ones said they're committed to adding it this year, and many more services are adding support to it too. One I used is Paywithmoon.com where you can get a one-time use prepaid visa for the exact amount you need at checkout, and payment with bitcoin to fund that visa typically costs me nothing.

As for "rape" by regulations, Bitcoin wasn't created as a fun toy, where, eventually, many many years later someone thought "Oh shit, what about regulations? They could rape it to irrelevancy!" Bitcoin was invented and designed with the idea that regulators will try to rape it before it was even launched. It was created specifically with the purpose of going to war with the most powerful countries like US and China, expecting them to try to regulate and kill it, and designed to win that war. We were discussing what kind of regulations US would likely implement and how Bitcoin would get around them back when the US government didn't even know it existed.



PercyD said:


> I wanna add too, while I'm here--
> Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies will never replace fiat any way. Its the only way governments can function and (sometimes pretend) to provide for their people. Depending on billionaires to be philanthropists, I feel, just aint it.



Bitcoin as created by cryptoanarchists and anarcho-capitalist. It was specifically created to make governments stop functioning. Yes, fiat is the only way governments can function and fund themselves. Removing that function and forcing governments to either disappear or convert to only providing functions that citizens are actually willing to pay for was the whole idea from the start. Incidentally that's why it was designed to fight against and resist government regulations from the start. It was made to be a weapon used against governments. Yes, there are lots of billionaires who depend on the system because they get subsidies or because governments are their biggest customers. But there are many more billionaires who REALLY hate those guys because they're getting a huge unfair advantage in the market, and these billionaires want to compete in the market fairly, rather than having governments pick winners based on who they're friends with or who can corrupt the politicians faster. And as mentioned, there are also a lot of billionaires who have almost all their wealth in Bitcoin too.


PercyD said:


> Right, but where are you getting that number from? Is it a blockchain formula? Is it based on the size of the register?


Bitcoin rewards miners with 50 bitcoins for every block they mine. Every 210,000 blocks, or roughly 4 years, that amount gets cut in half. It was already cut to 25, then 12.5, and is currently at 6.25. If you plot that reward amount into the future, you'll get a graph that looks like an upwards arc that levels off at an asymptote, approaching 21 million but never getting there. I forgot exactly why that number was picked but I think it had to do with some restriction in the type of digit used in code (integer vs long vs word if you know what that means, and it was something related to that). Because everyone using bitcoin agrees to follow these rules, if someone issues a block where they pay themselves more, everyone just rejects that block as invalid. Everyone sticking to the rules, because they know if they don't the network will isolate them, is why that number can't be changed from 21 million.

By the way, if you want to watch these blocks go through in real time, watch transactions going through in real time, see how close we're to to the next difficulty adjustment and how much it will adjust next time (looks like a drop of 15% in less than a week), and see what the current transaction fees are as well as what people are paying, you can check all that on https://mempool.space/


----------



## Rassah (May 22, 2021)

PercyD said:


> We already do that in Starbucks around Manhattan, lol-
> 
> Bitcoin seems to be not for small purchases, since theres a finite amount. It seems like you'd  be more likely use bitcoin to slice up your large debts like mortgage or student loans.


Figured I could explain what Lightning Network is like a bit more for those who don't know.
Bitcoin is not a coin perse, but just an account number with a balance on the public ledger that requires a verifiable digital signature to spend from. That digital signature is the private key, and is all that your bitcoin wallet actually stores. You can create these accounts in a way that require multiple signatures to spend from them. Even X of Y signatures, such as where three people can hold signatures, but any two of them can sign off on this account and spend the money. A channel is where you and another person create such an account where both of you have signatures to it, and one of you deposits money into this account while at the same time creating a transaction that takes that money back out. So, for example, you and I can create a transaction where I send $1000 worth of bitcoin into a bitcoin address that both of us have to co-sign to spend from, and a transaction where $1000 of that gets sent right back to my own address that both of us have already co-signed. The first transaction gets published to the Bitcoin blockchain, so now that $1000 is sitting on a public account. And the second one we just keep for ourselves privately. Now, say I need to pay you $5. All we have to do is throw away the old transaction and create a new one that sends $5 to you and $995 to me, which both of us co-sign. Then I want to pay you another $1, and we do that again but this time replace it with you getting $6 and me getting $994. We can do this payment as many times as we want as fast as our internet connection can handle (tens of thousands of times a second), and it won't cost anything because it's not on the blockchain, it's just between you and me. And the transactions are instant in this case. No need to wait for settlement. But, let's say you need me to pay you $200, so we both create a transaction that results in you getting $206  at this point and me getting $794, but then I decide to steal that money and take an older transaction without that transfer and publish it to the blockchain. Transactions can be time-locked, which these are, which means that it won't be able to confirm for a while (I forget, I think a week?). And if you see such a transaction broadcast, you can publish your newer transaction that does include this $200 payment. The blockchain network will see that there was a newer co-signed transaction we both agreed on, treat the old one as attempted theft, and liquidate all the money in that channel to you as punishment. That keeps channel users honest and is why there's no need to wait for confirmations to send money, or need to publish the final transaction other than in certain special cases.
That's a payment channel. Lightning Network is a network of such payment channels that allows payments to be routed through multiple connected people. So, say you and I are connected by this channel, and I also have a channel opened to a coffee shop. And you wish to pay $5 for a coffee, but don't have a channel to them. With lightning, when the coffee shop gives you a bitcoin invoice to pay with, your wallet will automatically find a route through channels from you to them - through me - and then create a transaction that all of us will sign off on together, where you will send $5 to me, and I will send $5 to the coffee shop. Same instant transaction with same security as before, where I can't just take the $5 for myself without also signing my own $5 over to the coffee shop. The cost of that transaction depends on what people who run theese nodes charge to route such transactions, but generally it's about 0.00000001 bitcoin (1 satoshi) or less. Less than a penny. With the whole 6-degrees-of-separation thing you can find payment routes to pretty much everyone. 
And then the cool things happen on top of this. Since these transactions cost almost nothing, and already exist as established P2P channels (which, btw, get routed like Tor where they're encrypted, anonymous, and impossible to trace), you can send other things with your transactions too. Like for example, I can send you a text message together with a transaction payment of 5 satoshis, and you can send me 5 satoshis back to confirm you received the message. And we can have a completely private and completely decentralized chat system similar to Telegram, but not relying on any company or 3rd party service, which does charge per message, but so little it's practically insignificant (and keeps spammers out). Sphinx chat already works doing this. Or, you can rent a movie from something like Netflix, where instead of paying for $5 the whole movie you only pay fractions of a penny per second of video downloaded. So as you're watching it, you're automatically making micropayments in the background, and if the movie sucks and you stop watching near the start, you only paid for what you saw, not the whole movie. And then of course you'll be able to do all sorts of other commerce services, like fund raising for Kickstarter that just exists on this network instead of being run by a company, you can have a channel like Patreon where you can subscribe to an artist's chat group and pay them automatically over some time period, and the artist can publish art that anyone on that channel will receive, or even make it so that you have to pay a bit extra to decrypt some of the art, etc. Basically, everything that currently requires some large company to run (eBay, Patreon, Kickstarter, Amazon) can run on this decentralized network automatically. Only needed step is to get more people to switch from old money systems to Bitcoin.


----------



## DieselPowered (May 22, 2021)

Here I was thinking Bitcoin was the latest market delusion with no practical value beyond investor confidence, but it turns out it's a tool of war to be used against centralised governments. Money games sure are fun.


----------



## Rassah (May 22, 2021)

DieselPowered said:


> Here I was thinking Bitcoin was the latest market delusion with no practical value beyond investor confidence, but it turns out it's a tool of war to be used against centralised governments. Money games sure are fun.


Note India, Venezuela, Nigeria, Russia, China, and even some politicians in USA freaking out about it affecting their sovereign currency status and trying to ban it, only to be failing miserably. It's a fun game


----------



## DieselPowered (May 22, 2021)

Agreed, watching the rich tripping over themselves playing silly economic power games is always entertaining.

While I do hope your finite supply of nothing proves profitable, it doesn't change its illusory nature.


----------



## KimberVaile (May 22, 2021)

I don't feel the dip has changed my outlook on Crypto having a great deal of potential. I'd be more hesitant if it dropped to something like 5k.
INB4 the swarm of ad hominems for saying something positive over Crypto.


----------



## MechaMegs (May 22, 2021)

Seeing someone say anarchy and capitalism in the same breath as if anarchism could exist under capitalism which inherently bestows power based on the amount of capital one has and creates a hierarchy through that means.

I will just continue enjoying this saturday with the friends as we enjoy the fresh air and the sound of the crops rustling with the breeze while we wait for our barbacoa to be ready to be dug from the ground.


----------



## Attaman (May 22, 2021)

I will note that, if people want this thread to keep going, you may want to move away from the argument "It (Bitcoin) was specifically created to make governments stop functioning."

Because whether you genuinely believe this to be the case or not, it effectively makes any plugs for Bitcoin into open encouragement / participation in sedition on an international scale. Which FA and FAF alike had a _very clear_ statement on _just this year_ as to what their stance on such matters is (Threads / Posts Removed, with the potential to escalate to higher authorities if the content posted was deemed particularly noteworthy / troubling).

Seriously: If taken at face value that Bitcoin's specific purpose was to make governments stop functioning, then advocacy of it would be as clear cut a 1.1 and 2.8 violation as you can get (1.1 specifically being "Openly encouraging sedition", 2.8 "Turns out that advocating the paralyzing of multiple governments - particularly economic lynchpin governments - would be harmful to many people on a massive scale"). So, uh, I strongly recommend steering this discussing elsewhere.


----------



## DieselPowered (May 22, 2021)

1. Ancaps advocate for corporate feudalism, they just don't realize it because they're too busy fantasizing about being land barons.

2. Any decentralised system of this nature will serve to remove governmental authority from corporate interests. In a world where money is power this will naturally pose a threat to any established government interests.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (May 22, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Note India, Venezuela, Nigeria, Russia, China, and even some politicians in USA freaking out about it affecting their sovereign currency status and trying to ban it, only to be failing miserably. It's a fun game


I mean, China just announced it was stepping up enforcement to meet the ban it issued earlier and the price of Bitcoin plummeted. That isn't exactly a blow against "fiat currency". 


Rassah said:


> Miles, this is dumb. The United States Federal Reserve backing the US Dollar by the "full faith and credit of the US government, along with central banks elsewhere," is exactly WHY Bitcoin was created and WHY bitcoin value has been going up exponentially. It's not because it's digital. The dollar is digital and can be used to pay for things quickly and easily online already. Again, the whole reason Bitcoin exists and the whole reason it has wealthy people moving literally billions of dollars into it is because it doesn't require fleeting and weak things like "full faith and credit of the US government" or any government to back it. Governments have already proven consistently that they can't be trusted to back anything, and will always debase/inflate it every chance they get. You can't debase or inflate Bitcoin, and you don't need to trust governments, central banks, or anyone else to use it. The only way a government currency can compete with bitcoin is if government makes it impossible for them to control and impossible for them to inflate. But, that would be impossible for any government to create, too.


Bluster won't do anything for your thesis that facts have failed to do.

Rassah, the US dollar is hardest currency out there; our economy is consistently strong, there is little political risk here despite the reindeer games of recent years, and our trust in our currency is so strong that even our economic competitors like China buy our debt because it is a guarantee return on their investment. The fact that other countries buy our Treasury bonds and we don't default on our debt is proof that our government does back our currency and that is trusted the world over in virtually every marketplace, which can't be said for Bitcoin. 

Also, note that the Federal can only increase or decrease the money supply under very limited circumstances and are very conservative in how they do.


----------



## Rassah (May 22, 2021)

DieselPowered said:


> Agreed, watching the rich tripping over themselves playing silly economic power games is always entertaining.
> 
> While I do hope your finite supply of nothing proves profitable, it doesn't change its illusory nature.


You're talking about USD? Or Euro? Or some other thing backed by nothing?
Yes, fact is money is as illusory as inches or pounds (or meters or grams). All money is collective delusion. That's why people freak out when they see Bitcoin, after being raised to believe useless pieces of paper have value 



MechaMegs said:


> Seeing someone say anarchy and capitalism in the same breath as if anarchism could exist under capitalism which inherently bestows power based on the amount of capital one has and creates a hierarchy through that means.


People amass capital voluntarily. Some spend, others save. People create hierarchy voluntarily. Some want to lead, others want to follow leaders. Capitalism is what you get when you give people the freedom to make their own choices. You can't have your version of "anarchy" without some MASSIVE government spying on everyone to make sure they're not stashing up capital and not following someone they admire or want to work for.



MechaMegs said:


> I will just continue enjoying this saturday with the friends as we enjoy the fresh air and the sound of the crops rustling with the breeze while we wait for our barbacoa to be ready to be dug from the ground.


Sounds like Galt's Gulch 



Miles Marsalis said:


> I mean, China just announced it was stepping up enforcement to meet the ban it issued earlier and the price of Bitcoin plummeted. That isn't exactly a blow against "fiat currency".



China announced it, but "media" lied about it making it sound like it was a new ban. Bitcoin "plummeted" to only a 200% rise this year or so? At the same time those in the know bought up millions more. This is dumb, panicky, uninformed people losing money to more informed ones. Lesson is, don't be dumb investing in things you don't understand.


Miles Marsalis said:


> Bluster won't do anything for your thesis that facts have failed to do.
> 
> Rassah, the US dollar is hardest currency out there; our economy is consistently strong, there is little political risk here despite the reindeer games of recent years, and our trust in our currency is so strong that even our economic competitors like China buy our debt because it is a guarantee return on their investment. The fact that other countries buy our Treasury bonds and we don't default on our debt is proof that our government does back our currency and that is trusted the world over in virtually every marketplace, which can't be said for Bitcoin.


And yet, STILL Bitcoin was created SPECIFICALLY because of a loss of trust in USD, EUR, and GBP, and STILL it consistently grew in value and adoption for OVER TEN YEARS by people who understand this. Your claim may have been true over a decade ago. But at this point US is having to invade and destroy countries that threaten to abandon its petrodollar, and foreign countries are actually DUMPING US treasuries. There's no "guaranteed investment" on them. There was before 2008, but since then your " investment" is about 0% interest and -3% or more loss from inflation. The poor and uninformed are still trusting it all over the world, sure. But those with wealth and connections are bailing. Especially in the last two years. Because:



Miles Marsalis said:


> Also, note that the Federal can only increase or decrease the money supply under very limited circumstances and are very conservative in how they do.


Those "very limited circumstances" were the fed just deciding to increase our dollar supply by 25%+ just from COVID. And Biden wants to increase it by another 20%. That's NUTS!

And before you say, "Oh, but we needed that money because people needed to get checks to survive in this economy," that only accounts for a tiny fraction of all that money.

Here's a fun fact: The total amount of money spend on the so-far three stimulus bills? It was as much as what US spent to build out its entire highway infrastructure during the New Deal. Plus what it spent to send a man on the moon. Times five. And adjusted for inflation. So, where did all that money go? XD


----------



## Ramjet (May 22, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Just need to point out that this is an economic fallacy, which unfortunately is too often repeated by Keynesian economists. First, when people don't spend money because it will doubt in a few years, why do they do that? To spend it in a few years. People don't save for the sake of just having lots of money, they save it to spend it later. So at worst this would result in the exact same level of spending, but just offset for a while, with a period of low spending and saving as people transition from crap inflationary currency to better deflationary one. And second, you can't just "not spend money." We have needs for food, water, bills to pay, and we want things like nice electronics, entertainment, luxuries, maybe travel. So people have no choice but to spend money. And third, money that grows in value has a "wealth effect," where the more your money grows, the more "wealthy" you feel, and the more likely you are actually to spend it. Think about if, if your savings were $200 and dropping, you probably won't feel good spending $700 on a new fancy phone. Your safety net is tiny. But if your savings are at $2000 and rapidly growing, you'll feel much safer making such a purchase.
> This people-won't-spend "feedback loop" is one of the things that are used as an excuse for why deflation is bad and why so-called deflationary spirals happen. It's an excuse bankers and governments use to tell you why they should be allowed to keep printing money to buy more and more real assets for themselves while making you poorer. And it's a lie that is economically illogical.
> 
> 
> ...



The Lightning network is still basically in small scale test phase even now over 5 years in the making, same deal with Ethereum's 2.0 upgrade from POW to PoS migration that's been promised year after year to be implemented and lower gas fees, it hasn't happened....

The Visa route kinda proves the point of issue for Bitcoin's inability to be scalable for everyday use...
If you first have to fund a prepaid Visa with Bitcoin that then gets denominated in fiat for small purchases, how is that much different then selling x amount of Apple stock for fiat to make that holding usable for an everyday transaction?


----------



## DieselPowered (May 22, 2021)

Rassah said:


> You're talking about USD? Or Euro? Or some other thing backed by nothing?
> Yes, fact is money is as illusory as inches or pounds (or meters or grams). All money is collective delusion.


I'm fully aware of this, difference is those currencies are backed up by military power.

I understand how the game is played, dw.


----------



## MechaMegs (May 22, 2021)

Rassah said:


> People amass capital voluntarily. Some spend, others save. People create hierarchy voluntarily. Some want to lead, others want to follow leaders. Capitalism is what you get when you give people the freedom to make their own choices. You can't have your version of "anarchy" without some MASSIVE government spying on everyone to make sure they're not stashing up capital and not following someone they admire or want to work for.


Anarchism wouldn't have a government and amassing capital would mean nothing in a society without capitalism.

Capitalism creates a force and compulsion of hierarchy especially with the already established classism in capitalist societies today based on the wealth of an individual which renders the idea of anarchism with capitalism impossible since the wealthiest will always have more power to generate force and compulsion either overtly or covertly and will maintain most control.


----------



## PercyD (May 22, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> View attachment 110893
> Seeing someone say anarchy and capitalism in the same breath as if anarchism could exist under capitalism which inherently bestows power based on the amount of capital one has and creates a hierarchy through that means.
> 
> I will just continue enjoying this saturday with the friends as we enjoy the fresh air and the sound of the crops rustling with the breeze while we wait for our barbacoa to be ready to be dug from the ground.


I thought you said boba, like boba tea. Lol-

Its just like how some people think capitalism and socialism are direct opposites, but the U.S coincidentally practices both. Social Security used for retirees to have something when they can no longer work. Thats a socialistic program that is funded by capitalist activity. 
Our social systems are actually a blend of concepts~.


----------



## PercyD (May 22, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Bitcoin as created by cryptoanarchists and anarcho-capitalist. It was specifically created to make governments stop functioning. Yes, fiat is the only way governments can function and fund themselves. Removing that function and forcing governments to either disappear or convert to only providing functions that citizens are actually willing to pay for was the whole idea from the start. Incidentally that's why it was designed to fight against and resist government regulations from the start. It was made to be a weapon used against governments. Yes, there are lots of billionaires who depend on the system because they get subsidies or because governments are their biggest customers. But there are many more billionaires who REALLY hate those guys because they're getting a huge unfair advantage in the market, and these billionaires want to compete in the market fairly, rather than having governments pick winners based on who they're friends with or who can corrupt the politicians faster. And as mentioned, there are also a lot of billionaires who have almost all their wealth in Bitcoin too.
> 
> Bitcoin rewards miners with 50 bitcoins for every block they mine. Every 210,000 blocks, or roughly 4 years, that amount gets cut in half. It was already cut to 25, then 12.5, and is currently at 6.25. If you plot that reward amount into the future, you'll get a graph that looks like an upwards arc that levels off at an asymptote, approaching 21 million but never getting there. I forgot exactly why that number was picked but I think it had to do with some restriction in the type of digit used in code (integer vs long vs word if you know what that means, and it was something related to that). Because everyone using bitcoin agrees to follow these rules, if someone issues a block where they pay themselves more, everyone just rejects that block as invalid. Everyone sticking to the rules, because they know if they don't the network will isolate them, is why that number can't be changed from 21 million.
> 
> By the way, if you want to watch these blocks go through in real time, watch transactions going through in real time, see how close we're to to the next difficulty adjustment and how much it will adjust next time (looks like a drop of 15% in less than a week), and see what the current transaction fees are as well as what people are paying, you can check all that on https://mempool.space/


Thats interesting. Bunch of guerrilla economists gaming billionaires to try to decentralize everything. I'm warming up to this, maybe...

Of the things I do now, I help small businesses get government contracts. New York has been really committed to opening up the market for minority owned and women owned businesses to sell their goods. However, New York (just as everywhere else) is still all about nepotism. There are more channels for the little folk to get in there and extract money to get into their communities, but it's still very difficult for the little folk to scale. 

My concern is this- I don't know how all this is going to be good for the small players. Maybe even as a way to extract money from these billionaires moving their money over to bitcoin. I'm also just weary of handing over taking care of the community fully over to capitalists. Privatization has been disastrous for people in South America. Its caused a lot of the problems in Venezuela and Chile-- and (US) corporations are profiting off these countries. Privatization of social services just aint it.


----------



## Rassah (May 22, 2021)

Ramjet said:


> The Lightning network is still basically in small scale test phase even now over 5 years in the making, same deal with Ethereum's 2.0 upgrade from POW to PoS migration that's been promised year after year to be implemented and lower gas fees, it hasn't happened....
> 
> The Visa route kinda proves the point of issue for Bitcoin's inability to be scalable for everyday use...
> If you first have to fund a prepaid Visa with Bitcoin that then gets denominated in fiat for small purchases, how is that much different then selling x amount of Apple stock for fiat to make that holding usable for an everyday transaction?


ETH 2.0 isn't even out yet. LN isn't a test anymore, it's fully functional. Install Phoenix wallet and you can use it with it handling all channel stuff for you. Bitrefill, Paywithmoon, a few exchanges, and a few other merchants already support it, and more promised to add support this year. At this point LN just needs more wallet adoption, and higher Bitcoin fees will push more people into using it.

The VISA route is an intermediary proving its functionality. VISA, PayPal, and others are currently working on implementing payments through Bitcoin, meaning any merchant who uses VISA or PayPal for checkout will let you pay with Bitcoin as well as entering credit card numbers. The merchant either won't know he's getting Bitcoin, or will be able to choose to keep it as Bitcoin. Obviously nobody is working to have merchant payment systems to accept stocks. You can't even send stocks to anyone else since they're stuck in your brokerage.



DieselPowered said:


> I'm fully aware of this, difference is those currencies are backed up by military power.


Everyone always says "Dollar is backed by full faith and credit if US government" or " backed up by military power" but that doesn't actually mean anything. It's a nonsense propaganda phrase. No amount of military or government can force people to value something more than it's actually worth. No government has ever succeeded whenever it tried (look into foreign currencies pegged to the US dollar and how they crashed).



MechaMegs said:


> Anarchism wouldn't have a government and amassing capital would mean nothing in a society without capitalism.


Pretty sure even without government having a lot of food or other resources would mean a lot. Resources are scarce after all.



MechaMegs said:


> Capitalism creates a force and compulsion of hierarchy especially with the already established classism in capitalist societies today based on the wealth of an individual which renders the idea of anarchism with capitalism impossible since the wealthiest will always have more power to generate force and compulsion either overtly or covertly and will maintain most control.


Right... This is why every country that ever tried to abolish capitalism ended up "removing" the kind of people who tended to amas a lot more wealth compared to the "common man." People like doctors, scientists, engineers, professors, inventors, entrepreneurs... Some people will always be better than others at inventing and creating value. The only way to get rid of that hierarchy you fear and to keep everyone equal is so kill them. But unfortunately that kid of action also requires a MASSIVE government, which means it can never become anarchism.


PercyD said:


> Its just like how some people think capitalism and socialism are direct opposites, but the U.S coincidentally practices both.



They are. One is an unrestricted market, the other is centrally planned and restricted one. U.S. leaves some markets alone while heavily restricting or running others. SSI is an example of a government running that insurance industry. Bitcoin is an example of a purely capitalist system. No government involvement at all. And since that pure capitalism is up against government socialism...



PercyD said:


> Thats interesting. Bunch of guerrilla economists gaming billionaires to try to decentralize everything. I'm warming up to this, maybe...


A lot of billionaires are anarchists or libertarians too though. I'm not going to go into politics here but look into what Koch Brothers actually were trying to accomplish. Peter Thiel and Elon Musk were trying to create Bitcoin before there was Bitcoin, which got regulated into what PayPal is today, and although Thiel is still a cryptoanarchist I can't tell with Elon anymore. Maybe he's duping US tax payers into funding his trip to Mars so he can leave and start an anarchists society there.



PercyD said:


> Of the things I do now, I help small businesses get government contracts. New York has been really committed to opening up the market for minority owned and women owned businesses to sell their goods. However, New York (just as everywhere else) is still all about nepotism. There are more channels for the little folk to get in there and extract money to get into their communities, but it's still very difficult for the little folk to scale.


What bothers me about this is that all money that comes from government is taken from someone else, so the ones who do get funding through nepotism, get that money from it being taken from those others through taxes or through inflation if NY keeps borrowing, gets into too much debt, and forces the Feds to bail it out.




PercyD said:


> My concern is this- I don't know how all this is going to be good for the small players. Maybe even as a way to extract money from these billionaires moving their money over to bitcoin. I'm also just weary of handing over taking care of the community fully over to capitalists. Privatization has been disastrous for people in South America. Its caused a lot of the problems in Venezuela and Chile-- and (US) corporations are profiting off these countries. Privatization of social services just aint it.


One way it would help is by eliminating the problem of government creating and giving out money with nepotism at everyone else's expense. You want government money? Government has to give everyone a good enough reason to give them that money in the first place. "We're raising taxes to pay to revitalize and rebuild this delapidated community" YES. "We're raising money because this company keeps making mistakes and screwing up customer orders, but they're friends with the governor" NO.
Nationalization destroys markets and entire countries, like it did Venezuela, because nationalization leads to rampant nepotism where nationalized industries are just given over to friends and bureaucrats. And once the economy goes to shit as a result, government tries to clamp down on people's finances to try to keep things going and to keep wealth from fleeing. Strict currency controls, bank seizures, etc. Those at the bottom get wrecked the most. In Venezuela a lot of people got into Bitcoin to save themselves, to protect their savings from inflation and seizure, to be able to receive and spend money without it being seized...
Yeah, Bitcoin basically gives those at the bottom the freedom from not being financially exploited by those at the top.


----------



## TyraWadman (May 22, 2021)

Kinda hate how Toronto is getting into it. That's where a large majority of the drug and some major human trafficking takes place. :/


----------



## Ramjet (May 22, 2021)

Rassah said:


> ETH 2.0 isn't even out yet. LN isn't a test anymore, it's fully functional. Install Phoenix wallet and you can use it with it handling all channel stuff for you. Bitrefill, Paywithmoon, a few exchanges, and a few other merchants already support it, and more promised to add support this year. At this point LN just needs more wallet adoption, and higher Bitcoin fees will push more people into using it.
> 
> The VISA route is an intermediary proving its functionality. VISA, PayPal, and others are currently working on implementing payments through Bitcoin, meaning any merchant who uses VISA or PayPal for checkout will let you pay with Bitcoin as well as entering credit card numbers. The merchant either won't know he's getting Bitcoin, or will be able to choose to keep it as Bitcoin. Obviously nobody is working to have merchant payment systems to accept stocks. You can't even send stocks to anyone else since they're stuck in your brokerage.



Wallets are one thing, but where is this integration with major exchanges like Coinbase and Binance with LN?
If that layer two option was fully functional the major exchanges would be all over it, it's obvious that it's not scalable in that regard.

That's still a conversion from crypto to fiat with Mastercard and PayPal being the intermediate in-between, a far cry of the original white papers outline of Bitcoin's ability to act as it's own currency as a stand alone to replace fiat.


----------



## DieselPowered (May 22, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Everyone always says "Dollar is backed by full faith and credit if US government" or " backed up by military power" but that doesn't actually mean anything. It's a nonsense propaganda phrase. No amount of military or government can force people to value something more than it's actually worth.


It actually means everything.
Inherently fiat currency only has as much value as people have faith in the country that's providing it. Case in point, the only thing truly holding up the dollar is the continued stability and cultural domination of the US, domination that's backed up by the coercive force of its military. That crumbles away and the paper becomes worthless. It's all just another expression of power in the end.


----------



## Rassah (May 22, 2021)

Ramjet said:


> Wallets are one thing, but where is this integration with major exchanges like Coinbase and Binance with LN?
> If that layer two option was fully functional the major exchanges would be all over it, it's obvious that it's not scalable in that regard.


Bitfinex is a large exchange that supports it. OKCoin and a few smaller ones do to. Kraken said they're planning to support it by year end. I've used it with OKCoin already. Very easy and convenient. Others will switch too.



Ramjet said:


> That's still a conversion from crypto to fiat with Mastercard and PayPal being the intermediate in-between, a far cry of the original white papers outline of Bitcoin's ability to act as it's own currency as a stand alone to replace fiat.


Sure, but who cares? You still hold Bitcoin that doesn't inflate 10%+ a year and can still spend it however you want or send it to whomever you want. It's just a necessary intermediate step. You can't just expect everyone to switch completely at once.



DieselPowered said:


> It actually means everything.
> Inherently fiat currency only has as much value as people have faith in the country that's providing it. Case in point, the only thing truly holding up the dollar is the continued stability and cultural domination of the US, domination that's backed up by the coercive force of its military. That crumbles away and the paper becomes worthless. It's all just another expression of power in the end.


You're misunderstanding what gives money its value. Common person thinking US government is big and great would give US dollar respect. But the value of a dollar in trade for something else, like bread, still depends on the number of dollars in circulation. Supply and demand determine all value, even money. If US suddenly tripled the amount of dollars flowing through the market, that common person would be in awe of US military's might and its economic power. And then charge you three times for that loaf of bread. The only thing that is truly holding up the value of the dollar is the trust that the US central bank will keep its supply scarce and won't just print a ton of it, causing mass swings and inflation in the market. But US has been unable to contain itself for a few decades now.


----------



## PercyD (May 23, 2021)

DieselPowered said:


> It actually means everything.
> Inherently fiat currency only has as much value as people have faith in the country that's providing it. Case in point, the only thing truly holding up the dollar is the continued stability and cultural domination of the US, domination that's backed up by the coercive force of its military. That crumbles away and the paper becomes worthless. It's all just another expression of power in the end.


To add-
It's also based on how well the U.S pays it debts. We have debt in this country reaching as far back as the revolutionary war. We also have a debt to ourselves for running the country.

Our credit rating went down one time when we had a shutdown and didn't get our budget together on time. That impacted the value of our dollar, not by much, but it's a a factor. If you have an entity like a business, you can see something similar at a smaller scale. You gotta balance the books every quarter and invest wisely to increase your revenue. For the U.S, unfortunately, that seems to be in war for the political class.


----------



## PercyD (May 23, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Right... This is why every country that ever tried to abolish capitalism ended up "removing" the kind of people who tended to amas a lot more wealth compared to the "common man." People like doctors, scientists, engineers, professors, inventors, entrepreneurs... Some people will always be better than others at inventing and creating value. The only way to get rid of that hierarchy you fear and to keep everyone equal is so kill them. But unfortunately that kid of action also requires a MASSIVE government, which means it can never become anarchism.


They did that once in Cambodia. It did NOT bode well. That country is still reeling several decades later. It's gotten better, but the recovery was so much harder because the specialties were taken out- either fleeing or they died.



Rassah said:


> They are. One is an unrestricted market, the other is centrally planned and restricted one. U.S. leaves some markets alone while heavily restricting or running others. SSI is an example of a government running that insurance industry. Bitcoin is an example of a purely capitalist system. No government involvement at all. And since that pure capitalism is up against government socialism...
> 
> 
> A lot of billionaires are anarchists or libertarians too though. I'm not going to go into politics here but look into what Koch Brothers actually were trying to accomplish. Peter Thiel and Elon Musk were trying to create Bitcoin before there was Bitcoin, which got regulated into what PayPal is today, and although Thiel is still a cryptoanarchist I can't tell with Elon anymore. Maybe he's duping US tax payers into funding his trip to Mars so he can leave and start an anarchists society there.


Yea, the Koch brothers took over a lot of local municipalities and destroyed a lot of things so... I'm not about it.



Rassah said:


> What bothers me about this is that all money that comes from government is taken from someone else, so the ones who do get funding through nepotism, get that money from it being taken from those others through taxes or through inflation if NY keeps borrowing, gets into too much debt, and forces the Feds to bail it out.
> 
> 
> One way it would help is by eliminating the problem of government creating and giving out money with nepotism at everyone else's expense. You want government money? Government has to give everyone a good enough reason to give them that money in the first place. "We're raising taxes to pay to revitalize and rebuild this delapidated community" YES. "We're raising money because this company keeps making mistakes and screwing up customer orders, but they're friends with the governor" NO.
> ...



Tax funded nepotism is just as likely with Privatization. We're having issue in North Carolina right now because Duke Power basically has a monopoly here on electrical power. My Dad a few decades back had to fight against them hiking the rates for power up with no real reason as to why. They weren't making improvements to the grid. They weren't making jobs for more people to work. They were just profiting and using that profit to put people in place in local governments very similar to the Kochs. The only way to fight against it was a petition, since it was a private company running a municipality resource.

With a nationalized system here in the U.S, we at least have more levers to have more say. There are a lot of systems in place to make sure nepotism isn't a thing, and theres ALOT more transparency. I know, cause I have to navigate these systems for my clients. It's not perfect, but it gives the little guys more of a chance to get their feet in, especially if they're creative and tenacious. I'd say that the only thing the U.S still has going for us.

With privatization, we wouldn't have that. And we'd have to kowtow to the larger corporations in order to get anywhere.


----------



## Rassah (May 23, 2021)

PercyD said:


> They did that once in Cambodia. It did NOT bode well. That country is still reeling several decades later. It's gotten better, but the recovery was so much harder because the specialties were taken out- either fleeing or they died.
> 
> 
> Yea, the Koch brothers took over a lot of local municipalities and destroyed a lot of things so... I'm not about it.
> ...


How well would Duke Power hold their monopoly if they didn't have a powerful government behind them to enforce the regulations and zoning restrictions that prevent anyone else from setting up their own power and running their own cables?


----------



## Ramjet (May 23, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Bitfinex is a large exchange that supports it. OKCoin and a few smaller ones do to. Kraken said they're planning to support it by year end. I've used it with OKCoin already. Very easy and convenient. Others will switch too.



Those exchanges are pretty small on total volume tbh, and even then you have to fund your "channel" on layer 2 either when using a wallet that runs the node for you, or running your own right?Those high mainchain fees still apply to move that Bitcoin to fund your LN channel.



Rassah said:


> Sure, but who cares? You still hold Bitcoin that doesn't inflate 10%+ a year and can still spend it however you want or send it to whomever you want. It's just a necessary intermediate step. You can't just expect everyone to switch completely at once.



I just find it ironic in this regard that Bitcoin is piggybacking on the very system it seeks to replace to make it handy enough to use as an everyday currency.

Also I can't imagine MC and PP are doing this conversion as a service for free...


----------



## PercyD (May 23, 2021)

Rassah said:


> How well would Duke Power hold their monopoly if they didn't have a powerful government behind them to enforce the regulations and zoning restrictions that prevent anyone else from setting up their own power and running their own cables?


Still pretty good, I'd say. 
Just to give you some history- my grandfather survived the Great Depression and fought in WWII. People bawk cause theres a lot of time in there, but the Great Depression persisted in the South for MUCH longer. There was no infrastructure out here, and no one wanted to build anything out here. There was no infrascture here as late as the 1950s.

It made sense to get Duke Power to do it and to control it. Theres no one here who would have any experience providing power and getting people basic necessities like power and water. However, now, they just straight up have a monopoly, and it's unlike that any one would have ever invested in infracture here.
I'd say if North Carolina State did a better job looking for other people to provide these services, we'd have a better time of it. But this is like half a century of control. They're making legislation to prevent solar power- just sued a Black church down here trying to put together something for their constitutients who want to go green.

Right now, we have the power to fight back. Everything is transparent, and we can see what Duke Power is doing. We just need to encourage more competitors. Having it completely privitized, though? Thats DEFINITELY not it. At least we could petition to lower the prices. I don't trust the market to provide services that we need.

I'm looking forward to municipality internet.


----------



## MechaMegs (May 23, 2021)

Rassah said:


> View attachment 110941


I know this is a meme but I can't just let is go like that since it feels misleading on the facts.

I would like to point out that there is some 2 Trillion USD in circulation with the total currency in the world in circulation amounting to some 27 trillion USD so it isn't the USD in which this is talking about as the USD really is the USA's fun little paper and this distinction is a little important in the sense of distinction for trade and policy regarding that per country where if they say block trade with a country they likely would not accept that note of currency, and yes while they all convert their value of notes in that system there is still the ability to bar that note from use like the US Confederacy notes (though yes this was in a time when notes were backed in metals and the dissolution of a country rendered the note to be backed by nothing). There are also cases of nations restricting currency exchanges as a form of control or to prevent what they may see as poor investments.

Now to the point of 1% holding 30% of that 27 Trillion globally (though last I recall it was the 1% held nearly 50% and within that the global 0.1% holding near 30% of the global wealth.) being 8 Trillion of the in circulation and not including their assets as well towards this equation. what is to prevent this massive wealth spring from being just as massive in a crypto currency society since the crypto currency exchanges for their dollars at this time.


----------



## Ramjet (May 23, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> I know this is a meme but I can't just let is go like that since it feels misleading on the facts.
> 
> I would like to point out that there is some 2 Trillion USD in circulation with the total currency in the world in circulation amounting to some 27 trillion USD so it isn't the USD in which this is talking about as the USD really is the USA's fun little paper and this distinction is a little important in the sense of distinction for trade and policy regarding that per country where if they say block trade with a country they likely would not accept that note of currency, and yes while they all convert their value of notes in that system there is still the ability to bar that note from use like the US Confederacy notes (though yes this was in a time when notes were backed in metals and the dissolution of a country rendered the note to be backed by nothing). There are also cases of nations restricting currency exchanges as a form of control or to prevent what they may see as poor investments.
> 
> Now to the point of 1% holding 30% of that 27 Trillion globally (though last I recall it was the 1% held nearly 50% and within that the global 0.1% holding near 30% of the global wealth.) being 8 Trillion of the in circulation and not including their assets as well towards this equation. what is to prevent this massive wealth spring from being just as massive in a crypto currency society since the crypto currency exchanges for their dollars at this time.



That ratio is a hell of alot worse with Bitcoin, only 1000 people globally hold a massive 40% of the entire float of current circulating Bitcoins...


----------



## DieselPowered (May 23, 2021)

Rassah said:


> You're misunderstanding what gives money its value. Common person thinking US government is big and great would give US dollar respect. But the value of a dollar in trade for something else, like bread, still depends on the number of dollars in circulation. Supply and demand determine all value, even money. If US suddenly tripled the amount of dollars flowing through the market, that common person would be in awe of US military's might and its economic power. And then charge you three times for that loaf of bread. The only thing that is truly holding up the value of the dollar is the trust that the US central bank will keep its supply scarce and won't just print a ton of it, causing mass swings and inflation in the market. But US has been unable to contain itself for a few decades now.
> 
> View attachment 110941


Yes, I understand this too. Currency's only real value is as a tool to simplify trade, and we need to ensure the relative value of that tool remains stable. The consequences of inflation aren't a mystery to me.


----------



## Fallowfox (May 23, 2021)

Yakamaru said:


> Bitcoin have seen nothing but a value increase since its inception





Yakamaru said:


> These dips aren't exactly unusual for Bitcoin let alone cryptocurrencies in general. Since Bitcoin's inception we've had how many ups and downs now? I've lost count. If anything it was kind of expected.



Before values crashed you claimed that Bitcoin's increase was monotonic. 
After values crashed you claimed that it's completely normal for the value to be volatile. 

Try to imagine how this looks for people who don't have a vested interest in Bitcoin.


----------



## PercyD (May 23, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Yeah, Bitcoin basically gives those at the bottom the freedom from not being financially exploited by those at the top.


Looking back at what you said--

I'll have to continue to look at bitcoin to see just how true that is. Right now, it's a plaything for the rich, and the rich always have the resources to make the game work for them the best. Be it fiat, commodities, or this new cryptocurrency. They have the resources to always get what they want. It's hard for (regular) people, even just by virtue that they don't have time to sit and think about this kinda stuff. Heck, they don't have the resources to hire someone like me to help them with their business, or someone like you to tell them how all this stuff even works.

But this problem, at it's core, is basically a Master's dissertation waiting to happen. It's also a problem that non-profits, community and government organizations sit and think about all the time. We'll see~.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 23, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> Before values crashed you claimed that Bitcoin's increase was monotonic.
> After values crashed you claimed that it's completely normal for the value to be volatile.
> 
> Try to imagine how this looks for people who don't have a vested interest in Bitcoin.


Over the long-term we are seeing an increase in value, going in one direction. Short-term there will be ups and downs. What's so difficult to understand with this?


----------



## Rassah (May 23, 2021)

Ramjet said:


> Those exchanges are pretty small on total volume tbh, and even then you have to fund your "channel" on layer 2 either when using a wallet that runs the node for you, or running your own right?Those high mainchain fees still apply to move that Bitcoin to fund your LN channel.


Kings sorta, in that you can move coins on the channel once and then don't have to move them off, where you just send them to the exchange and pull them off it using LN later, and in that it's apparently possible to get a channel opened where you don't have to move your coins on anything if you're just receiving. I sent some LN coins to my spouse's Phoenix wallet as a test, and it just showed up on his new channel without him doing anything. There's some tricks to getting a channel set up without making an on chain Bitcoin transaction, but I'm not entirely sure how it works.




Ramjet said:


> I just find it ironic in this regard that Bitcoin is piggybacking on the very system it seeks to replace to make it handy enough to use as an everyday currency.


It's just using the already establish payment services while allowing you to keep all the benefits of Bitcoin. Eventually people will realize it's easier and cheaper just to send transactions directly, but no one just transitions from one major network to another directly.



Ramjet said:


> Also I can't imagine MC and PP are doing this conversion as a service for free...


They might be doing what other companies did, where they pay for the USD part of it out of their own funds and just hold the BTC. I'm almost certain that's what PayPal is doing. Cheap and easy way to grow their BTC portfolio without touching the overall market. That will easily pay for itself in the long run.



PercyD said:


> It made sense to get Duke Power to do it and to control it. Theres no one here who would have any experience providing power and getting people basic necessities like power and water. However, now, they just straight up have a monopoly, and it's unlike that any one would have ever invested in infracture here.
> I'd say if North Carolina State did a better job looking for other people to provide these services, we'd have a better time of it. But this is like half a century of control. They're making legislation to prevent solar power- just sued a Black church down here trying to put together something for their constitutients who want to go green.


Wouldn't people have simply moved away, making this not an issue in the first place? There's a reason no one lives in the desert or the woods. And, didn't really answer the question or point of what's stopping competitors from setting up their own power sources to compete? Or I guess you did: they're making legislation. That's why I prefer privatization that Bitcoin forces. No one to legislate out competition if legislators can't pay to enforce it.


PercyD said:


> I'm looking forward to municipality internet.


I'm looking forward to completely privatized and global satellite internet, and mesh network internet running on top of Bitcoin Lightning Network. Being in tech I'm sure you've heard of mesh networks, and may have even heard of projects that attempted it like Open Garden? Why did they always fail though? Because someone who is paying for their cell phone data plan doesn't want others to just piggy back off of it for free and use up all their data. This is where Lightning comes in, where you can run an app broadcasting that you're willing to share data for 1 satoshi per megabyte. Or whatever price you want. And someone else can run an app that wishes to connect to the internet. It can look for nearby broadcasts, find the cheapest route, and establish a connection where it pays 1 sat per every meg they download completely seamlessly in the background. They can stream YouTube videos and the payments will just happen in the back end without you or them even doing anything. And neither of you even have to know who it is you're connecting to. All the payments are set up in software, address to address, co-signed by digital contracts. They stop paying, you stop broadcasting. Not possible with the current banking system since you need names attached. Once mesh networks have payment methods built in, I think it will transform the internet too, making it a lot less dependent on centralized ISPs.


----------



## PercyD (May 23, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Wouldn't people have simply moved away, making this not an issue in the first place? There's a reason no one lives in the desert or the woods. And, didn't really answer the question or point of what's stopping competitors from setting up their own power sources to compete? Or I guess you did: they're making legislation. That's why I prefer privatization that Bitcoin forces. No one to legislate out competition if legislators can't pay to enforce it.


People aren't gonna just pick up and move because the rates are too large. Not in this area. It's families who have lived where they've lived for generations. I know it's difficult to imagine cause we both just picked up and moved--
But the place where this is is my ancestral land is. We own the place where we live. I'll probably retire here, or put a farming commune here (or a combination of those things).  Myself and others are more apt to stay and fight.

The only reason why Duke Power is legislating is because people don't realize whats going on. Sheer virtue that I can tell you and I have ways we have fought back in the past, Nationalization is more conducive here. This might just be a cultural thing, though. You can't trust companies. You can't trust the government. But you can at least hold the government to task here. 



Rassah said:


> I'm looking forward to completely privatized and global satellite internet, and mesh network internet running on top of Bitcoin Lightning Network. Being in tech I'm sure you've heard of mesh networks, and may have even heard of projects that attempted it like Open Garden? Why did they always fail though? Because someone who is paying for their cell phone data plan doesn't want others to just piggy back off of it for free and use up all their data. This is where Lightning comes in, where you can run an app broadcasting that you're willing to share data for 1 satoshi per megabyte. Or whatever price you want. And someone else can run an app that wishes to connect to the internet. It can look for nearby broadcasts, find the cheapest route, and establish a connection where it pays 1 sat per every meg they download completely seamlessly in the background. They can stream YouTube videos and the payments will just happen in the back end without you or them even doing anything. And neither of you even have to know who it is you're connecting to. All the payments are set up in software, address to address, co-signed by digital contracts. They stop paying, you stop broadcasting. Not possible with the current banking system since you need names attached. Once mesh networks have payment methods built in, I think it will transform the internet too, making it a lot less dependent on centralized ISPs.



I think that is a pretty neat idea. I've heard of AD Hoc community networks, and I liked the idea. Basically, you have a closed connection of networks in the community. Eventually you can get to the internet through community sponsored internet.

The closest thing we can get right now is municipal internet where our tax dollars covers the infrastructure and connection. It might end up being a hybrid of these things. The community says this is what they want and the municipality puts in the resources to make it happen. Local governments here in the U.S have a lot of power that people frequently overlook. -And usually the Federal government can't tell them what to do because States Rights. 

If we're getting really big brained here, we can pull a Kochs and just buy out a whole small town in the midwest or the South. Do whatever the hell we want with it.


----------



## Rassah (May 23, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> I know this is a meme but I can't just let is go like that since it feels misleading on the facts.
> 
> I would like to point out that there is some 2 Trillion USD in circulation with the total currency in the world in circulation amounting to some 27 trillion USD so it isn't the USD in which this is talking about as the USD really is the USA's fun little paper and this distinction is a little important in the sense of distinction for trade and policy regarding that per country where if they say block trade with a country they likely would not accept that note of currency, and yes while they all convert their value of notes in that system there is still the ability to bar that note from use like the US Confederacy notes (though yes this was in a time when notes were backed in metals and the dissolution of a country rendered the note to be backed by nothing). There are also cases of nations restricting currency exchanges as a form of control or to prevent what they may see as poor investments.


Holy run-on sentence batman! 2 trillion is just paper note versions. You can have paper Bitcoin notes too btw. But the meme was talking about total amount of dollars, including digital ones that make up like 95% of all dollars. The scammy part about these digital tokens is that one party has completed control of how much they can print, and they just make as much as they want for themselves before dumping it on the market. In crypto those are considered scams. Yeah, what you mentioned about banks and governments being able to restrict them just makes it worse. Can't do that with Bitcoin. US has sanctions on all trade with Iran, but they can't stop Bitcoin payments coming in and out of that country at all.




MechaMegs said:


> Now to the point of 1% holding 30% of that 27 Trillion globally (though last I recall it was the 1% held nearly 50% and within that the global 0.1% holding near 30% of the global wealth.) being 8 Trillion of the in circulation and not including their assets as well towards this equation. what is to prevent this massive wealth spring from being just as massive in a crypto currency society since the crypto currency exchanges for their dollars at this time.


The 1% holding 50%, you're thinking assets, like property, stocks, etc, not dollars. The meme was just talking about dollars. I'm guessing they're talking about the banks and some wealthy corps with cash balances holding all that cash.
What's to prevent it from happening in crypto? Ask how it happened with dollars. Wealthy bank prints $100 million from nothing. Bank uses $100 million to buy stocks and property. Wealthy bank keeps doing it, because they can just make as much as they want, and keeps buying things with money, while that money and our savings and wages just keep falling in price. Remember the 2008 bank bailouts? Auto car bailouts? Or all the corporate subsidies? That's how it got to that. Since banks and governments can't print more bitcoin, that whole process is impossible. If someone wants to obtain 20% of the money, they better be doing something that 20% of the entire population would be willing to pay them for.



Ramjet said:


> That ratio is a hell of alot worse with Bitcoin, only 1000 people globally hold a massive 40% of the entire float of current circulating Bitcoins...


That's true, but that ratio is not applicable to Bitcoin. That ratio only exists because it's a new technology being adopted, and it's taking a while for it to spread out to others. At one point only one person in the world had a telephone, or a radio, or a type writer. At one point 100% of all Bitcoin was owned by just two people. But as technology gets adopted, that amount gets distributed to more and more people, which is exactly what's happening. It's not an "inequality" issue.
Besides, over the years the ratio of Bitcoin has gone from few to more and more distributed, while in dollars it's the opposite where it's been going from distributed to fewer and fewer. Specifically because of the cantillon effect I described above.



Fallowfox said:


> Before values crashed you claimed that Bitcoin's increase was monotonic.
> After values crashed you claimed that it's completely normal for the value to be volatile.
> 
> Try to imagine how this looks for people who don't have a vested interest in Bitcoin.



Fallow should try to imagine how it looks for people who hear him claim that bitcoin is worthless when it was $100, then when it was $1000, then when it was $10,000, and now that it's even higher. If I was someone who listened to Fallow and respected his completely ignorant opinion on this topic for the last 7 years, I would be pretty angry for missing out on very likely life changing opportunity. If only we could sue people for giving bad investment advice who make themselves sound like they're an authority on something they actually don't even understand.


----------



## MechaMegs (May 23, 2021)

Rassah said:


> The 1% holding 50%, you're thinking assets, like property, stocks, etc, not dollars. The meme was just talking about dollars. I'm guessing they're talking about the banks and some wealthy corps with cash balances holding all that cash.
> What's to prevent it from happening in crypto? Ask how it happened with dollars. Wealthy bank prints $100 million from nothing. Bank uses $100 million to buy stocks and property. Wealthy bank keeps doing it, because they can just make as much as they want, and keeps buying things with money, while that money and our savings and wages just keep falling in price. Remember the 2008 bank bailouts? Auto car bailouts? Or all the corporate subsidies? That's how it got to that. Since banks and governments can't print more bitcoin, that whole process is impossible. If someone wants to obtain 20% of the money, they better be doing something that 20% of the entire population would be willing to pay them for.


And with Bitcoin being something people can jump into with their capital what would stop them from doing the same with their already amassed wealth of the USD to have majority wealth within that realm?


----------



## ConorHyena (May 24, 2021)

PercyD said:


> Our social systems are actually a blend of concepts~.


lets be mixed market economy bros together


----------



## Raever (May 24, 2021)

How the hell did this reach eleven pages with no end-statement in sight?


----------



## MechaMegs (May 24, 2021)

Raever said:


> How the hell did this reach eleven pages with no end-statement in sight?


----------



## ConorHyena (May 24, 2021)

Raever said:


> How the hell did this reach eleven pages with no end-statement in sight?



Because it's the same people saying the same stuff they've been saying ever since I've been around in this forum.


----------



## PercyD (May 24, 2021)

Raever said:


> How the hell did this reach eleven pages with no end-statement in sight?


I dunno, I'm learning a lot about how bitcoin actually works. I dunno what these other chucklefucks are doing.


----------



## Rassah (May 25, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> And with Bitcoin being something people can jump into with their capital what would stop them from doing the same with their already amassed wealth of the USD to have majority wealth within that realm?


What they already do is collect infinite assets with infinitely printed money. With Bitcoin they have to earn that money. Plus they would have to buy that bitcoin with their current assets first, which means everyone who got into it first will get richer off those rich guys. A lot of them will be too late to figure it out too, which means by the time they do, it will result in a huge transfer of wealth from the old rich to everyone else who invested earlier.

By the way, you guys really should stay away from that scam coin with unlimited cap and huge inflation. It's apparently being used for a lot of crime too https://dailyhodl.com/2021/01/26/ba...00000-for-latin-american-drug-cartels-report/


----------



## MechaMegs (May 25, 2021)

Rassah said:


> What they already do is collect infinite assets with infinitely printed money. With Bitcoin they have to earn that money. Plus they would have to buy that bitcoin with their current assets first, which means everyone who got into it first will get richer off those rich guys. A lot of them will be too late to figure it out too, which means by the time they do, it will result in a huge transfer of wealth from the old rich to everyone else who invested earlier.


And so again falls into pyramid scheme 
Really sounds terrible and like at this point with the high price of entry to really invest yourself into it like those not in it should stay out so as to not be played for the gain of the initial party.


----------



## PercyD (May 25, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Can't do that with Bitcoin. US has sanctions on all trade with Iran, but they can't stop Bitcoin payments coming in and out of that country at all.


--So
Sanctions on a country is way to correct them for horrible behavior. However, it really just punishes the people of that country-- who in most cases don't have any control over what their country is doing. We take that for granted in the U.S, we actually have some level of control. Our international affairs are out of control, really, but locally we have some control over whats going on. 

Sanctions hurt the people more then they do the government. I guess bitcoin would be a way to mitigate that. I often think about Cuba, who've we just have had a petty thing with for the past 50-60 years. But this petty thing has really held back the people of Cuba. With bitcoin, those who want to can start doing things for themselves.


----------



## Rassah (May 25, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> And so again falls into pyramid scheme
> Really sounds terrible and like at this point with the high price of entry to really invest yourself into it like those not in it should stay out so as to not be played for the gain of the initial party.


You think having to actually trade something of value to acquire this money, like how you have to trade something of value to acquire gold, is a pyramid scheme? While with dollars those at the very top of the pyramid being able to just print money out of thin air with no labor or any value contribution which they can then use to buy unlimited amount of stuff as they sell off those newly printed dollars to everyone else, is a not a pyramid scheme and a better option?

Can you point to anything that requires you to trade actual value to obtain, and that goes up in value the more people buy it, that isn't a pyramid scheme to you?


----------



## Rassah (May 25, 2021)

PercyD said:


> --So
> Sanctions on a country is way to correct them for horrible behavior. However, it really just punishes the people of that country-- who in most cases don't have any control over what their country is doing. We take that for granted in the U.S, we actually have some level of control. Our international affairs are out of control, really, but locally we have some control over whats going on.
> 
> Sanctions hurt the people more then they do the government. I guess bitcoin would be a way to mitigate that. I often think about Cuba, who've we just have had a petty thing with for the past 50-60 years. But this petty thing has really held back the people of Cuba. With bitcoin, those who want to can start doing things for themselves.


I was doing banking in the Caribbean, trying to start my own bank to cater specifically to crypto businesses around the world, and I found out that this sanction-like control goes way further than just the obviously stated ones like on Cuba and Iran. All money transfer and settlements around the world rely on the proprietary SWIFT system. Any money you send between counties goes between banks, and all banks use the SWIFT system for it. I don't remember who actually owns and controls it, but US has an inordinate amount of sway over it, which they do by saying that if a bank does not follow US standards, it will cut them off from their internal banking system. So every country in the world, European, Asian, Caribbean, has to follow US rules if they want to stay connected to the SWIFT network. The Caribbean nations I was dealing with were especially afraid, since it happened in the past where one of them was cut off from SWIFT for a while, and if that happens to them, while their bank can still work inside the country, their economy will effectively get cut off. The country wouldn't be able to send wires, or checks, or process VISA or any credit or debit transactions, nothing to anything outside of their borders. They will effectively be sanctioned without even any official sanctions being passed. And they are both afraid of this and are REALLY angry and hate it, because they're supposed to be sovereign countries who should be able to do whatever their citizens vote for, but they're still forced to follow US laws and regulations or have massive consequences. This is why there's also a large push towards Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies among Caribbean nations and CARICOM. They see it as a lifeline to connect to the rest of the world and finally bypass US restrictions.


----------



## Fallowfox (May 26, 2021)

I found out today that Iran has official government approved bitcoin mines. 

Their central bank buys the currency to evade western sanctions on the country because of its weapons programme. 

They've actually temporarily made mining illegal, because there are so many people trying to mine bitcoin in Iran that it is contributing to uncontrolled electricity blackouts.


----------



## Rassah (May 27, 2021)

Thought maybe some might find this interesting. This is an article about a friend of mine who I've known for many years, who also has also been involved in cryptocurrencies since almost the very beginning. His background was that he was a Disney child actor, playing the young version of the coach in Mighty Ducks, and main role in First Kid. I think his parents took his money or something, so he started doing his own business fairly young. He was the guy who created that massive World of Warcraft gold mining farm employing people in China, then sold that company to Steve Bannon. He was on Trump's transition team as a technical advisor, but left after the first year (he and others were working to stuff Trump's cabinet with bitcoiners, and got over 50 people into various positions, but got disillusioned when they figured out Trump wasn't actually an "outsider independent").  He started a lot of Bitcoin mines around the world, including the biggest one in Washington state. And he was involved in one way or another in a lot of Bitcoin exchanges, mining, and wallet developments, both hardware and software, and in other companies, either confounding them or privately funding them as a venture capitalist. There are dozens of people like him in this Bitcoin space, all working to make an impact, for whom it's not about the money or the price of Bitcoin, but about using the technology to force the world to change for the better. A lot of us have the same mentality, and that's part of why I came to believe that Bitcoin will succeed in its goals. When people with drive and passion like his are working towards a goal no matter what, not driven by money or greed but by ideology of Bitcoin, it can fail as many times as it wants but they will persist nonetheless until it does succeed.

P.S. Also if he does run for office next time, you'd have heard of him here first.









						Crypto ‘Grandpa’ Throws His Cowboy Hat Into the Ring - Hamodia.com
					

Cryptocurrency magnate Brock Pierce. A digital currency pioneer speaks to Hamodia about Bitcoin, life, politics, and (virtually) throwing $3 billion in



					hamodia.com


----------



## MechaMegs (May 27, 2021)

His associates make him sound like a real charmer /s

Honestly still just sounds like intial investing trying to inflate their own wealth by trying to sell others into the coin by wrapping it in techbro and political pipe dream nonsense and really serves as a novelty much like a collectible at this point and still finds and has its value through the dreaded USD that it really serves as a deposited ledger for.


----------



## Lyka Snowfiled (May 28, 2021)

It's impossibe not to since there's such a big fuzz and hype about it but I don't really care or use it anyway.


----------



## Rassah (May 28, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> His associates make him sound like a real charmer /s
> 
> Honestly still just sounds like intial investing trying to inflate their own wealth by trying to sell others into the coin by wrapping it in techbro and political pipe dream nonsense and really serves as a novelty much like a collectible at this point and still finds and has its value through the dreaded USD that it really serves as a deposited ledger for.


How are you enjoying the price of lumber going up 50%? Price of red meat up 65%? Price of chicken up 59%? Price of fruit up 58%? While wages are continuing to stagnate? This is just the beginning, since that money that was dumped from the prior stimuluses is only now starting to affect prices, and it doesn't include the effect of the proposed $6 trillion additional planned stimulus. Pretty soon a lot of people won't be able to afford food because central banks just keep printing money to bail out corps. That's not a political pipe dream, it's a financial nightmare created by that dreaded USD that Bitcoin is working to replace.
And nah, Bitcoin doesn't find its value through USD. That's just the currency you use to price things in. No different than an apple has its value through USD. In other parts of the world Bitcoin is traded through rubles, yuan, pesos, rupies, etc. Same as apples. It holds its value all on its own.


----------



## MechaMegs (May 28, 2021)

Rassah said:


> How are you enjoying the price of lumber going up 50%? Price of red meat up 65%? Price of chicken up 59%? Price of fruit up 58%? While wages are continuing to stagnate? This is just the beginning, since that money that was dumped from the prior stimuluses is only now starting to affect prices, and it doesn't include the effect of the proposed $6 trillion additional planned stimulus. Pretty soon a lot of people won't be able to afford food because central banks just keep printing money to bail out corps. That's not a political pipe dream, it's a financial nightmare created by that dreaded USD that Bitcoin is working to replace.
> And nah, Bitcoin doesn't find its value through USD. That's just the currency you use to price things in. No different than an apple has its value through USD. In other parts of the world Bitcoin is traded through rubles, yuan, pesos, rupies, etc. Same as apples. It holds its value all on its own.


When I say it gets its value in USD I mean it in the sense of the common currency of the land in this case as I am in the US it is USD. The point is that Bitcoin is still traded for USD as in without the USD you cant get Bitcoin outside of environmentally destructive and resource wasting means like mining.
Like what has given the largest hype to bitcoin? Oh look it is now worth this amount of dollars! for the majority it isnt this yeah decentralization down with the government spiel its just about the capital worth in USD since it is just a fancy stock exchange with added whistles.
And you talk about people not being able to afford food? people already cant due to capitalism as it is. like America produces and disposes of enough food to feed the globe each year because there isnt profit in feeding people if money isnt in hand and switching to bitcoin which has a larger scarcity among the populace would only serve to drop countless more into the realm of being unable to eat. Also, not like those who are in poverty unable to afford food and such or those who barely can have the economic mobility to be able to scratch into bitcoin especially as it stands now.

Again it is essentially a collectible tied to fanciful thoughts that won't really come to fruition for many factors including those outside of an economic point and as such makes trying to fearmonger and sensationalize it to drive people towards it as an initial investor quite a gross thing to do since again it only serves those initial investors to gain more wealth.


----------



## Rassah (May 28, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> When I say it gets its value in USD I mean it in the sense of the common currency of the land in this case as I am in the US it is USD. The point is that Bitcoin is still traded for USD as in without the USD you cant get Bitcoin outside of environmentally destructive and resource wasting means like mining.



Without USD you can still get Bitcoin with Euros, British Pounds, Swiss Franks, and just in payment for goods and services, like as a wage, or for selling goods, or from business income. Or by selling gasoline and delicious sandwiches.  Like any and all regular money. Bitcoin doesn't depend on USD in any way at all. The whole point of its creation was to eliminate and replace the USD, so it would've been kinda silly to build it with that goal while still making it depend on it.



MechaMegs said:


> Like what has given the largest hype to bitcoin? Oh look it is now worth this amount of dollars! for the majority it isnt this yeah decentralization down with the government spiel its just about the capital worth in USD since it is just a fancy stock exchange with added whistles.



What has given the largest hype to dollars? Oh look, I can now buy all this stuff with it! Bitcoin going up just means you can buy more stuff with it. And since people like being able to afford more stuff, they trade dollars for Bitcoin instead. Yes, the growing value is built in and is part of the overall plan. Bitcoin being limited in quantity, where there is only 21 million to go around for the entire world, means that it will keep going up in value indefinitely. First rapidly as more people adopt it, and then more slowly with the growth of the economy. There are $26.8 trillion dollars in existence. That means if Bitcoin was to replace just the dollar alone, each bitcoin would be worth at least $1.27 million. People who understand this, dump their dollars for Bitcoin expecting this rise in price. That's the hook that gets the "normies" in. The whole "eliminate central banking" and "replace Keynesianism with deflationary economy" is just built into it. People don't even have to understand any of it. They just have to like that Bitcoin gives them more money and more financial control, and all that other stuff just comes automatically. Obviously if Bitcoin was invented solely with the "down with government" spiel, it would never succeed because most people are happy or ignorant of their government. The "money go up" is just the trap to get them into unwittingly supporting the spiel.




MechaMegs said:


> And you talk about people not being able to afford food? people already cant due to capitalism as it is. like America produces and disposes of enough food to feed the globe each year because there isnt profit in feeding people if money isnt in hand and switching to bitcoin which has a larger scarcity among the populace would only serve to drop countless more into the realm of being unable to eat. Also, not like those who are in poverty unable to afford food and such or those who barely can have the economic mobility to be able to scratch into bitcoin especially as it stands now.


It's not capitalism that caused people to not be able to afford food now. We've been having less and less capitalism over the last century, where it was more and more repressed, replaced by socialism, and distorted by central banking. Capitalism would have been allowing bad companies like major banks fail in 2008. Capitalism would be NOT subsidizing massive corporations to make sure they produce what some politicians think the country needs (corn syrup for example). Capitalism would have been using sound money, like gold and silver, where if we had maintained our minimum wage at $1.90 or so back in the 1920's and had it tied to gold or silver, that minimum wage would have been over $20 today. Central banks and centrally planned finances are pillars of socialism and Marxism and have been distorting our economy for a century. Have you looked into the Cantillon effect yet btw?
The reason food is thrown away in America is because while growing food is easy and abundantly cheap, transporting it to those who need it isn't. If you care about the hungry, you and everyone else concerned can get in your cars, drive a few hours to local farms and food producers who are throwing theirs away, pick it up, and then drive a few more hours to deliver it to those who need it. But people aren't willing to throw away their time and gas money like that. And, without capitalism or money, that still would be the case.
As for those in poverty and those who have no economic mobility, those are precisely the people who are benefitting from Bitcoin the most. In Africa, Venezuela, Middle East, Russia, and Asia. The unbanked who can't get a bank account or who live in repressive financial regimes are converting their money to Bitcoin and using it to buy things they otherwise wouldn't be able to.




MechaMegs said:


> Again it is essentially a collectible tied to fanciful thoughts that won't really come to fruition for many factors including those outside of an economic point and as such makes trying to fearmonger and sensationalize it to drive people towards it as an initial investor quite a gross thing to do since again it only serves those initial investors to gain more wealth.


Why are billionaires like Michael Saylor, Elon Musk, Barry Silbert and others, and why are banks like Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and many many others, investing in what is essentially a collectible? They're not even initial investors, since many of them only got into it just last year. It's like you think they're just dumb idiots who got suckered into it and you're the smart one who figured it all out...


----------



## Rassah (May 29, 2021)

In case anyone still thinks that Bitcoin is insignificant and is only a collectible traded by broke computer nerds, please watch this video


----------



## anonfoxer (May 29, 2021)

I made an oversimplified guide explaining how it works at the very basics for people who arent tecchy. Explaining how the blockchain is basically the bank of a cryptocurrency, what a token is and how its used, why it makes things like GPU's expensive, and whether or not they should get into it (which was basically "if you wanna go for it"). Never went into super technical detail but I do know a good chunk of what its like under the hood.


----------



## MechaMegs (May 29, 2021)

Rassah said:


> In case anyone still thinks that Bitcoin is insignificant and is only a collectible traded by broke computer nerds, please watch this video


Did anyone say it was broke computer nerds? like did I miss that part?



Rassah said:


> Why are billionaires like Michael Saylor, Elon Musk, Barry Silbert and others, and why are banks like Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and many many others, investing in what is essentially a collectible? They're not even initial investors, since many of them only got into it just last year. It's like you think they're just dumb idiots who got suckered into it and you're the smart one who figured it all out...


Much the same reason they get into realestate because it has speculative gain potential

Economic professor Wolff may be better for me to put in here as he is pretty capable to explain:


----------



## LucybusTheForumer (May 29, 2021)

I kinda know what it is- a cryptocurrency, specifically one of the most well-known ones that rises and falls in price like stocks. I only really know this because my father both mines crypto (not BTC tho) and listens to Bloomberg.


----------



## Rassah (May 30, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> Did anyone say it was broke computer nerds? like did I miss that part?


Yep, few people did. Seems to be the running theme for many years regardless of the price.



MechaMegs said:


> Much the same reason they get into realestate because it has speculative gain potential


Yes, the difference between the rich and everyone else is that the rich invest in good assets that at the least protect the value of their wealth, and at best make it grow. This is basically the rich now understanding that Bitcoin is as strong of an asset as real estate and blue chip stocks now. Probably better. Nice thing is, though, unlike expensive real estate, anyone can invest in Bitcoin too. And even better, unlike other investments Bitcoin is so liquid you can literally keep ALL your money in it, and instantly swap it for something else if you need to buy something. That's how I started investing back when I was broke: every paycheck I got I used all of to buy Bitcoin, and at the end of the month I just sold what I needed to pay bills.



MechaMegs said:


> Economic professor Wolff may be better for me to put in here as he is pretty capable to explain:


Richard Wolff isn't really an economist. I don't even know how he managed to get his degrees or tenure, but he's basically the clown of the economics field who is only popular because he says things that the populace wants to hear, not things that are actually true or right.
Regarding the video,  I wish he did what normal people do and say "I don't know," instead of make us pompous egotistical BS making people think his opinion is useful.
He says taxi companies got regulated because the service was bad. There's a simple solution to that: use a different taxi company that provides better service. The real reason taxis asked to be regulated was to get a monopoly over an area. They put limits on how many taxis can operate with those medallions, so that no competing companies can enter and so that they can charge higher prices due to fewer taxis (same reason AMA limits the number of doctors that can become residents every year). This is a classic example of companies using government regulations to screw the people, but of course Dick misses that and thinks that was a good thing.
Then regarding Bitcoin, he says they blockchain is a technological innovation that is useful, but Bitcoin is worthless. Common mistake by those who don't understand that the blockchain is a VERY inefficient database system, and Bitcoin is a necessary component that creates an economic incentive to keep it both secure and decentralized. He also compares Bitcoin to Uber, saying it's just a company looking at ways to make extra money by bypassing regulations the way Uber makes extra money by not having to pay for insurance. Uber does pay for insurance. And there is no company behind Bitcoin. It's actually ironic of him to deride it, considering how much he supports co-ops and people driven business, when Bitcoin is literally that, a community created and driven money/banking system outside of control of any corporation. Then Dick finishes by showing his complete lack of understanding of the purpose behind Bitcoin or blockchain by saying that other companies like Amazon will start their own "unregulated" money like banks of old to try to make extra profit (lol, how do you make profit on making money?). Problems with this are, one, that you don't need a blockchain if you're just a single company issuing and controlling it. Just run a database. Blockchain is only for having multiple people running something where they don't trust each other and don't want anyone to be in control. Two, people wouldn't use Amazon crypto as money because the whole point of Bitcoin is you don't have to trust a company like Amazon, or a bank, or a government, with your money. And three, there have already been lots of private digital currencies, like Flooz and Beenz, which all failed precisely because they were centralized, and Amazon already even has its own Amazon points you can earn and spend through them.
Do yourself a favor and don't listen to Wolff. You're guaranteed to be less stupid.


----------



## MechaMegs (May 31, 2021)

Seems you write off Wolff because you dont agree with how he brakes things down. like the issue he is framing with Uber is that they dont do a full insurance on the vehicles where you as the driver of your own vehicle for them have to pay for your own insurance before they throw on their on hour cheaper for them insurance and you also have to maintain your vehicle as well and for the pay you get at the end of all of that it is much worse on the driver's end than it was under taxi companies but since Uber is able to cut the costs of maintaining registering and fully insuring the vehicles the driver aka employee now has more weight of cost and responsibility for at the end of the exchange.

Also funny again that you call and question this professor on economics. Seems he is an apt professional within the field while you do what? Bitcoin?
Eh~


----------



## Rassah (Jun 1, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> Seems you write off Wolff because you dont agree with how he brakes things down. like the issue he is framing with Uber is that they dont do a full insurance on the vehicles where you as the driver of your own vehicle for them have to pay for your own insurance before they throw on their on hour cheaper for them insurance and you also have to maintain your vehicle as well and for the pay you get at the end of all of that it is much worse on the driver's end than it was under taxi companies but since Uber is able to cut the costs of maintaining registering and fully insuring the vehicles the driver aka employee now has more weight of cost and responsibility for at the end of the exchange.
> 
> Also funny again that you call and question this professor on economics. Seems he is an apt professional within the field while you do what? Bitcoin?
> Eh~



No, I don't agree with Wolff because he uses flat earth version of economics. I disagree with him for the same reason I disagree with flat earthers: his "science" is outdated, was debunked centuries ago, and doesn't match modern understanding or examples. But he sticks to it because "it makes sense" or because it keeps him popular.
With Uber you do need to pay for your own normal car insurance, which you do anyway, and Uber also covers their side with liability and damages for customers. They have no reason to cover your entire car that you mostly use for personal driving anyway. And sure, it's worse for the drivers, because, you know, the drivers aren't *fucking monopolies* who can keep their car dirty, treat you like garbage, and still charge you stupid ridiculous fees *because you have no other choice*, like what was going on with taxis, but it's MUCH better for the customers who actually get good drivers with good cars, AND it's better for the drivers because anyone can become one if they need to earn a few extra bucks, rather than having to spend *$100,000 dollars or more* for the privilege of that taxi monopoly "allowing" you the privilege of participating.
Wolff was also completely wrong that Uber thought " We can do this, but cut all these costs, and can make all these extra profits by skimping on safety and regulatory requirements," because for one, Uber has been MUCH safer than taxis because they do background checks on drivers and kick any who don't keep 4 stars or more, and two, Uber *has not made a profit yet and isn't planning to* with their plain Uber business. Their long term profit goal is to eventually have self driving cars do that job. So Wolff didn't even do the homework of looking into Uber's finances before accusing them of just being money grubbing profiteers wanting to make profits by cutting corners. Really the only reason Uber and Lyft are having to "cut corners" is because customers won't pay for the service at all if it's just a tad more expensive.
And in the end, riders win from a better cheaper service, and drivers win because anyone can work and on their own time. Only taxi companies and taxi drivers lose because they lost their monopoly. And f them.

Me? I'm a Harvard educated economist (education from Harvard, but taught by a satellite school) with concentration in global finance and econ, and I only didn't bother to get a PhD because that would be a waste of money unless I wanted to be a professor or work as a government economist. Neither of which I wanted to do. I'm just an economist by trade, reading and researching economic and business policies, issues, and markets around the world, studying economic history, and then applying that in my own businesses and in consulting other companies around the world that wish to set up shop in various countries (e.g. "I want to start a business that does X. I'm looking at here and here. What do you recommend?" "Well, this country has these economic issues to watch out for, and this one has this policy as well as social movement that may cause issues in the next five years, but this one is good and will be getting stronger over the next few years" kind of stuff).
Basically, those who can't, like Wolff, teach. Those who can, do. There's literally nothing real business and economy-wise that Richard can actually recommend to anyone. All her ever talks about is " people owned businesses where everyone shares ownership and has democratic control," and that's just co-ops. You can start them under " capitalism" already. No one is stopping him or his followers. They just tend to suck and fall apart more often.


----------



## TyraWadman (Jun 1, 2021)

Honestly I've had some wild experiences with taxi cabs and Uber. Uber seems to be more responsive to my complaints than cab companies though. And they offer deals for regular customers, which was nice, while I used it. 

But I don't think one could say is more screened than the other. 

One driver was edgy and suicidal and decided to speed around turns while shouting 'weeeee!' and the other was asking questions a sex trafficker would ask. Along with his 'i know a place where struggling people can get their groceries for dirt cheap, and first time buyers get up to 100 dollars for free. But you have to call me, and I'll take you there myself." 

Nope nope nope.


----------



## MechaMegs (Jun 2, 2021)

I am sorry but the saying those who can't teach those who can do is complete nonsense tbh especially considering you apparently learned economics from one of those who "can't". Some people perhaps prefer to impart knowledge and devote themselves to observation studying and learning more to then be able to impart that knowledge to others to better the breadth of their scope.


----------



## Rassah (Jun 3, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> I am sorry but the saying those who can't teach those who can do is complete nonsense tbh especially considering you apparently learned economics from one of those who "can't". Some people perhaps prefer to impart knowledge and devote themselves to observation studying and learning more to then be able to impart that knowledge to others to better the breadth of their scope.



Yep, I learned economics from a few of those who "can't." Luckily a few of my professors were also actual workers in the economy and were just teaching part time. And I also ended up spending about a decade at this point unlearning some of the things they taught and learning it right in the field. And now I teach others what I learned too. You're right of course, there are plenty of people who spent a lifetime actually doing, and then after they finished doing they go and teach what they learned at universities and such. But unfortunately most of those who teach there, including Wolff, are the kind who only learned theory, failed in the real world, and just continued to teach theory without a clue as to what's going on outside their professorship bubble.
Like I said, Wolff's ENTIRE schtick is "socialism ISN'T when government does stuff, it's when people reject capitalism and work together to own businesses together rather than working for a boss." And yet every time socialism has always been just government doing stuff, and nothing under capitalism has ever stopped co-ops from existing. He's an "economist" in search of a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

And he's still clueless about bitcoin ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Rassah (Jun 5, 2021)

I'm at the Bitcoin 2021 conference. Someone shipped this in to make a point (Venezuelan currency)


----------



## Yakamaru (Jun 5, 2021)

Rassah said:


> I'm at the Bitcoin 2021 conference. Someone shipped this in to make a point (Venezuelan currency)View attachment 112220View attachment 112221View attachment 112222


At current rate of exchange: 1 US Dollar = *3,097,360 *Venezuelan Bolivar according to this currency exchange site that I am using. World of Warcraft gold is worth more than the VES.


----------



## cringebirdad (Jun 5, 2021)

I would never willingly get into that Cryptocurrency shit. Not only is it one giant scam/breeding ground for scams such as NFTs, it's also super harmful to the environment and super prone to dropping price wise, I don't see how most people can actually see crypto as anything but what it is, a ploy for the rich to get richer while fucking up the environment in the process


----------



## DieselPowered (Jun 5, 2021)

cringebirdad said:


> I would never willingly get into that Cryptocurrency shit. Not only is it one giant scam/breeding ground for scams such as NFTs, it's also super harmful to the environment and super prone to dropping price wise, I don't see how most people can actually see crypto as anything but what it is, a ploy for the rich to get richer while fucking up the environment in the process


You do realize that if NFTs were issued alongside commissioned artwork you'd be able to claim sole ownership of the infinitely duplicated porn of your OC, right?
Do you understand how valuable that is?!?

When Yiffcoin becomes the primary currency for buying and selling furry artwork me and my econobros are gonna be laughing at you.


----------



## cringebirdad (Jun 5, 2021)

DieselPowered said:


> You do realize that if NFTs were issued alongside commissioned artwork you'd be able to claim sole ownership of the infinitely duplicated porn of your OC, right?
> Do you understand how valuable that is?!?
> 
> When Yiffcoin becomes the primary currency for buying and selling furry artwork me and my econobros are gonna be laughing at you.


You mfs will say anything to justify your carbon spewing pyramid schemes


----------



## DieselPowered (Jun 6, 2021)

cringebirdad said:


> You mfs will say anything to justify your carbon spewing pyramid schemes


Heavy /s my friend.


----------



## cringebirdad (Jun 6, 2021)

DieselPowered said:


> Heavy /s my friend.


I get it's a joke but environment damage isn't


----------



## Rassah (Jun 9, 2021)

cringebirdad said:


> it's also super harmful to the environment


That's already debunked. Elon had no idea what he was talking about. But he's been educated say he's okay with it now.



cringebirdad said:


> a ploy for the rich to get richer



And this is funny ironic since it's specifically designed to disrupt and replace the system that allows the rich to get richer, and give those same tools the rich use to anyone with a cellphone. It's actually making the poorer nerds the new world's rich elite, replacing the old rich. Oh well, hateful people who seek to put down instead of understand will end up right where they should be.


----------



## MechaMegs (Jun 10, 2021)

Why Bitcoin Is Bad for the Environment
					

Cryptocurrency mining uses huge amounts of power—and can be as destructive as the real thing.




					www.newyorker.com
				












						Why does Bitcoin mining use so much energy from fossil fuels?
					

Cryptocurrency has boomed in recent years but vast electricity usage required to power transactions remains major cause of climate concern




					www.independent.co.uk
				












						Elon Musk is right: Bitcoin mining is bad for the planet
					

Bitcoin bulls are furious at Musk's U-turn on the crypto currency. But, Musk has a strong point.




					fortune.com
				




For being the harm it does to the environment being "debunked" really seems a lot of recent reporting to the contrary on the matter.


----------



## MechaMegs (Jun 11, 2021)




----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 11, 2021)

Incidentally, I discovered yesterday that Bitcoin's blockchain is only capable of processing _3 transactions a second_.

It would be difficult to imagine any currency actually being useful to allow people to purchase things with this kind of limitation.
It provides part of the explanation for why people tend to hold on to cryptocurrency as 'investments'; it's not really possible to spend them.

A similar problem underlies the crypto currency 'ethereum', which was unable to cope with the traffic of users swapping cat-themed trading cards over its network in 2017.








						CryptoKitties craze slows down transactions on Ethereum
					

A new craze for "crypto-collectibles" slows down transactions on the popular blockchain.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Jun 11, 2021)

I hate cryptocurrency and the huge, ridiculous fad it created this year.


----------



## Rassah (Jun 11, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> Why Bitcoin Is Bad for the Environment
> 
> 
> Cryptocurrency mining uses huge amounts of power—and can be as destructive as the real thing.
> ...


These all keep using this same resource https://medium.com/crescofin/the-reports-of-bitcoin-environmental-damage-are-garbage-5a93d32c2d7

But even if you still think it's true, just know that there is absolutely nothing that anyone can do about it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Also, in the mean time, India decides not to try to ban it anymore








						India to reportedly ditch Bitcoin ban agenda in favor of asset classification
					

India's government has reportedly ditched earlier plans to ban Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies and is moving towards creating clear-cut crypto regulations with virtual currencies classified as alternative assets.




					cointelegraph.com
				




El Salvador just made Bitcoin legal tender money

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1402507224916836352
And IMF is ANGRY about that and spreading FUD, because, with Bitcoin, organizations like IMF can't control smaller countries' monetary policies, give them loans that are impossible to pay off, and generally syphon out wealth from third world countries for the benefit of global bankers

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1297658510507823104



Also US is getting upset because if Bitcoin takes over, US can't use Petro Dollar to keep funding permanent wars.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 12, 2021)

_Every time_ I post here, I get contacted by people evading long-standing blocks I have in place. ._.


----------



## MechaMegs (Jun 12, 2021)

Same sources?
Alex De Vries
University of Cambridge
Bank of America...

Odd I didn't know those where all aliases for one another....

And "there is nothing anyone can do" lol well they can not jump into a currency that has an even worse environmental impact and repercussion than what is currently used.

Like what is with the capital motivated snake oil that keeps getting spewed in the interest for the gains of the few at the expense of many like the 'privitization' of people's needs being "good" per capitalists even though that is what denies people their needs and delivers subpar and ill executed services like the recent powerplant explosion that has left half of Puerto Rico without power.
"Crypto good for environment and good for your wallet" Fact: It isn't


----------



## Rassah (Jun 12, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> Same sources?
> Alex De Vries
> University of Cambridge
> Bank of America...
> ...


Check their sources. They all track back to Alex De Vries, where one sources a document that sources another document that ends up sourcing Digiconomist again. Those things are written by journalists who don't know crypto and couldn't care less. They just want attention. I actually know crypto really well and I know the energy use scare is bs.



MechaMegs said:


> And "there is nothing anyone can do" lol well they can not jump into a currency that has an even worse environmental impact and repercussion than what is currently used.


It would be really hard to top what is currently used with regards to environmental impact and repercussions. It's the the one that is currently funding all the waste that's going into middle eastern wars. Funding subsidies for things like corn that is wrecking and depleting our soil. Subsidizes all the big oil corps to make sure they can keep providing us with "cheap" oil. But really just the war part alone is hard to top with regards to environmental destruction. All paid for by the Petro Dollar. That's not even including things like WW1 and WW2, plus all the nukes and nuclear testing, which really only happened because fiat money enabled it or even spurned it. Only reason the first one even stopped was because countries ran out of money to print.
And sure, some people can "not jump into a currency" and stick with their current one that has already hit 5% inflation this month, but everyone else will keep using the one that makes them more money and gives them more financial freedom. More people care about not losing money than about the environment.



MechaMegs said:


> Like what is with the capital motivated snake oil that keeps getting spewed in the interest for the gains of the few at the expense of many like the privitization' of people's needs being "good" per capitalists even though that is what denies people their needs and delivers subpar and ill executed services like the recent powerplant explosion that has left half of Puerto Rico without power.


"In the interest for the gains of the few at the expense of the many" would again be that dollar and other central bank currencies, where the few bankers print it to fund themselves at the expense of everyone else. As for Puerto Rico, it was a mismanaged shitshow for the last few decades, specifically mismanaged by their corrupt government, so a private company taking over after decades of someone else cutting corners is not surprising to find some problems.
And regarding the "'privitization' of people's needs being "good" per capitalists even though that is what denies people their needs," that makes no sense since companies make all their money by selling things people need, and if they deny people, they won't sell anything and won't make any money. Either I misunderstood what you meant, or you need to think about what you're writing.



MechaMegs said:


> "Crypto good for environment and good for your wallet" Fact: It isn't



Fact is, so far it has been. It is actually motivating large crypto mining companies to invest a ton of money into renewables like solar because they can be even cheaper. And everyone who invested in it for longer than a year has found it really good for their wallet. I mean everyone. I honestly can't think how you can state something like "fact, if I put my $1000 into it and four years later it's $10,000, it isn't good for my wallet."


----------



## MechaMegs (Jun 13, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Check their sources. They all track back to Alex De Vries, where one sources a document that sources another document that ends up sourcing Digiconomist again. Those things are written by journalists who don't know crypto and couldn't care less. They just want attention. I actually know crypto really well and I know the energy use scare is bs.
> 
> 
> It would be really hard to top what is currently used with regards to environmental impact and repercussions. It's the the one that is currently funding all the waste that's going into middle eastern wars. Funding subsidies for things like corn that is wrecking and depleting our soil. Subsidizes all the big oil corps to make sure they can keep providing us with "cheap" oil. But really just the war part alone is hard to top with regards to environmental destruction. All paid for by the Petro Dollar. That's not even including things like WW1 and WW2, plus all the nukes and nuclear testing, which really only happened because fiat money enabled it or even spurned it. Only reason the first one even stopped was because countries ran out of money to print.
> ...









"I don't agree with the facts and findings and it goes against the narrative I want to be spread about Bitcoin to boost my own gain and profits while I sell it like some boon that will help all but will help no one more than myself and older investors of the coin~!"
We get it you write off the environmental concerns and even double down proving the statement I made many pages ago about capitalism being terrible and a main driving force in destroying the planet because "muh money machine~!"


----------



## Rassah (Jun 13, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> "I don't agree with the facts and findings and it goes against the narrative I want to be spread about Bitcoin to boost my own gain and profits while I sell it like some boon that will help all but will help no one more than myself and older investors of the coin~!"
> We get it you write off the environmental concerns and even double down proving the statement I made many pages ago about capitalism being terrible and a main driving force in destroying the planet because "muh money machine~!"


Again, I'm not selling my bitcoin. I'm buying. Note even Elon said he's not selling. We're not stupid. I'm just telling you that it's a good thing to move into if you support things like freedom, peace, and economic equality, and are against things like wars, consumerism, and MASSIVE waste that those things create.

Seriously, take one moment to think about it. Bitcoin is deflationary. The more people use it, the more it will go up. Practically no one uses it still. It still has a LONG way to go up. You think me selling $1000 of it and having $1000 that will be worth $950 next year, and the "sucker" who buys it having his be worth $4,000 next year, means I had a gain and they lost? I told you all my money is in it, and that I know that it's going to be the worldb reserve currency. Why the hell would I want to trade it for fickle garbage like dollars?

I don't have to disagree with facts and findings, because what you listed gets its info from a single source that's based on some guy's guesses, not facts. Every article you source can be traced to the same data, and every one of them can thus summarily be dismissed by this one article https://medium.com/crescofin/the-reports-of-bitcoin-environmental-damage-are-garbage-5a93d32c2d7
Why do YOU disagree with my facts and findings? I'm actually in this field and have been for 10+ years. I know mining, since I've done it and have friends who run some I the biggest miners in the world. What are you trying to gain by convincing people to stick to a dying currency that's funding despots, wars, drug lords, and megacorps around the world? Are you making money in selling weapons? Is your dad a CEO of some megacorp?

I'm not writing off environmental concerns, I'm saying the ones created by your shitcoin that is printed by US government is WAY WORSE. I'm saying you're a hypocrite for attacking Bitcoin that only uses cheapest waste electricity, while defending the currency that has been the worst thing for the environment in all of human history.


----------



## MechaMegs (Jun 13, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Again, I'm not selling my bitcoin. I'm buying. Note even Elon said he's not selling. We're not stupid. I'm just telling you that it's a good thing to move into if you support things like freedom, peace, and economic equality, and are against things like wars, consumerism, and MASSIVE waste that those things create.
> 
> Seriously, take one moment to think about it. Bitcoin is deflationary. The more people use it, the more it will go up. Practically no one uses it still. It still has a LONG way to go up. You think me selling $1000 of it and having $1000 that will be worth $950 next year, and the "sucker" who buys it having his be worth $4,000 next year, means I had a gain and they lost? I told you all my money is in it, and that I know that it's going to be the worldb reserve currency. Why the hell would I want to trade it for fickle garbage like dollars?


Under capitalism even if you go to crypto currency there will still be wars waged and there will still be consumer driven wastes freedom and peace of the individual will still be restricted based on economic mobility.

Yeah I know how your pyramid scheme works as I said you want more people to jump on it so you can have more money just by having ownership of coins and them jumping in with their own capital where they make no gains until more people get in after them. 

Also crypto is used to fund those who drive wars and geopolitical levers as well look at the dealings of Stone along with of course funding nefarious dealings as well like trying to sell pardons when a certain tangerine had been in office or of course the other known exchanges of it being for other nefarious content like CP.

Crypto is no different from the dollar other than this one has some buzz word bells and whistles trying to sell it as different when it is still used for the same means to the same ends.

Also nice job putting an article of drivel by a biased that acts in his own self serving manner and provides no actual studies like the grifter Sharratt as your debunking method.


----------



## Rassah (Jun 15, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> Under capitalism even if you go to crypto currency there will still be wars waged and there will still be consumer driven wastes freedom and peace of the individual will still be restricted based on economic mobility.
> 
> Yeah I know how your pyramid scheme works as I said you want more people to jump on it so you can have more money just by having ownership of coins and them jumping in with their own capital where they make no gains until more people get in after them.
> 
> ...


The article of "drivel" by "a biased" is just another way of saying an article written by someone who actually works in the industry so they know what they're talking about. Why are you listening to people who aren't in energy business or crypto businesses? Do you listen to religious extremists when you learn about evolution, because biologists are biased too?
Maybe listen to this guy who actually knows a lot about this, and even knows more than I do because of his high level connections before you put yourself on the level of "intelligent designers" and climate change deniers because "biologists and climatologists are biased."  




There are no wars waged under capitalism. All wars that are being waged over the last century are waged by governments, paid for by government owned banks that print money to fund those wars. You can't have a war if you can't pay for it, and if you can't just print money like central banks do, your only option is to convince people to pay taxes to fund those wars directly. I'm not convinced that people will willingly give up their hard earned money to go bomb some people they don't even know.

You didn't describe a pyramid scheme, you described all money and all commodities. You can hold anything, and if there's a limited supply of it and people find it more and more valuable, what you have will go up in value. Gas, oil, sugar, gold, dollars, even original furry smut by a specific artist who isn't drawing anymore.

Do you have any actual sources for your claim that crypto is used to fund those who drive war?

Crypto is no different from the dollar, EXCEPT CENTRAL BANKERS CAN'T JUST PRINT AS MUCH AS THEY WANT. That's a pretty big difference. In one, central bankers, and their private banker and corporate friends, can just print all the money they want FOR NOTHING, and use it to buy actual assets like land and stocks and such. They create massive wealth inequality by literally giving themselves as much wealth as they want, at the expense of inflating our money. That's impossible under Bitcoin. If the country switched to Bitcoin, they would all have to actually work to earn Bitcoin, because the only way for them to get it is by making and selling something to you. So, again, why are you defending central bankers and mega corps here? What do you have to gain to fighting a system that takes away their biggest source of power and wealth?


----------



## MechaMegs (Jun 15, 2021)

Rassah said:


> The article of "drivel" by "a biased" is just another way of saying an article written by someone who actually works in the industry so they know what they're talking about. Why are you listening to people who aren't in energy business or crypto businesses? Do you listen to religious extremists when you learn about evolution, because biologists are biased too?
> Maybe listen to this guy who actually knows a lot about this, and even knows more than I do because of his high level connections before you put yourself on the level of "intelligent designers" and climate change deniers because "biologists and climatologists are biased."
> 
> 
> ...



If you don't acknowledge that modern wars in many cases have been waged in the interest of capitalism for things like seizing resources, or proxy wars and coups to overthrow leaders to put in place leaders who will maintain trade in the interest of capital gains as a driving force from capitalism itself to maintain the economy of regions invested in such then you are ignoring it or simply too disingenuous to think on any matters of geopolitical concerns.

I don't have the time nor the patience though to continue going through your garbage and the misleading false facts you spread in the interest of propelling your networth off of those you guide to the well of bitter and poisoned waters you profit from known as crypto currency. 

I am now going to ignore you and move on from here because I know a sycophant who is so gripped by their own greed that they care not for the environment of the good of their fellows will never let go of the misinformation they feed to others.

Good Bye.


----------



## PercyD (Jun 15, 2021)

Rassah said:


> I was doing banking in the Caribbean, trying to start my own bank to cater specifically to crypto businesses around the world, and I found out that this sanction-like control goes way further than just the obviously stated ones like on Cuba and Iran. All money transfer and settlements around the world rely on the proprietary SWIFT system. Any money you send between counties goes between banks, and all banks use the SWIFT system for it. I don't remember who actually owns and controls it, but US has an inordinate amount of sway over it, which they do by saying that if a bank does not follow US standards, it will cut them off from their internal banking system. So every country in the world, European, Asian, Caribbean, has to follow US rules if they want to stay connected to the SWIFT network. The Caribbean nations I was dealing with were especially afraid, since it happened in the past where one of them was cut off from SWIFT for a while, and if that happens to them, while their bank can still work inside the country, their economy will effectively get cut off. The country wouldn't be able to send wires, or checks, or process VISA or any credit or debit transactions, nothing to anything outside of their borders. They will effectively be sanctioned without even any official sanctions being passed. And they are both afraid of this and are REALLY angry and hate it, because they're supposed to be sovereign countries who should be able to do whatever their citizens vote for, but they're still forced to follow US laws and regulations or have massive consequences. This is why there's also a large push towards Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies among Caribbean nations and CARICOM. They see it as a lifeline to connect to the rest of the world and finally bypass US restrictions.


Interesting~. You have like a ProPublica article or something on this Ras?

In the meantime, I do believe it. The U.S has been interchangeably laying their sausage on Cuba and Puerto Rico for decades. I wouldn't be surprised if it were other Caribbean countries as well. 

Like apparently it was so bad in Barbados. Rihanna single highhandedly revitalized the economy there. You go to places like Trinidad and you see amazing highways- but thats usually a front for the World Bank money to show that they are using it. It dives really deeply into the "developing countries" myth. The proper way to describe the situation is "recovering colonized cultures" because all the systems in place are usually never to benefit the people who live there. Its the original gentrification.


----------



## NFP (Jun 15, 2021)

Deciding if to invest on bitcoin or not is a problem I wish I had.

The more decentralization, the better.


----------



## Rassah (Jun 16, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> If you don't acknowledge that modern wars in many cases have been waged in the interest of capitalism for things like seizing resources, or proxy wars and coups to overthrow leaders to put in place leaders who will maintain trade in the interest of capital gains...


It DOESN'T MATTER what interests the wars were waged in. People want to do lots of terrible stuff. But they can't do it unless they have a means to. Businesses have no means to wage or pay for war. That's why wars are done by governments, who fund them through central banks that simply print the currency to fund those wars. Get rid of inflationary currency, and people can have all the interests of seizing resources they want, but no one will give them the money to do that. That's the whole point.


MechaMegs said:


> I don't have the time nor the patience though to continue going through your garbage and the misleading false facts you spread in the interest of propelling your networth off of those you guide to the well of bitter and poisoned waters you profit from known as crypto currency.


I'm not spreading misleading facts, I'm being wholly truly honest here. The whole reason I got into crypto full time, back when it was worth practically nothing, was because I believed it can literally save the world. I still do. On the other hand you are actually lying. And worse, you're spreading very malicious and actually damaging lies. Imagine if you were saying all this when bitcoin was worth $3 and somebody who was thinking of investing believed you. They would hate you so much for missing out on having their $3 turn into $30,000. Or imagine if they were living in Venezuela and were looking for some currency to save themselves and their savings so they and their family doesn't starve. And they thought of using bitcoin, but they listened to you and decided against it. Bitcoin LITERALLY saved thousands of lives in Venezuela. And in Middle East and Africa too. But your insistence on wanting to be right about something you don't understand, or your absolutely blind hatered for the sake of hating something, is spreading dangerous information. I would even say you're being a really horrible person for spreading such dangerous and false investment advice despite being so ignorant of it all, but I'm just chucking it up to your ignorance on the matter, not you wanting to be malicious.



PercyD said:


> Interesting~. You have like a ProPublica article or something on this Ras?











						Caribbean nations caught in crosshairs of U.S. bank crackdown
					

An effort by U.S. banks to stem money laundering and other abuses has triggered a collision of interests, with the Caribbean hardest hit. Reuters Investigates




					www.reuters.com
				



"De-risking" was the key word I forgot. That was actually partly why I legally changed my name from Dmitry to Michael. It was very difficult to do banking and financial business in the Caribbean with a Russian sounding name, because of this "de-risking."



PercyD said:


> In the meantime, I do believe it. The U.S has been interchangeably laying their sausage on Cuba and Puerto Rico for decades. I wouldn't be surprised if it were other Caribbean countries as well.
> 
> Like apparently it was so bad in Barbados. Rihanna single highhandedly revitalized the economy there. You go to places like Trinidad and you see amazing highways- but thats usually a front for the World Bank money to show that they are using it. It dives really deeply into the "developing countries" myth. The proper way to describe the situation is "recovering colonized cultures" because all the systems in place are usually never to benefit the people who live there. Its the original gentrification.



Yep. In my search I also stumbled onto this




__





						The IMF & World Bank’s crippling effect on Caribbean nations
					





					www.finalcall.com
				



Which explains why IMF has been REALLY PISSED recently at El Salvador adopting Bitcoin as their legal tender. Can't threaten a country when it can just bypass your banks and lenders completely.


----------



## MechaMegs (Jun 16, 2021)

Okay annoying that it shows content from someone I ignored, and more annoying that they continued interacting with me after I had ignored them.

But since they continue to be disingenuous and lie, I will for the posterity of anyone wondering or possibly confused how capitalism fuels modern wars even though it is the "government" that wages them look at the economic portfolios of those who make the choice to start wars or of the resources of trade concerned in regions that the CIA caused coups in.
The government wouldn't have those incentives to do such if the greed of capital wasn't directly fueling their interests and such would still occur without the government if it threatened the resource and economic interest of the already mega wealthy and powerful as they could and actually do hire mercenary groups like Black Water to operate in their interests as well such has been seen with the trade dealings that had been threatened or interrupted in south America as well.

Anyways how do I get someone to not be able to interact with me after I had ignored them because that is really annoying. @moderator @admin


----------



## Rassah (Jun 16, 2021)

But, he said the same thing I did. Government, including CIA, is what pays for these things. Even if businesses create the incentive, it's still the government that funds it. Private mercenaries don't work for private companies like that either, because if private mercenaries kill for government, it's just war, but if they kill for some private person or company, in international law that's just plain old murder. As for South America, a lot of those wars (all but the drug related ones) weren't about wanting to come in and steal resources, but rather that foreign and even local investment companies already owned these resources, but then local groups, with support and influence from USSR, staged "socialist uprisings," or the government decided to go completely socialist, and those groups and governments literally stole those resources from their rightful owners. Same as Venezuela did a few years ago when it stole oil refineries from oil companies by "nationalizing" them. Which, again is only possible thanks to governments being able to make unlimited money to fund their local militaries and armed thugs to do such a thing.
Everyone who has been in Bitcoin for a long time understands this aspect of "fiat enables wars, bitcoin stops them," and being very anti-war is one of the big reasons they support Bitcoin too. There is even a charity called https://www.bitcoinnotbombs.com/ which has existed for... hell, seven or more years now?... who's goal is to educate people on what causes wars, help stop wars, support those who are affected by them, and most importantly support bitcoin because it will prevent them, and possibly eliminate them completely.


----------



## Rassah (Jun 16, 2021)

For those supporting the dollar because Bitcoin is a waste of energy, I found the thing from my friend


----------



## perkele (Jun 16, 2021)

Pretty sure my dealer only takes BitCoin now, don't know about yours.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 17, 2021)

Coal Wars - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				












						Banana Wars - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				












						East India Company - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Stray Cat Terry (Jun 17, 2021)

I dunno much, if at all. And I don't plan to know it as well... I sense it may pull me down one day...

But two things I know: A) There's one guy who used tons of cash worth of Bitcoins for a couple of pizzas, and B) There's a pal who kept trying to make me in that field, who's hella rich that he just dumps his new high-performance laptop into the public bin just because the battery's drained...

Oh my... I fear my lifestyle shall be ruined one way or the opposite if I ever step in Bitcoin...! OnO
Am I a fool? Then I'd prefer to remain as one. UwU


----------



## Flamingo (Jun 17, 2021)

Bruce is incorrect about the M1 (and general military practice of leaving vehicles idle) and could have picked many better (and accurate) scenarios to illustrate their perfectly valid point.

That's all I have to contribute.

okay back to lurking.


----------



## Ramjet (Jun 22, 2021)




----------



## Rassah (Jun 22, 2021)

China shut down 90% of miners








						China shuts down 90% of crypto mining
					

Matthew Roszak, chairman of the Chamber of Digital Commerce, argues that banning cryptocurrency will be one of China's 'biggest blunders in modern history.'




					video.foxbusiness.com
				




Hash rate is down 18%.

For those constantly repeating the lie that China controlled 60% of mining or whatever, there's your proof you were wrong, and that China mining is insignificant.


----------



## perkele (Jun 26, 2021)

For once, the CCP has decided to make a wise environmental decision. I'm going to give them one single much-needed prop; I hope they use it wisely.


----------



## Rassah (Jun 29, 2021)

Projecting Bitcoin's Future Energy Use

"It is expected that in the worst case, emissions from Bitcoin in five years will be less than a third of its emissions today, and in 10 years, Bitcoin will emit nothing at all."









						Projecting Bitcoin’s Future Energy Use
					

Based on public data, by 2026, emissions from Bitcoin will be less than a third of what they are today and by 2031, there will be none.




					bitcoinmagazine.com


----------



## dastergast (Jun 30, 2021)

I don't know what is more stupid...
Praising the CCP for enforcing financial control over their own people and calling that "a wise environmental decision".
( actually believes that the CCP itself doesn't use bitcoin lol )
Or believing that investment in bitcoin at this point of time is a smart idea.

The only people who have benefited in a big way from bitcoin are those that bought up bitcoin at its birth.
OR
Those who need to hide financial transactions due to illegal activities ( despite Many instances of governments and cyber gangs successfully intercepting bitcoin transactions ).

The fluctuating value is unmanageable, and close to 50% of all bitcoin is owned by only a few.
These bitcoin sharks purchase and sell huge amounts of bitcoin in order to manipulate its value via inflation and deflation.


----------



## dastergast (Jun 30, 2021)

Rassah said:


> China shut down 90% of miners
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_China_ has long been the _world's_ epicentre of _bitcoin mining. _

You provided evidence in your own post for this being the case ( it is such a big thing in china that it is being shut down by the ccp )

*"2021 data for the global distribution of mining power is not yet available, but past estimates have shown that 65% to 75% of the world's bitcoin mining happened in China – mostly in four Chinese provinces: Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, Sichuan and Yunnan"

Without a doubt, the ccp is slowly replacing the private mining of bitcoin with its own mining.

China does not own the majority of the worlds bitcoin, but the vast majority of new bitcoins are as far as we know, being mined in china.

The only argument for a future energy reduction in bitcoin is the fact that they will all be mined.

"*There are only *21 million bitcoins* that can be mined in total. Once *bitcoin* miners have unlocked all the *bitcoins*, the planet's supply will essentially be tapped out. As of February 24, 2021, 18.638 *million bitcoins* have been mined, *which* leaves 2.362 *million* yet to be introduced into circulation."

Bitcoin mining is extremely energy intensive...


----------



## dastergast (Jun 30, 2021)

Bitcoin seems to be a favorite topic of forever online dwellers with little to no money.

Sam Hyde Praises bitcoin....
Judging by his current financial situation bitcoin is probably a good way of flushing money down the toilet.


----------



## perkele (Jun 30, 2021)

dastergast said:


> I don't know what is more stupid...
> Praising the CCP for enforcing financial control over their own people and calling that "a wise environmental decision".
> ( actually believes that the CCP itself doesn't use bitcoin lol )
> 
> The only people who have benefited in a big way from bitcoin are those that bought up bitcoin at its birth.


Don't forget the people who get paid to tell other people to use Bitcoin. Bitcoin has singlehandedly driven a cottage industry of people who talk about Bitcoin.

Also, I may be very dumb, but aren't the wild fluctuations in value a good thing, because it might someday be worth a hundred times more of itself like Zimbabwe money where everyone got to be trillionaires overnight.


----------



## dastergast (Jul 1, 2021)

perkele said:


> Don't forget the people who get paid to tell other people to use Bitcoin. Bitcoin has singlehandedly driven a cottage industry of people who talk about Bitcoin.
> 
> Also, I may be very dumb, but aren't the wild fluctuations in value a good thing, because it might someday be worth a hundred times more of itself like Zimbabwe money where everyone got to be trillionaires overnight.


Haha!! so true!! all the bitcoin related scams and scams related to the other derivative e-currencies.


----------



## Rassah (Jul 5, 2021)

dastergast said:


> I don't know what is more stupid...
> ...
> Or believing that investment in bitcoin at this point of time is a smart idea.



There is only a limited amount of bitcoin to go around for everyone in the world, and barely anyone still has it. So I don't see why it's stupid to invest in Bitcoin at this point. In fact, I heard this claim about it being stupid to invest in Bitcoin "at this point" when Bitcoin went from $0.70 all the way up to $6, and when Bitcoin went all the way up to $100, and all the way up to $1,200, and all the way up to $8000, and now all the way up to $30,000. Every time it's "stupid to invest in Bitcoin at this point" because it's too expensive or something, and at every one of those points it still has A LONG WAY TO GO with regards to how many are still yet to adopt and implement it.



dastergast said:


> Those who need to hide financial transactions due to illegal activities ( despite Many instances of governments and cyber gangs successfully intercepting bitcoin transactions ).


Illegal activities like "sending money to family" or "women working and having a savings account" or "buying more things online than your $250 a year limit" for example. And no, there are zero instances of governments and cyber gangs intercepting Bitcoin transactions. There are a handful of instances of them finding out about them and stealing the money after it was already sent, but then that isn't easy.



dastergast said:


> The fluctuating value is unmanageable, and close to 50% of all bitcoin is owned by only a few.


The fluctuations are fine. To you living in a privileged financial system with stable money and a well developed banking system they may be extreme, but to a large portion of the world's people it's still better than the money they're otherwise forced to use. And regarding 50% of all Bitcoin is owned by only a few, that's still better than the situation with the US dollar where close to 100% of it is controlled by a few. Plus that 50% is actually impossible to tell, since some of those "holders" could just be bitcoin exchanges where the ownership is actually thousands of people with an exchange account, not some individual.



dastergast said:


> These bitcoin sharks purchase and sell huge amounts of bitcoin in order to manipulate its value via inflation and deflation.



There is no "inflation and deflation" in Bitcoin. It's just a fixed small inflation of 6.25 bitcoins every 10 minutes. And that kind of manipulation was maybe possible 4 years ago, but is no longer the case now. Tesla bought $1.5 billion worth of bitcoin, and then sold $100 million worth, and the market didn't even notice. We only found out about it after Tesla told everyone.



dastergast said:


> _China_ has long been the _world's_ epicentre of _bitcoin mining. _
> 
> You provided evidence in your own post for this being the case ( it is such a big thing in china that it is being shut down by the ccp )
> 
> ...



Past estimates were proven wrong in a publicly verifiably way. Bitcoin mining was shut down in China, and as a result the difficulty adjustment, which makes sure that one block is found around once every 10 minutes, went down by 36%. That's the bitcoin network saying that about 36% of hashing power disappeared. That's physical, decentralized blockchain type proof that China had 36% of all hashing power that disappeared.





dastergast said:


> *The only argument for a future energy reduction in bitcoin is the fact that they will all be mined.*





dastergast said:


> Bitcoin mining is extremely energy intensive...



Bitcoin mining isn't for creating new Bitcoin, it's for verifying and securing transactions, which will continue regardless of whether new coins can still be mined. This mining is paid for by mining fees. Personally I don't think Bitcoin energy use will ever go down, and that it will go up indefinitely same as Bitcoin's price. But, who cares if that's the case? Refrigerator energy use will go up indefinitely too as we have more and more people needing to store more and more food. No one is complaining about refrigerator energy use increases though. Lots of things we do is extremely energy intensive and keeps going up in energy use. Even just using our smartphones to post on social media...



dastergast said:


> Sam Hyde Praises bitcoin....
> Judging by his current financial situation bitcoin is probably a good way of flushing money down the toilet.



So does Jack Dorsey (CEO of Twitter), Michael Saylor, Winklevoss brothers, Steve Wozniak, Paul Tudor Jones, Ray Dalio, and quite a number of investment funds...

Actually, I'm not sure how anyone can see Bitcoin go up from less than $1 to over $30,000 in a decade and claim that bitcoin is a way of flushing money down the toilet ROFLMAO. "I don't know what's more stupid" XD



perkele said:


> Don't forget the people who get paid to tell other people to use Bitcoin.


Nobody gets paid to tell other people to use Bitcoin. For that to happen there would have to be someone in charge of Bitcoin. There's no one in charge and no one paying. 




perkele said:


> Also, I may be very dumb, but aren't the wild fluctuations in value a good thing, because it might someday be worth a hundred times more of itself like Zimbabwe money where everyone got to be trillionaires overnight.



You're confused. A trillion in Zimbabwe isn't worth more, it's hyperinflation that makes it worth less. As the value of that money decreases, a higher and higher number bill needs to be printed to represent the same value. That's been the opposite with Bitcoin. It used to be that $1 USD was 1000 BTC, then $1 USD was 1BTC, then $1 USD was 0.01 BTC, and so on. Currently $1 USD is only worth 0.000029 BTC. The number of BTC needed to buy the same amount is going down, not up.
The Bitcoin value you're seeing is in DOLLARS (or Euros, or wherever currency you're using). It's the DOLLARS that are growing to stupid high numbers like Zimbabwe money is, compared to a fixed amount of Bitcoin. The "everyone got to be trillionaires" in your case would be people who hold Bitcoin being able to convert 1 BTC to a trillion dollars because dollars crashed in value and are worthless, which is definitely a future we'll see within two decades.


----------



## Rassah (Jul 5, 2021)

Get with the times boomers

"Young investors are abandoning stocks for crypto" 









						Young investors are abandoning stocks for crypto — and making millions
					

Is cryptocurrency financial kryptonite? The younger generations don’t think so.




					nypost.com


----------



## dastergast (Jul 6, 2021)

Rassah said:


> There is only a limited amount of bitcoin to go around for everyone in the world, and barely anyone still has it. So I don't see why it's stupid to invest in Bitcoin at this point


Barely anyone has it because??? ( I wonder why... ),  Investing in bitcoin is like investing in company stocks. Most companies never make it and go broke, but that one in a million company might grow to be worth billions. The very first bitcoin investers got lucky. The majority of bitcoin that can exist has been mined, it's relevance as a currency has maxed out. It is now just an unpredictable, volatile mess that is useless for investing in unless you have a time machine lol.



Rassah said:


> Illegal activities like "sending money to family" or "women working and having a savings account" or "buying more things online than your $250 a year limit" for example. And no, there are zero instances of governments and cyber gangs intercepting Bitcoin transactions. There are a handful of instances of them finding out about them and stealing the money after it was already sent, but then that isn't easy.


How out of touch with reality are you? nobody uses Bitcoin for your suggested use cases lol. You are so full of shit. ZERO instances of intercepted bitcoin transactions? are you for real! what drugs are you taking lol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptocurrency_and_crime https://ngm.com.au/seizing-bitcoin-guide/ https://www.wired.com/story/feds-seize-billion-stolen-silk-road-bitcoin/



Rassah said:


> The fluctuations are fine. To you living in a privileged financial system with stable money and a well developed banking system they may be extreme, but to a large portion of the world's people it's still better than the money they're otherwise forced to use.


Privileged? WTF! That is called a functional financial system. The majority of the worlds people have nothing to do with bitcoin. The poorest people in the poorest countries have nothing to do with bitcoin. Why would anyone gamble with insane fluctuations in value that are even more wild than their native currency fluctuations? Not to mention that you need a good pc with internet, multiple hard drives and an easy way of converting bitcoin back into local currency in order to purchase anything.  You are basically taking advantage of poor people, instead of telling them to carefully invest in something like a fixed term bank account that will give them 2% interest profit per annum guaranteed.



Rassah said:


> There is no "inflation and deflation" in Bitcoin. It's just a fixed small inflation of 6.25 bitcoins every 10 minutes. And that kind of manipulation was maybe possible 4 years ago, but is no longer the case now. Tesla bought $1.5 billion worth of bitcoin, and then sold $100 million worth, and the market didn't even notice. We only found out about it after Tesla told everyone.


WTF! no inflation or deflation? Bitcoin has experienced over 700% deflation and inflation  in the past. It isn't a set 6.25 bitcoin inflation lol. Tesla's 1.5 billion dollars would have no effect because the combined value of all bitcoins is approx one TRILLION dollars.  Tesla stock prices have gone down.



Rassah said:


> Past estimates were proven wrong in a publicly verifiably way. Bitcoin mining was shut down in China, and as a result the difficulty adjustment, which makes sure that one block is found around once every 10 minutes, went down by 36%. That's the bitcoin network saying that about 36% of hashing power disappeared. That's physical, decentralized blockchain type proof that China had 36% of all hashing power that disappeared.


In other words. They are correct and you are an idiot lol. You were originally arguing that bitcoin mining was never a big thing in china. That is clearly wrong because of that instant decrease that is slowly increasing again. It is impossible for China to completely rid itself of private bitcoin miners ( also the CCP is likely mining bitcoin themselves in order to track illegal private bitcoin miners ). If all bitcoin miners in china were shut down, you would have seen a halving of worldwide new bitcoin production.



Rassah said:


> Bitcoin mining isn't for creating new Bitcoin, it's for verifying and securing transactions, which will continue regardless of whether new coins can still be mined. This mining is paid for by mining fees. Personally I don't think Bitcoin energy use will ever go down, and that it will go up indefinitely same as Bitcoin's price. But, who cares if that's the case? Refrigerator energy use will go up indefinitely too as we have more and more people needing to store more and more food. No one is complaining about refrigerator energy use increases though. Lots of things we do is extremely energy intensive and keeps going up in energy use. Even just using our smartphones to post on social media...


Are you pretending to be stupid? _"bitcoin mining isn't about creating new bitcoin"....................... _


Rassah said:


> So does Jack Dorsey (CEO of Twitter), Michael Saylor, Winklevoss brothers, Steve Wozniak, Paul Tudor Jones, Ray Dalio, and quite a number of investment funds...
> 
> Actually, I'm not sure how anyone can see Bitcoin go up from less than $1 to over $30,000 in a decade and claim that bitcoin is a way of flushing money down the toilet ROFLMAO. "I don't know what's more stupid" XD


People that are already super rich ( not from bitcoin investment) , recommend bitcoin to people without any money? ( Even though they themselves only have a small proportion of their vast wealth stored as bitcoin. )
Lol and 2018 to 2019 it went from $14,000 to $4,000 per bitcoin only to recover in 2021. Bitcoin was worth almost nothing from 2009 to 2016.


Rassah said:


> Nobody gets paid to tell other people to use Bitcoin. For that to happen there would have to be someone in charge of Bitcoin. There's no one in charge and no one paying.


Haha lol, You sir are just knowingly lying now.  It gets worse with all the other e-currencies.


----------



## Rassah (Jul 8, 2021)

dastergast said:


> Barely anyone has it because??? ( I wonder why... ),


Same reason barely anyone had the internet during the first ten years (or even 20 years) of its life. People are slow to adopt new technology, and UI/UX takes a while to simplify to the point where non-nerds are comfortable using it.




dastergast said:


> Investing in bitcoin is like investing in company stocks.


Actually it's closer to investing in an industry. There's no Bitcoin the company. It's just an open source platform like the internet, which lots of different companies are building on and starting businesses around. Some companies will succeed, some will fail, just like with internet companies. But the open source platform technology, just like the internet, keeps going, and it's not going away.



dastergast said:


> The very first bitcoin investers got lucky. The majority of bitcoin that can exist has been mined, it's relevance as a currency has maxed out.


What? Why has its relevance as a currency maxed out? We're just now getting the tech to the point where you can spend it instantly and very cheaply without bloating the network. It's like we just got to the point where we have Internet Explorer 1.0, and you're saying that the internet has maxed out. I don't get it.  Mining has nothing to do with it.



dastergast said:


> How out of touch with reality are you? nobody uses Bitcoin for your suggested use cases lol. You are so full of shit. ZERO instances of intercepted bitcoin transactions? are you for real! what drugs are you taking lol.



All my "suggested use cases" were actual real world examples. People in Venezuela using Bitcoin to bypass currency controls to send money to family because sending dollars through the banking system is impossible. People in Argentina using Bitcoin to buy things online back when Argentina had currency controls and restricted people to $250 dollars of online purchases a year to keep wealth in the country. A middle eastern charity taught girls how to set up a Bitcoin wallet and taught them to do web development and online software jobs so they can earn and save money in a country where women are not even allowed to have their own bank accounts.
All your examples there are not Bitcoin being intercepted, but being stolen after the fact. You can steal Bitcoin, just like you can steal anything (though it's much more difficult to steal Bitcoin than, say, cash or gold). But you can't stop or intercept a Bitcoin transaction to keep it from being sent somewhere, like you intimately implied.


dastergast said:


> Privileged? WTF! That is called a functional financial system. The majority of the worlds people have nothing to do with bitcoin. The poorest people in the poorest countries have nothing to do with bitcoin. Why would anyone gamble with insane fluctuations in value that are even more wild than their native currency fluctuations?


This last thing you said there is proof that you are extremely privileged. You don't even know that the majority of the world's population lives in economic and money areas where volatility and economic stability is so bad that even Bitcoin looks better by comparison. Lots of foreign small nation currencies fluctuate worse than Bitcoin, and generally in the DOWNWARD direction. Bitcoin fluctuates, but generally in very much up direction. I can pretty much guarantee you that, regardless of all the volatility, every national currency will be worth less in four years, and that bitcoin will be worth more in four years. And security of most of the world's currencies are very iffy and risky too. You don't know if the money you're saving will still hold its value in a year or two, or if your shaky corrupt government will fall apart, and your savings with it. Look at Turkey just recently. That's exactly why the poorest people in the poorest counties (South America and Africa especially) are actually buying up and starting to use Bitcoin. Especially in countries that don't even have a way for them to get bank accounts. To open a globally usable account in bitcoin you just need to install an app and that's it.



dastergast said:


> Not to mention that you need a good pc with internet, multiple hard drives and an easy way of converting bitcoin back into local currency in order to purchase anything.


No, you just need a cheap smartphone. And you don't even need to convert it back to local currency to purchase things. In El Salvador and Venezuela, for example, lots of merchants take Bitcoin directly. It's easier and safer for them, especially the ones in Venezuela, to keep the money in Bitcoin than to convert it into hyperinflated Bolivar.




dastergast said:


> You are basically taking advantage of poor people, instead of telling them to carefully invest in something like a fixed term bank account that will give them 2% interest profit per annum guaranteed.


Lol, you're again showing privilege. Fixed 2% interest is garbage in US when inflation is 5%, and is just stupid in most other countries where their inflation is 10% or more. Imagine how your savings would have done if you had that fixed 2% guaranteed in Russia in 2014, where the value of ruble itself fell 80%. Telling people to stick to dollars, while bankers and politicians just print as many of them as they want, is taking advantage of poor people. Telling poor people to move their money into a safe hard money like Bitcoin that can't just be inflated on a whim, and which has a huge chance of appreciating in value, is the opposite of taking advantage. You have no idea how many people I know who used to be poor, who moved all their money into Bitcoin, who are very well off financially now. Even my parents who had only $12k in their retirement savings (401k) and were not knowing how they would retire are much much better off now despite only moving that entire amount into Bitcoin just a few years ago.




dastergast said:


> WTF! no inflation or deflation? Bitcoin has experienced over 700% deflation and inflation  in the past. It isn't a set 6.25 bitcoin inflation lol.


You're confusing change in price/value with inflation. Bitcoin has become more valuable because more people abandoned their crappy currencies (including dollars) and moved it into Bitcoin. Inflation is how much money actually gets created, which in Bitcoin's case is 6.25 Bitcoin every 10 minutes. Inflation in dollars is politicians just printing billions of dollars to give to themselves and their friends for no effort whatsoever, while the rest of us plebes have to work our asses off all day just to earn a few bucks, which as a result makes that "2% guaranteed investment" of yours worthless.




dastergast said:


> In other words. They are correct and you are an idiot lol. You were originally arguing that bitcoin mining was never a big thing in china.


Looks like I was correct and you are the idiot. I never said "mining was never a big thing." They were saying majority of miners, 60% to 70%, were in China. I was saying it's about 40% or less than half. Bitcoin network proved that it's about 36% of miners that were in China.




dastergast said:


> (also the CCP is likely mining bitcoin themselves in order to track illegal private bitcoin miners ).


That's a kinda dumb claim, since mining Bitcoin doesn't give you any ability to track anything at all...



dastergast said:


> If all bitcoin miners in china were shut down, you would have seen a halving of worldwide new bitcoin production.


All Bitcoin miners in China were shut down. And we saw not a halving, but an about 40% reduction in new Bitcoin production. That's literally what that difficulty adjustment I mentioned was. The network saw Bitcoin production decline by 36% (it took 36% longer than 10 minutes to mine a new block of Bitcoins). So the network difficulty adjusted down to increase Bitcoin production back up to making new ones every 10 minutes.




dastergast said:


> Are you pretending to be stupid? _"bitcoin mining isn't about creating new bitcoin"....................... _


No, I, having been in bitcoin for over a decade (since early 2011), having worked full time in Bitcoin since at least 2014, having worked in Bitcoin development and built or helped build lots of Bitcoin projects, and knowing Bitcoin and this industry intimately, am just explaining to you how it works and why it works. Bitcoin "mining" is done to secure the network. Specifically, Bitcoin mining is time-stamping a "block" of transactions to make sure they can't be reversed in the future. It is a service provided to keep the entire system running. New Bitcoin, and transaction fees, are how users of Bitcoin pay the miners for this service. And once all Bitcoin are mined, bitcoin "miners" will continue to "mine" and provide that security service, because, just like today, they will continue to be paid transaction fees. I know more about this stuff than you, or anyone else on this form, or most people in the world actually. I even get paid to advise and explain this to people.


----------



## Rassah (Jul 8, 2021)

dastergast said:


> People that are already super rich ( not from bitcoin investment) , recommend bitcoin to people without any money? ( Even though they themselves only have a small proportion of their vast wealth stored as bitcoin. )


People with money who understand money and how to make money are telling people without money how to make money. And people without money ignore or ridicule them, thinking the people with money are stupid and don't understand money. And thus, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Story as old as time.
And nah, I know plenty of very rich (including myself) who have close to 100% of their wealth in Bitcoin. Even billionaires. Especially since they understand that Bitcoin is the safest place to keep your wealth right now. Banks only insure your money for a measly $250k, stocks and bonds are in a bubble or worse, treasuries are in trouble because of all the inflation, and all of these other means of storing wealth put you at the mercy of the bank, brokerage, or country where you're holding your millions. Bitcoin gives you complete control over your entire wealth, where you can access it 24/7, and move it anywhere, including out of whatever country is threatening to seize or tax it.




dastergast said:


> Lol and 2018 to 2019 it went from $14,000 to $4,000 per bitcoin only to recover in 2021. Bitcoin was worth almost nothing from 2009 to 2016.


I think it was more like $10,000 to briefly $4,000 before quickly recovering to $6000-$8000. Most of that period was fairly flat. But that's how new things get adopted. They happen in bursts, with investors overcompensating, and the price coming back down to real market values again. It was like that with all new tech and most companies. Even Twitter and Facebook were volatile as fu* at first. You just couldn't see that because if you're "poor" and can't get accredited investor status ($250k annual income or $1mil+ in assets), you're not allowed to even see the prices of companies, let alone invest in them, until they "go public" on the stock market where the SEC figures they're "safe" and boring enough for the plebes to invest in. 
And Bitcoin was worth a whole lot between 2009 and 2016. It was a whole TEN DOLLARS at one point, where people like you, remembering that it was just a penny two years ago, were saying that it was overpriced. And same happened when it was hundreds of dollars, and then over a thousand dollars. You'll say it's too overpriced when it's $100,000 and when it's a million too. That graph you posted? It looked pretty much the same back when it jumped to $20,000, and when it jumped to $1,200, looking like it was flat before with a huge spike at the end. You should be looking at a log scale graph anyway, not that one.



dastergast said:


> Haha lol, You sir are just knowingly lying now.  It gets worse with all the other e-currencies.


Prove me wrong and point me to how I can get someone to pay me to promote Bitcoin. I and my friends have been telling people about it and helping them to set up and use it for many years, and no one ever paid any of us.


----------



## dastergast (Jul 8, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Same reason barely anyone had the internet during the first ten years (or even 20 years) of its life. People are slow to adopt new technology, and UI/UX takes a while to simplify to the point where non-nerds are comfortable using it.


Haha no... The internet wasn't available to most people in developed countries because they were not living in an area that had physical access to internet services.
They couldn't connect with an ISP even if they wanted to.
For the entire life of bitcoin (since 2009), over 70% of American adults have had access to the internet and personal computers. Yet almost no-one uses bitcoin.
IRL, I knew one guy that kept $100 worth of bitcoin as a joke before selling it. On the internet, a few guys on obscure forums have posted pics of their recently purchased drugs along with the bitcoin cost. Others just endlessly promote bitcoin, usually with a link to a bitcoin exchange that they are promoting.
Simplify bitcoins? more like, don't forget your wallet password...



Rassah said:


> Actually it's closer to investing in an industry. There's no Bitcoin the company. It's just an open source platform like the internet, which lots of different companies are building on and starting businesses around. Some companies will succeed, some will fail, just like with internet companies. But the open source platform technology, just like the internet, keeps going, and it's not going away.


You completely missed the point. Investing in bitcoin is WORSE than investing company shares. At least with company shares you can carefully watch a company and at least have a chance of Predicting price changes, but with bitcoin.... you have nothing to go by. You are right, shitty ideas that don't benefit anyone can last for thousands of years.



Rassah said:


> What? Why has its relevance as a currency maxed out? We're just now getting the tech to the point where you can spend it instantly and very cheaply without bloating the network. It's like we just got to the point where we have Internet Explorer 1.0, and you're saying that the internet has maxed out. I don't get it. Mining has nothing to do with it.


duh duh duh??? Soon all the bitcoins will be mined. Almost nobody uses bitcoin. It is only useful for certain people. It is incapable of replacing local currencies or property / asset investments.


Rassah said:


> All my "suggested use cases" were actual real world examples. People in Venezuela using Bitcoin to bypass currency controls to send money to family because sending dollars through the banking system is impossible. People in Argentina using Bitcoin to buy things online back when Argentina had currency controls and restricted people to $250 dollars of online purchases a year to keep wealth in the country. A middle eastern charity taught girls how to set up a Bitcoin wallet and taught them to do web development and online software jobs so they can earn and save money in a country where women are not even allowed to have their own bank accounts.
> All your examples there are not Bitcoin being intercepted, but being stolen after the fact. You can steal Bitcoin, just like you can steal anything (though it's much more difficult to steal Bitcoin than, say, cash or gold). But you can't stop or intercept a Bitcoin transaction to keep it from being sent somewhere, like you intimately implied.


They are not real world examples. It is shit you pulled out your ass or miss-read. A few programmers in Venezuela keep some of their money as bitcoin. That isn't the whole population of Venezuela. The Venezuelan government purchases bitcoin and created an e-currency called the "Petro". So the majority of the population are being paid in a digital currency owned by their government. Not exactly "freedom".  There is no point in addressing the rest of the idiocy here. It is some of the dumbest crap I have ever heard.



Rassah said:


> This last thing you said there is proof that you are extremely privileged. You don't even know that the majority of the world's population lives in economic and money areas where volatility and economic stability is so bad that even Bitcoin looks better by comparison. Lots of foreign small nation currencies fluctuate worse than Bitcoin, and generally in the DOWNWARD direction. Bitcoin fluctuates, but generally in very much up direction. I can pretty much guarantee you that, regardless of all the volatility, every national currency will be worth less in four years, and that bitcoin will be worth more in four years. And security of most of the world's currencies are very iffy and risky too. You don't know if the money you're saving will still hold its value in a year or two, or if your shaky corrupt government will fall apart, and your savings with it. Look at Turkey just recently. That's exactly why the poorest people in the poorest counties (South America and Africa especially) are actually buying up and starting to use Bitcoin. Especially in countries that don't even have a way for them to get bank accounts. To open a globally usable account in bitcoin you just need to install an app and that's it.


So you are suggesting that people without reliable electricity, hard-drives or computers or local bitcoin exchanges magically acquire those things and then pray to god that bitcoin prices never crash along with their life savings? You are just pulling shit out your ass... The world isn't America you know. It makes more sense to invest money in a foreign bank with a stable economy. People actually do that.



Rassah said:


> No, you just need a cheap smartphone. And you don't even need to convert it back to local currency to purchase things. In El Salvador and Venezuela, for example, lots of merchants take Bitcoin directly. It's easier and safer for them, especially the ones in Venezuela, to keep the money in Bitcoin than to convert it into hyperinflated Bolivar.


You are an absolute idiot if you think keeping your life's savings in bitcoin on your shitty phone is a good idea. WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM?
What if the phone dies? Most bitcoin thefts happen from stolen or hacked smart phones. An expensive smartphone isn't up to the job.
And if there is no bitcoin exchange, you cannot use the bitcoin. Not to mention that you need good wifi.



Rassah said:


> Lol, you're again showing privilege. Fixed 2% interest is garbage in US when inflation is 5%, and is just stupid in most other countries where their inflation is 10% or more. Imagine how your savings would have done if you had that fixed 2% guaranteed in Russia in 2014, where the value of ruble itself fell 80%. Telling people to stick to dollars, while bankers and politicians just print as many of them as they want, is taking advantage of poor people. Telling poor people to move their money into a safe hard money like Bitcoin that can't just be inflated on a whim, and which has a huge chance of appreciating in value, is the opposite of taking advantage. You have no idea how many people I know who used to be poor, who moved all their money into Bitcoin, who are very well off financially now. Even my parents who had only $12k in their retirement savings (401k) and were not knowing how they would retire are much much better off now despite only moving that entire amount into Bitcoin just a few years ago.


It isn't garbage in Australia. That more than covers inflation here. When inflation goes up, you can generally find a fixed term account that can equal that inflation in interest. For America the year 2021 hasn't finished yet. The actual figures are
(January 1.4% , Frebuary 1.7% , March 2.6% , April 4.2% , May 5.0% ). The annual average inflation for the last 9 years has been under three percent.




__





						Current US Inflation Rates: 2000-2022 | US Inflation Calculator
					

The annual inflation rate for the United States is 8.6% for the 12 months ended May 2022, the largest annual increase since December 1981 and after rising 8.3% previously, according to U.S. Labor Department data published June 10. The next inflation update is scheduled for release on July 13 at...




					www.usinflationcalculator.com
				



You are encouraging poor people to lose money with bitcoin because financially speaking you have no idea what you are talking about.



Rassah said:


> You're confusing change in price/value with inflation. Bitcoin has become more valuable because more people abandoned their crappy currencies (including dollars) and moved it into Bitcoin. Inflation is how much money actually gets created, which in Bitcoin's case is 6.25 Bitcoin every 10 minutes. Inflation in dollars is politicians just printing billions of dollars to give to themselves and their friends for no effort whatsoever, while the rest of us plebes have to work our asses off all day just to earn a few bucks, which as a result makes that "2% guaranteed investment" of yours worthless.


 An increase in bitcoin value is called.... inflation. A decrease in bitcoin value is called..... deflation...... Go back to primary school.....
2017 approx $1000 per bitcoin -> 1900% INFLATION -> 2018 approx $20,000 per bitcoin -> 80% DEFLATION -> December 2018 approx $3900 per bitcoin etc.
And you are stupid enough to tell other people that bitcoin is "more stable" than the American dollar That has seen less than 3% inflation per a year for nine years.


----------



## Yakamaru (Jul 8, 2021)

Should one ask the poor for economical advice on how to get rich, or richer, or the people who are rich, or the very least wealthy enough? 

A thought experiment if you will.


----------



## dastergast (Jul 8, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Looks like I was correct and you are the idiot. I never said "mining was never a big thing." They were saying majority of miners, 60% to 70%, were in China. I was saying it's about 40% or less than half. Bitcoin network proved that it's about 36% of miners that were in China.


You said the majority of the worlds crypto miners were not from china. That is wrong. Stop lying.


Rassah said:


> That's a kinda dumb claim, since mining Bitcoin doesn't give you any ability to track anything at all...


The CCP government has very cheap electricity, so it is cheaper for them to mine it, rather than purchase it.
With that bitcoin You can track and trace other people through bitcoin transactions. The FBI has long confiscated bitcoins in this manner








						Pipeline Investigation Upends Idea That Bitcoin Is Untraceable (Published 2021)
					

The F.B.I.’s recovery of Bitcoins paid in the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack showed cryptocurrencies are not as hard to track as it might seem.




					www.nytimes.com
				






Rassah said:


> All Bitcoin miners in China were shut down. And we saw not a halving, but an about 40% reduction in new Bitcoin production. That's literally what that difficulty adjustment I mentioned was. The network saw Bitcoin production decline by 36% (it took 36% longer than 10 minutes to mine a new block of Bitcoins). So the network difficulty adjusted down to increase Bitcoin production back up to making new ones every 10 minutes.


Nope, the Chinese government said they have cracked down on bitcoin mining....... (that could mean they have removed 50% or 90% of the countries bitcoin miners. Who knows ), not to mention CCP mining of bitcoin.
40% isn't close to half? how dumb are you... It is clear that over 50% of new bitcoin mined was coming from China.



Rassah said:


> No, I, having been in bitcoin for over a decade (since early 2011), having worked full time in Bitcoin since at least 2014, having worked in Bitcoin development and built or helped build lots of Bitcoin projects, and knowing Bitcoin and this industry intimately, am just explaining to you how it works and why it works. Bitcoin "mining" is done to secure the network. Specifically, Bitcoin mining is time-stamping a "block" of transactions to make sure they can't be reversed in the future. It is a service provided to keep the entire system running. New Bitcoin, and transaction fees, are how users of Bitcoin pay the miners for this service. And once all Bitcoin are mined, bitcoin "miners" will continue to "mine" and provide that security service, because, just like today, they will continue to be paid transaction fees. I know more about this stuff than you, or anyone else on this form, or most people in the world actually. I even get paid to advise and explain this to people.


So you work as a full-time "developer" for the imaginary bitcoin company in New Zealand? COOL STORY...
"Bitcoin mining" is the process by which new bitcoins are entered into circulation... mining for gold, mining for bitcoin...


Rassah said:


> Prove me wrong and point me to how I can get someone to pay me to promote Bitcoin. I and my friends have been telling people about it and helping them to set up and use it for many years, and no one ever paid any of us.


Who should I purchase bitcoin from? Got a good suggestion lol?
You even talk like an Nigerian email scam artist.


----------



## dastergast (Jul 8, 2021)

Rassah said:


> People with money who understand money and how to make money are telling people without money how to make money. And people without money ignore or ridicule them, thinking the people with money are stupid and don't understand money. And thus, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Story as old as time.
> And nah, I know plenty of very rich (including myself) who have close to 100% of their wealth in Bitcoin. Even billionaires. Especially since they understand that Bitcoin is the safest place to keep your wealth right now. Banks only insure your money for a measly $250k, stocks and bonds are in a bubble or worse, treasuries are in trouble because of all the inflation, and all of these other means of storing wealth put you at the mercy of the bank, brokerage, or country where you're holding your millions. Bitcoin gives you complete control over your entire wealth, where you can access it 24/7, and move it anywhere, including out of whatever country is threatening to seize or tax it.


The wealthy people you listed hold almost all their money in conventional investments.......
They would have completely exchanged all their money into bitcoin if they actually believed in it...
They praise the concept but they don't actually full-on use it because they aren't stupid.



Rassah said:


> I think it was more like $10,000 to briefly $4,000 before quickly recovering to $6000-$8000. Most of that period was fairly flat. But that's how new things get adopted. They happen in bursts, with investors overcompensating, and the price coming back down to real market values again. It was like that with all new tech and most companies. Even Twitter and Facebook were volatile as fu* at first. You just couldn't see that because if you're "poor" and can't get accredited investor status ($250k annual income or $1mil+ in assets), you're not allowed to even see the prices of companies, let alone invest in them, until they "go public" on the stock market where the SEC figures they're "safe" and boring enough for the plebes to invest in.
> And Bitcoin was worth a whole lot between 2009 and 2016. It was a whole TEN DOLLARS at one point, where people like you, remembering that it was just a penny two years ago, were saying that it was overpriced. And same happened when it was hundreds of dollars, and then over a thousand dollars. You'll say it's too overpriced when it's $100,000 and when it's a million too. That graph you posted? It looked pretty much the same back when it jumped to $20,000, and when it jumped to $1,200, looking like it was flat before with a huge spike at the end. You should be looking at a log scale graph anyway, not that one.


No it was approx $20,000 in 2018 before going down to $3900 in December 2018. A massive 80% deflation. You are seemingly incapable of getting anything right.
You are literally too dumb or dishonest to ever correctly report on anything. Now you are just trying to drown out any opposition by typing 3000 words of nothing.


----------



## dastergast (Jul 8, 2021)

Yakamaru said:


> Should one ask the poor for economical advice on how to get rich, or richer, or the people who are rich, or the very least wealthy enough?
> 
> A thought experiment if you will.


You actually want the advice of those with self-made average or above average wealth.
A rich guy who inherited his fortune and a poor guy who never gained employment are useless as financial advice.


----------



## Yakamaru (Jul 8, 2021)

dastergast said:


> You actually want the advice of those with self-made average or above average wealth.
> A rich guy who inherited his fortune and a poor guy who never gained employment are useless as financial advice.


Most millionaires and billionaires are self-made. So you are referring to a group that belongs to under 10% of total millionaires.









						Nearly 68% of the world's richest people are 'self-made,' says new report
					

A new report from Wealth-X says only 8.5% of the world's ultra-high-net-worth population — individuals with $30 million or more in net worth — inherited their money.




					www.cnbc.com


----------



## Rassah (Jul 8, 2021)

dastergast said:


> Haha no... The internet wasn't available to most people in developed countries because they were not living in an area that had physical access to internet services.
> They couldn't connect with an ISP even if they wanted to.



... The fuck? Everyone had telephone lines. Most people had computers. All you needed was a $40 modem and you have access to the internet. 




dastergast said:


> For the entire life of bitcoin (since 2009), over 70% of American adults have had access to the internet and personal computers. Yet almost no-one uses bitcoin.


And yet Bitcoin still went from completely worthless hobby project used by a few computer nerds to being one of the biggest currencies in the world. It's #17 by size and within top 10 for trade liquidity. Almost no one YOU KNOW uses Bitcoin.





dastergast said:


> At least with company shares you can carefully watch a company and at least have a chance of Predicting price changes, but with bitcoin.... you have nothing to go by.


So you're saying that if you invest in, say, oil, you have nothing to go by, and have no way of predicting price changes because you can't look at companies that produce oil, provide oil-based services, and can't look at countries that are involved with oil to see how they will affect its price? You're basically saying you're not an investor and know nothing about investing. What actual investors can do with oil, you can do with Bitcoin.



dastergast said:


> Soon all the bitcoins will be mined. Almost nobody uses bitcoin. It is only useful for certain people.


Again, what does "soon all the Bitcoin will be mined" have to do with anything? Mining isn't going to stop, and Bitcoin mining has ZERO to do with its price other than as proof of how secure the system is.

Almost nobody uses Bitcoin compared to other government currencies, but more and more people use it every year. It's like you complaining that the internet is useless in 1995 because almost nobody uses it, so obviously no one ever will in the future XD




dastergast said:


> They are not real world examples. It is shit you pulled out your ass or miss-read.


They are. You're just too egotistical to bother to look them up because you're afraid you'll find out you've been wrong. I don't expect you to read any of these since it will damage your ego to realize how wrong you are, but hopefully the list suffices








						Venezuelan Explains How Bitcoin Saves His Family – Economics Bitcoin News
					

As the situation in Venezuela intensifies, a local bitcoin user details how he and his family use the cryptocurrency to survive the country’s ongoing crisis. Keeping all of his money in bitcoin, he only exchanges small amounts into the hyperinflating bolivar when necessary.




					news.bitcoin.com
				











						Bitcoin Saved My Life…
					

Bitcoin has become a functional currency in real-world situations. That’s why it’s rising in value… and will keep rising.




					internationalman.com
				



And keep in mind, this was all happening while Venezuela banned Bitcoin making it illegal.








						Argentina’s Peso Plunges After Central Bank Tightens Foreign Exchange Controls: Citizens Discuss Bitcoin Adoption – Emerging Markets Bitcoin News
					

The Argentine peso plunged by more than 10% shortly after the central bank announced tightening controls on the movement of foreign currency.




					news.bitcoin.com
				











						How Bitcoin Helps Afghan Girls Achieve Financial Freedom
					

At least 2,000 girls in Afghanistan are being paid in bitcoin for their blog writing and social media skills.




					www.coindesk.com
				







dastergast said:


> The Venezuelan government purchases bitcoin and created an e-currency called the "Petro".


Speaking of "addressing idiocy," no, the Petro has nothing to do with Bitcoin. It's a coin that the government created and controls itself, which people there don't use because they trust it as much as any other government created currency, which is not at all. They still use Bitcoin, because its entire value premise is that you don't have to trust any government or bank to use it.


dastergast said:


> So you are suggesting that people without reliable electricity, hard-drives or computers or local bitcoin exchanges magically acquire those things and then pray to god that bitcoin prices never crash along with their life savings?


You don't need reliable electricity, just a way to charge your phone (which people in African villages without electricity still own and use small solar panels to charge). You don't need hard drives or computers, or even local Bitcoin exchanges to use it. Do a job or sell something and get paid in Bitcoin. Pay your merchant in Bitcoin. If that merchant really needs some other money, they can just use an online exchange to swap bitcoin for any other money and have that deposited into their account. People have been doing this for years now.
You seem to have very little understanding of how Bitcoin actually works or what it does, yet you seem to make pretty big arguments about something you don't understand...




dastergast said:


> The world isn't America you know. It makes more sense to invest money in a foreign bank with a stable economy. People actually do that.


Ah, yes, have the poor African farmer or South American laborer who makes $300/m simply travel to a different country, schedule a visit with a bank, go in and provide their identifying documents (because they definitely have them), and their financial statements, so they can invest their $300/m into that foreign bank in hopes of earning a massive 2% return.
God your privilege is showing. That, or complete ignorance of the global banking system.



dastergast said:


> You are an absolute idiot if you think keeping your life's savings in bitcoin on your shitty phone is a good idea.
> What if the phone dies? Most bitcoin thefts happen from stolen or hacked smart phones.


You're the idiot for continuing to make these grandiose claims while proving you don't know anything about this. What if the phone dies? Use a backup. Large amounts aren't even stored on phones but on specialized hardware wallets that never even touch the internet. What if that dies? Again, backup. What if it's stolen? It's encrypted, and you have a backup. What if your backup is stolen? It's split into 2-of-3 or more pieces, so if they steal one it's completely useless to them. In worst case, you can store your Bitcoin in a bank that specializes in securing your bitcoin, and they can even provide insurance for it. Most bitcoin thefts don't happen from hacked smartphones. I worked for years in a company that made Bitcoin wallet apps. Thefts from phones are almost unheard of. Most thefts happen from big PCs that are constantly connected to the internet, run their own custom Bitcoin wallet code, and have bad security practices where it's the login password to get into the PC remotely that gets stolen first. That isn't an issue for phones.

And, a broke person who doesn't know anything about Bitcoin and clearly knows very little about investing and wealth management is telling a millionaire who has been working in Bitcoin for a decade and in investing and wealth management for even longer "an idiot." Lol! Like I said, I know lots of people who keep everything in Bitcoin, and there's even a new class of "digital nomad" millionaires who keep all their millions (even billions) in Bitcoin, because it allows them to move to any country in the world, take all their wealth with them tax and duty free, and no one even knows they're millionaires. No country can freeze their funds and hold them hostage, or wealth tax them.




dastergast said:


> And if there is no bitcoin exchange, you cannot use the bitcoin. Not to mention that you need good wifi.


I've used Bitcoin to pay for things since 2014 without needing a bitcoin exchange. There are lots of ways to spend Bitcoin without needing to convert it into dollars. I even get 15% off on everything I buy from Amazon just buy using Bitcoin. And you don't need good wifi. A Bitcoin transaction is only 250 bytes or so. 




dastergast said:


> It isn't garbage in Australia. That more than covers inflation here. When inflation goes up, you can generally find a fixed term account that can equal that inflation in interest.
> You are encouraging poor people to lose money with bitcoin because financially speaking you have no idea what you are talking about.


Ah, yes, tell a professional financial manager and investor how you can put money into an account that will (hopefully) just barely keep up with inflation assuming nothing happens (like, say, COVID and stimulus checks), and that poor people will lose money if they put theirs into something that gives you an average of 200% return long term. I'm very glad that when I was broke and first heard about Bitcoin that I didn't listen to people like you. And there were lots of them back then too.




dastergast said:


> An increase in bitcoin value is called.... inflation.


No, that's an increase in value. Inflation is an increase in money supply. This isn't primary school stuff, this is college economics. Or a quick Google search, which you again failed to do before opening your mouth and saying something stupid.
If you think inflation is the value of money going up, and Venezuela has had hyperinflation, you must think people in Venezuela are all ridiculously rich now XD




dastergast said:


> And you are stupid enough to tell other people that bitcoin is "more stable" than the American dollar


In the short term, no. In the long term, ABSOFUCKINGLITELY! Dollar had over 10% inflation a few decades ago, and is expected to have double digits inflation over the next few years. And over a longer period, like within 20 years or so, I and others who understand this shit expect the dollar to hyperinflate and crash completely. It's a printed fiat currency just like hundreds of others around the world and throughout history, and all of them have the same inevitable outcome. The dollar is at a point where, historically, money like it starter to teeter before failing. Please ignore history though.


----------



## Rassah (Jul 8, 2021)

dastergast said:


> You said the majority of the worlds crypto miners were not from china. That is wrong. Stop lying.


You think 36% is a majority? Are you bad at math too?




dastergast said:


> The CCP government has very cheap electricity, so it is cheaper for them to mine it, rather than purchase it.
> With that bitcoin You can track and trace other people through bitcoin transactions. The FBI has long confiscated bitcoins in this manner
> 
> 
> ...


You can also just buy Bitcoin and sell it to someone and do the exact same thing. Or not even touch Bitcoin and just track the transactions on the blockchain. Again, no mining required. That FBI thing where they confiscated Bitcoin? They didn't mine it to track it. They just tracked where the Bitcoin that was paid out went by looking at the blockchain, and most likely by finding the employee who caused the hack in the first place. "Mining Bitcoin to track transactions" is lol level Bitcoin ignorance.




dastergast said:


> Nope, the Chinese government said they have cracked down on bitcoin mining....... (that could mean they have removed 50% or 90% of the countries bitcoin miners. Who knows ), not to mention CCP mining of bitcoin.


They specifically said they banned mining. All and everywhere. Because they want to "go green" and saw Bitcoin mining as wasting energy. And Bitcoin miners shut down, packed up, and left. I know because I'm friends with a lot of them. 100% of them left (or close to it), and CCP isn't going to proclaim that "Bitcoin wastes energy, now look at us being so concerned about the environment that we will ban it!" and then turn around and start doing it themselves. They're too proud (and too dumb) to do that.




dastergast said:


> 40% isn't close to half? how dumb are you... It is clear that over 50% of new bitcoin mined was coming from China.


40% isn't over half, no. And it's not 60%. Go back and learn math again. How is it clear to you who knows nothing and no one in Bitcoin that over 50% was coming from China? I know Bitcoin miners and it's clear to me that many of them left China years ago after the first crackdowns, and that less than half stayed there. Because they actually told me.



dastergast said:


> So you work as a full-time "developer" for the imaginary bitcoin company in New Zealand? COOL STORY...
> "Bitcoin mining" is the process by which new bitcoins are entered into circulation... mining for gold, mining for bitcoin...



Don't know what New Zealand has to do with anything. Sounds like more ignorant ranting. Bitcoin mining is the prices by which new bitcoins enter into circulation, but that's a fee paid for the service of providing security. Nobody would pay Bitcoin miners if that's all they did, AND Bitcoin mining will continue even after no new bitcoins will enter into circulation. The term "Bitcoin mining" was just invented to make things easier to understand for simpletons like you.



dastergast said:


> Who should I purchase bitcoin from? Got a good suggestion lol?
> You even talk like an Nigerian email scam artist.



A well established, reputable, well regulated exchange, for example. Any well regulated Nigerian email scams out there?  Or do some job and ask to be paid in Bitcoin. Like drawing commissions or something.



dastergast said:


> The wealthy people you listed hold almost all their money in conventional investments.......
> They would have completely exchanged all their money into bitcoin if they actually believed in it...
> They praise the concept but they don't actually full-on use it because they aren't stupid.


*Sigh* no, they don't "hold their money" in conventional investments. They own companies. That's not "holding their money." They built companies, understand them intimately, and treat them like they're babies, carefully managing them so they can earn more from them. They obviously aren't going to give them up. But that not "holding their money" in. Their money, the liquid portion, they keep in Bitcoin. Because they're smarter than you and most other investors who still don't get it.




dastergast said:


> No it was approx $20,000 in 2018 before going down to $3900 in December 2018. A massive 80% deflation. You are seemingly incapable of getting anything right.



I was there. It hit almost $20k in December of 2018, which it did in a flash rise from about $12k, where it only stayed around $20k for less than a month (just a few weeks), and then declined slowly, eventually dropping to $3900 ONLY LAST YEAR. Which, again, was very short term, where the crash to $3900 lasted for a few days and quickly bounced back to over $6k. I remember because I was hoping to buy at $4k during the crash and missed out. And, again, that's not "deflation" that's a drop in price. And, so what? Long term it's still up an average of 200% per year. When you focus on these small temporary price movements and ignore long term trends, you just end up missing the mid picture. All investments have these spikes and drops, ESPECIALLY during initial adoption cycles.



> You actually want the advice of those with self-made average or above average wealth.
> 
> A rich guy who inherited his fortune and a poor guy who never gained employment are useless as financial advice.



Incidentally, I come from a very very poor immigrant family. Pretty sure we were poorer than most (or everyone) here. I started out broke on my own too, moving out at 18, working minimum wage jobs, almost being homeless at one point... I'm a self made millionaire who got there though investing, building businesses, and tons and tons of education in finance, economics, business, and wealth management, and by making lots of connections with wealthy successful people and learning from them. I "retired" at 34 when my investments got to $250k, and went to work for myself as an independent contractor and entrepreneur. Since then I've gained, and lost, more money than most of you will make in a lifetime, started numerous businesses (some of which failed and were good education), and continued to grow and learn. My main area of expertise is financial technology and crypto like Bitcoin, even though my businesses have included things like real estate and even furry comics. And I do have a background in tech, engineering, and computers, so I understand the technical workings of Bitcoin too, not just the financial and investment parts.



But I advise that you don't take my advice, because the prospect of arguing about something you don't understand with someone who is literally an expert on the subject, and then having to admit you were wrong, would do damage to your psyche. Better to stay dumb and broke, thinking you won an argument on the internet, than grow and become better.


----------



## DieselPowered (Jul 8, 2021)

Yakamaru said:


> Should one ask the poor for economical advice on how to get rich, or richer, or the people who are rich, or the very least wealthy enough?
> 
> A thought experiment if you will.


How rich do you want to become, and what are your avenues for obtaining wealth?

Until those questions are answered yours can't really be approached. 
Regardless, the answer to yours is entirely situational.


----------



## TyraWadman (Jul 8, 2021)




----------



## rekcerW (Jul 9, 2021)

digressing big-time, i wish i could take what you say at face value rassah, but you've sounded like a douche for years... obviously in some good way that's paid off... no hate, just argh... yeah, bitcoin took off and you were talking about it the whole time, but how can you get through life being so self-aggrandizing? it's hard to want to take advice from you >.<


----------



## Rassah (Jul 9, 2021)

rekcerW said:


> digressing big-time, i wish i could take what you say at face value rassah, but you've sounded like a douche for years... obviously in some good way that's paid off... no hate, just argh... yeah, bitcoin took off and you were talking about it the whole time, but how can you get through life being so self-aggrandizing? it's hard to want to take advice from you >.<


To me, arguing with some people on here who are making ignorant comments about Bitcoin is like arguing with flat earthers. You can only be patient with someone so clueless for so long. And I'm only a douche when someone else is a douche. Look at this guy above calling me an idiot because he didn't think my explanation was right.
As for how can I get through life? Knowing how far I've come, what I've seen, learned, and experienced, and knowing all the things I've accomplished isn't exactly a burden I guess. How do people get through life being self-depreciating? (Opposite of aggrandizing)


----------



## perkele (Jul 10, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Illegal activities like "sending money to family" or "women working and having a savings account" or "buying more things online than your $250 a year limit" for example. And no, there are zero instances of governments and cyber gangs intercepting Bitcoin transactions. There are a handful of instances of them finding out about them and stealing the money after it was already sent, but then that isn't easy.


Didn't like 90% of the money to your Bitcoin charity come from a guy who defrauded it from a bunch of people?


----------



## Simo (Jul 11, 2021)

Many years from now, I can see myself flipping through the channels late one night, and stumbling across Rassah doing a two-hour bit-coin infomercial without being as bit surprised. In fact...it feels like that now.


----------



## Rassah (Jul 11, 2021)

I've met this guy about 4 or 5 years ago and he was praising Bitcoin even back then.








						'Bitcoin Is The Most Amazing Mathematical Miracle,' Says Apple Co-Founder Steve Wozniak - Benzinga
					

What Happened: Steve Wozniak, co-founder of tech giant Apple Inc (NASDAQ: AAPL), believes that Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) is the “most amazing mathematical miracle.”




					www.benzinga.com
				






perkele said:


> Didn't like 90% of the money to your Bitcoin charity come from a guy who defrauded it from a bunch of people?


It was a large chunk of money (not 90%) that was donated anonymously. There was no way for us to know whom it came from or where the source was. I only guessed that it may have been stolen from Bitcoin exchanges because it was donated shortly after an exchange got hacked. But since there's no way to prove it, with Bitcoin being anonymous if you want it to be, we just accepted the money. And then donated it all to charities. My "charity" only collected money from donors, then helped other charities set up to be able to accept Bitcoin, and then made a first $1000 USD-worth bitcoin donation to them using money that was donated. No one earned anything from running our charity though.



Simo said:


> Many years from now, I can see myself flipping through the channels late one night, and stumbling across Rassah doing a two-hour bit-coin infomercial without being as bit surprised. In fact...it feels like that now.


Heh, no need to run any infomercials for it. Current fiat money is already bad enough for hundreds of millions of people to realize it and move their money into bitcoin all on their own. And it'll just get worse in the future. Bitcoin sells itself


----------



## O.D.D. (Jul 11, 2021)

Bitcoin/crypto is most of the reason a new graphics card costs over twice what it usually would.


----------



## Rassah (Jul 11, 2021)

O.D.D. said:


> Bitcoin/crypto is most of the reason a new graphics card costs over twice what it usually would.


Crypto, not Bitcoin. Mostly what are typically called "shitcoins." Bitcoin doesn't use graphics card at all. And those are just one of the reasons. Governments around the world forcing business to shut down and completely wrecking supply chains is the other. I read that when US states forced their businesses to shut down, we shut down a lot of the things we would typically export. Other countries like China and various Asian countries didn't do that. So they continued to produce and export, shipping goods to US and Europe. But that resulted in shipping containers going to US, and then just sitting empty, with nothing to put in them to ship back. It got so bad that there are even so many empty containers taking up space in ports that ships with cargo off the coast of US don't even have the space to dock and unload. Now countries that produce stuff, including components for GPUs, have no shipping containers to ship their stuff out in. Containers that are still available cost a fortune, which is causing the price of everything to go up, and containers that are empty which are stuck in US are still not worth shipping back if they're empty. And that's even causing issues between Asian countries that produce individual electronic components and assemble them there, since they can't even ship stuff to each other. Our supply chains became so efficient that any major disruption ended up creating a huge mess.


----------



## O.D.D. (Jul 11, 2021)

I distinctly remember prices spiking on GPUs before the pandemic, but the effect was much more widespread after.


----------



## rekcerW (Jul 12, 2021)

Rassah said:


> To me, arguing with some people on here who are making ignorant comments about Bitcoin is like arguing with flat earthers. You can only be patient with someone so clueless for so long. And I'm only a douche when someone else is a douche. Look at this guy above calling me an idiot because he didn't think my explanation was right.
> As for how can I get through life? Knowing how far I've come, what I've seen, learned, and experienced, and knowing all the things I've accomplished isn't exactly a burden I guess. How do people get through life being self-depreciating? (Opposite of aggrandizing)


maybe in person, but like every other post i've ever read from you has been douchey in some aspect. it's just always douchey. even that was douchey.


----------



## Rassah (Jul 12, 2021)

rekcerW said:


> maybe in person, but like every other post i've ever read from you has been douchey in some aspect. it's just always douchey. even that was douchey.


Like I said, note the audience


----------



## O.D.D. (Jul 12, 2021)

I know most of us present are no stranger to erect members being waved about but I'm pretty sure there's a thread for that without Bitcoin in the subject line.

To me crypto in general looks like gambling with Monopoly money that has been decreed to actually carry the denoted value and money that goes poof if someone decides to look crosseyed at the world's electronics seems like one that's a bit rich for my blood.


----------



## perkele (Jul 12, 2021)

O.D.D. said:


> I know most of us present are no stranger to erect members being waved about


Ask him about his penis table.


----------



## TyraWadman (Jul 12, 2021)

rekcerW said:


> maybe in person, but like every other post i've ever read from you has been douchey in some aspect. it's just always douchey. even that was douchey.



Straight up sounds like the cliche of someone making it big and riding the wave like it's never gonna crash. Possibly even 'forgetting their roots'. He (and many others on FAF) seem to like lumping everyone in as some kind of past antagonist despite interacting with them maybe once (and even then it wasn't a negative experience).

If you can't explain it to a kid, chances are they're using some evasive tactics to get something out of it. Apparently no amount of cash or Bitcoin can hire someone to educate us 'common-folk' on why it's so important and just expects everyone to get on board or 'miss out'. 

The problem still stands; a system like that wouldn't benefit a place like Canada. It would really suck to be told 'hey we can't offer you financial support anymore because we haven't been able to harvest enough coins'. I also dislike their security methods. When you lose a debit card or forget a pin, you can replace it. Bitcoin, you're locked out for life.


----------



## rekcerW (Jul 13, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Like I said, note the audience


you didn't -- how old is that fucking signature?


----------



## sushy (Jul 13, 2021)

I know what it is but I prefer money that still can be used if the power goes out. 
(that is very old-fashioned I know)


----------



## Rassah (Jul 13, 2021)

rekcerW said:


> you didn't -- how old is that fucking signature?


I use Android. I don't see signatures. I forgot I had that one, but... still relevant today



O.D.D. said:


> To me crypto in general looks like gambling with Monopoly money that has been decreed to actually carry the denoted value and money that goes poof if someone decides to look crosseyed at the world's electronics seems like one that's a bit rich for my blood.


To me gambling implies guessing and hoping. And while there's hoping for electricity for all currencies, since 95% of all dollars are digital and 99.9% of all transactions and sales are done with electronic bank transfers (including plastic cards), to me it's even MORE gambling keeping your money in currencies where you don't know whether the Fed will raise or lower interest rates, or print literally trillions more in stimulus funds, or do something else even crazier. Looking at the whole world of banking, with people holding cash as they nervously spectate banks and politicians and try to predict their movements, or try to guess which global currency will pull ahead of others simply because their governments are destroying it as a slightly slower rate, as if the whole thing is some sort of perverse horrible horse race, is gambling. And knowing that the currency I hold can't be controlled by anyone, isn't subject to any bank or political decisions, can't be inflated on someone's whim, and that it will continue to create a fixed predetermined amount of currency no matter what happens, is the least gambling option of all.



TyraWadman said:


> Straight up sounds like the cliche of someone making it big and riding the wave like it's never gonna crash.



Yep. Like the internet. Or telephone. Or electricity. Or the wheel. Or fire. Sometimes new ideas just get invented and then can't be uninvented no matter how much people complain about them.




TyraWadman said:


> If you can't explain it to a kid, chances are they're using some evasive tactics to get something out of it. Apparently no amount of cash or Bitcoin can hire someone to educate us 'common-folk' on why it's so important and just expects everyone to get on board or 'miss out'.


If you want to learn, I'm happy to give you lots of free resources.





TyraWadman said:


> The problem still stands; a system like that wouldn't benefit a place like Canada.


Canada has the same problems though. Look around every big city you have (all... three of them?). Who owns all the biggest building? Banks. Canada uses fiat currency, so it still has the same Cantillon effect problems, where certain people (you) work hard for money, certain other people (banks and politicians) simply print themselves billions without doing any work whatsoever, and then those people just buy the land, buildings, commodities, stocks, and other assets that you have to work hard to obtain, for no effort on their part, making themselves richer while forcing you to pay for it by inflating away the value of your money. Rich get richer, poor get poorer. The #1 cause of that has always been inflation.




TyraWadman said:


> When you lose a debit card or forget a pin, you can replace it. Bitcoin, you're locked out for life.


Keep good backups. Or if that's too much of a hassle, just keep them in an insured bank like you do with your cash. If you lose your access, the bank will replace it same way.


----------



## Rassah (Jul 13, 2021)

I heard a great analogy about Bitcoin from Michael Saylor recently. To paraphrase, Bitcoin is basically a life raft, in our global financial system which is a large luxury ship that is slowly sinking (which makes sense because Bitcoin is not reliant on anything or anyone, being completely independent, while global finance is collapsing under debt and inflation). And people who are against it are people who are staying in their luxury suites, who are being told the ship is sinking and to get to the lifeboats. They don't want to leave because they like their luxury suites and comfort and don't want to give them up. And they attack anyone who tells them their ship is sinking and warning them to get to the life boats, because they're afraid of losing their comforts and luxury, and/or don't want to lose their privilege and get stuck in those lifeboats where they're equal to everyone else.


----------



## Firuthi Dragovic (Jul 13, 2021)

Heard a little about it, will not even consider it for the next six months.  In fact, basically ANY investment is too risky for me in that time.

I'm on the verge of paying off a longstanding big debt ("oh you're just giving them free money from interest" is irrelevant to this when the debt itself feels like a crushing burden. This is about my psychological well-being, and no amount of financial min-maxing addresses the nature of this debt) and trying to do investments with this now has a good chance of actually setting me back. (I've previously told people "three months" - I expand it to six here because I have to worry about paying my own taxes.)

Six months isn't really suitable for a "safe" investment either.

Maybe by that time some of the worse "shitcoins" will have filtered out of the market and I can have a better idea what good ones are like.  I must admit I mainly consider this a side-bet at this time.

And maybe people will stop trying to use gaming hardware to mine cryptocurrency (I know you JUST said something about this Rassah, but I reopen this wound specifically because apparently, Ukranian authorities recently caught a group using PS4 Pros to mine crypto.  And something about electrical meters).


----------



## rekcerW (Jul 13, 2021)

Rassah said:


> I heard a great analogy about Bitcoin from Michael Saylor recently. To paraphrase, Bitcoin is basically a life raft, in our global financial system which is a large luxury ship that is slowly sinking (which makes sense because Bitcoin is not reliant on anything or anyone, being completely independent, while global finance is collapsing under debt and inflation). And people who are against it are people who are staying in their luxury suites, who are being told the ship is sinking and to get to the lifeboats. They don't want to leave because they like their luxury suites and comfort and don't want to give them up. And they attack anyone who tells them their ship is sinking and warning them to get to the life boats, because they're afraid of losing their comforts and luxury, and/or don't want to lose their privilege and get stuck in those lifeboats where they're equal to everyone else.


uh-huh. two words. binance. tether.


----------



## Rassah (Jul 14, 2021)

Firuthi Dragovic said:


> I'm on the verge of paying off a longstanding big debt ("oh you're just giving them free money from interest" is irrelevant to this when the debt itself feels like a crushing burden. This is about my psychological well-being, and no amount of financial min-maxing addresses the nature of this debt) and trying to do investments with this now has a good chance of actually setting me back. (I've previously told people "three months" - I expand it to six here because I have to worry about paying my own taxes.)



I know exactly how you feel. I recently had to make a similar decision, which was logically and financially not right, but for my own stress was necessary. And it was a HUGE stress relief once it was over, even if did have big financial opportunity costs. Good luck!



rekcerW said:


> uh-huh. two words. binance. tether.


I got a few more: MtGox, Bitcoin Cash. Exchanges and shitcoins come and go, Bitcoin the honey badger doesn't give a f


----------



## Curt Goynes (Jul 19, 2021)

Rassah said:


> I heard a great analogy about Bitcoin from Michael Saylor recently. To paraphrase, Bitcoin is basically a life raft, in our global financial system which is a large luxury ship that is slowly sinking (which makes sense because Bitcoin is not reliant on anything or anyone, being completely independent, while global finance is collapsing under debt and inflation). And people who are against it are people who are staying in their luxury suites, who are being told the ship is sinking and to get to the lifeboats. They don't want to leave because they like their luxury suites and comfort and don't want to give them up. And they attack anyone who tells them their ship is sinking and warning them to get to the life boats, because they're afraid of losing their comforts and luxury, and/or don't want to lose their privilege and get stuck in those lifeboats where they're equal to everyone else. Btw, a lot of interesting info I usually find here in the blog by Paydepot. Highly recommend


Great analogy, true. But I doubt that BTC is that independent that when stock market starts "sinking" crypto will be afloat. It makes sense taking into account how volatile crypto is and always was


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 20, 2021)

I thought I'd comment that researchers at Cambridge have reported a mass-migration of bitcoin 'mining' to Kazakhstan and the US before China began its most recent crackdown on the currency.

This explains why hash rates did not decline as rapidly as might have been expected after China's crackdown.

87% of Kazakh energy is generated by fossil fuels, so mining there is probably not the best thing for the environment. Guess it's similar to North-West China; the regions are geographically adjacent actually.


----------



## Rassah (Jul 24, 2021)

This is what exponential growth is like. Little, little, little, then suddenly a lot. Will be interesting to see what crypto does when stocks actually crash again, especially if the cause of the crash is high USD inflation.





__





						Bitcoin Transfer Volume Now Exceeds $15.8 Trillion | Bitcoin Magazine
					





					bitcoinmagazine.com


----------



## Khafra (Jul 26, 2021)

I've been thinking of putting some savings into it, since currency where I live seems to constantly lose value. But bitcoin itself looked kinda unstable for the past month, so was hard to get around to doing it. 

I'd also ideally want to keep it in my own wallet or cold storage, which is just more hassle for my lazy arse.


----------



## O.D.D. (Jul 26, 2021)

The whole thing makes me leery because it's a fiat currency effectively, even if it's a decentralized one.  That and it's got that "too good to be true" feel to it at times.


----------



## Rassah (Sep 15, 2021)

Whelp, El Salvador just adopted Bitcoin as one of their two main currencies (US dollar is the other one they use). I was there for the Sept 7th event with a delegation to help roll it out. So far, McDonald's, Walmart, Starbucks, and a few other major corps accept it there. And since they were forced to implement Bitcoin payments there, they can roll them out to the rest of the world too. Even tiny shops on the side of the road took it. It was pretty cool!


----------



## Yakamaru (Sep 16, 2021)

Nice, seems Bitcoin is up again. Expected it to be up again around this time anyway.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 16, 2021)

There are protests on the news about BitCoin being introduced as a legal currency in El Salvador. 
Most people in the country use physical cash, and the value of the coin wobbled by 20% on the first day, so it's rocky. 

Evidently El Salvador isn't a real democracy; it's president is currently circumventing term limits and the adoption of BitCoin is perceived pre-eminently as a publicity stunt; its adoption passed through their parliament in only hours- so it wasn't really debated.


----------



## MechaMegs (Sep 16, 2021)

Problems Continue to Plague El Salvador's Bitcoin Rollout
					

One week after El Salvador became the first country to make bitcoin legal tender, problems continue to plague the system




					www.nbcphiladelphia.com
				











						Thousands protest in El Salvador after bitcoin made official currency
					

Thousands of protestors took to the streets in El Salvador a week after the Central American nation became the first in the world to adopt Bitcoin as its legal currency alongside the US dollar.




					nypost.com
				




Definitely a stable and normal process.


----------



## Rassah (Sep 17, 2021)

I was on the ground in El Salvador the entire week, and I have connections to people who work with the president.

Yes, the start was rocky where the demand and number of downloads of the app was so high that it broke the servers. The group running Chivo Wallet had to take it offline at the end of the first day to upgrade their servers. But it was up and running without issues by day three. Also, since the rollout was pretty quick, it was expected that things would be iffy at first.

Besides the official government Bitcoin wallet (Chivo), other systems worked just fine. If you have your own different wallet, you're able to pay for things without problems.

Regarding protests, the first few were only a handful of people, photographed from an angle to make it look like there were a lot. It was basically a staged photo op by Bukele's opponents. Other than that, you wouldn't even know that anything was going on in the country. Shops continued to take cash and credit cards, and only a few were taking Bitcoin, which is completely voluntary to pay with, and businesses weren't forced to adopt quicker than they were able to.

With regards to this latest protest, it wasn't "thousands." I don't know why they're reporting that. It was as most maybe a few hundred or less. The protesters marched peacefully and at most some sprayed graffiti. When they got to where the ATM was, they don't know who set it on fire and claimed it wasn't one of them. There's suspicion that it was set on fire by one of the government officials to put the blame on the protesters. I'm other words, that was likely staged too.

As for Bukele, the president himself, he was elected running as a member of the new New Ideas party. He has a ton of popular support, and this party is spreading around other parts of Latin America, getting support in other countries too. El Salvador was a very very corrupt country with a very corrupt socialist government (the two tend to go together), and Bukele's New Ideas party is a very pro-business, anti-socialist party that people overwhelmingly voted in to clean up their country's corruption and to get their economy working again. So a lot of the fighting that's been going on in there has been Bukele kicking out old corrupt politicians who were in there for many years, and fighting off those who try to kick him out. He is acting a bit dictatorial, but he's doing it because he has to, to get rid of those people. And his cabinet is staffed with a lot of pro small business and pro market types as well. So whether he's actually a dictator type needs to be seen through the lens of him having to clean up and kick out prior deeply entrenched corrupt dictator types, and sometimes that means using extreme measures. But at the same time, he is willing to make the country much more free for business, and pushing effectively a free financial system on people to replace their target broken and unfair banking system. In a way it's like a "dictator" mandating that everyone MUST have freedom of speech. So it's a weird and awkward situation. Regarding Bukele, we'll have to wait and see what he actually does. His intentions seem good, but the methods are concerning. As for Bitcoin, that's definitely going to make the country MUCH better off. Like, no question about it. Their financial system, and banking restrictions, including by US since they depend on IS dollars, is really messed up. For instance, if you're a business that wants to accept credit cards, even though you get paid in dollars, the normal fee that businesses have to pay is 7%! Bitcoin makes that free, or close to free instead.


----------



## Rassah (Sep 17, 2021)

The president's attempt to circumvent term limits is that in El Salvador presidents serve for one term, and he wants to change it to two terms like in US. Evidently Bukele believes one term isn't going to be enough to clean out all the corruption and fix the economy by dismantling all the barriers to business.

Most people in the country do use physical cash. Something like 60% to 70% of the people are unbanked. Which is ridiculous for a modern country with a modern economy like theirs. Also something like 25% of the country's GDP is from remittances, where families working abroad send money back to family in El Salvador. Because most people are unbanked, that means using Western Union, which takes a huge cut, and it means having to drive to one of the very few Western Union offices, which are usually about an hour away from those who get them, so a two+ hour round trip, plus gas, and that's if you can afford a car. Basically, if you're poor and rely on family abroad, you're getting screwed. But about 90%+ of the people have smartphones with data plans. Chivo Wallet lets you send and receive Bitcoin for free, convert it to and from USD for free, and go to any of the 200+ ATMs deployed around the country to pull out cash for free. Basically, the problem of 70% unbanked is fixed by just downloading an app, remittances are fixed by being able to receive Bitcoin from anywhere in the world, and Western Union problem is fixed by deploying a lot of ATMs over a relatively small country. I think it's a brilliant solution.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 17, 2021)

Indeed. 




















						Bitcoin protests in El Salvador against cryptocurrency as legal tender
					

The demonstrators burn Bitcoin machines, a week after the cryptocurrency became legal tender.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				




Potentially the consequence of a nation making what is actually quite a significant change to its financial system, basically without consulting the people who live there or even debating it. 

...but it's a pro bitcoin move, so I imagine anybody with a vested interest in the currency will defend this.


----------



## Rassah (Sep 19, 2021)

"a nation making what is actually quite a significant change to its financial system"

That change being "you can pay with Bitcoin, if you want to, and if you get paid with it, you don't have to keep it, we'll swap it for dollars for you." Lol! "Significant" change indeed


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Sep 19, 2021)

Rassah said:


> "a nation making what is actually quite a significant change to its financial system"
> 
> That change being "you can pay with Bitcoin, if you want to, and if you get paid with it, you don't have to keep it, we'll swap it for dollars for you." Lol! "Significant" change indeed


It's interesting that the current arrangement effectively makes Bitcoin a stablecoin in El Salvador, backed by the US dollar no less. 

But there is no denying the rollout was rocky, with the price drop in Bitcoin on the day of and the government having to buy up Bitcoin as a result.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Sep 19, 2021)

Rassah said:


> "a nation making what is actually quite a significant change to its financial system"
> 
> That change being "you can pay with Bitcoin, if you want to, and if you get paid with it, you don't have to keep it, we'll swap it for dollars for you." Lol! "Significant" change indeed


I saw footage of these "protests" with people there being interviewed and couldn't help but be a bit concerned about how misinformed these protesters sounded, like holding some paper money and saying "I want only cash, with cash I know that I actually have the money!"
*laughs in 1 billion Zimbabwean dollars bill*
But hey I guess some locals protested so it means cryptocurrency is objectively bad


----------



## Yakamaru (Sep 19, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> I saw footage of these "protests" with people there being interviewed and couldn't help but be a bit concerned about how misinformed these protesters sounded, like holding some paper money and saying "I want only cash, with cash I know that I actually have the money!"
> *laughs in 1 billion Zimbabwean dollars bill*
> But hey I guess some locals protested so it means cryptocurrency is objectively bad


*keks in Venezuelean Bolivar*

$1USD is worth over 4 million. Welcome to inflation, a Furry's paradise.

Oh noes, someone oppose something, means it must be bad, right?


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Sep 19, 2021)

Yakamaru said:


> *keks in Venezuelean Bolivar*
> 
> $1USD is worth over 4 million. Welcome to inflation, a Furry's paradise.
> 
> Oh noes, someone oppose something, means it must be bad, right?


Depends, if they oppose something I don't personally like it means they're objectively right even if their reasons make no sense!


----------



## Rassah (Sep 19, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> It's interesting that the current arrangement effectively makes Bitcoin a stablecoin in El Salvador, backed by the US dollar no less.
> 
> But there is no denying the rollout was rocky, with the price drop in Bitcoin on the day of and the government having to buy up Bitcoin as a result.


Bitcoin isn't backed by anything. It's just a foreign currency with zero exchange fee there. If it was backed, you'd be getting a fixed amount of dollars for a fixed amount of Bitcoin, which defeats the whole reason El Salvador is adding it, which is that, like many other countries, they're expecting the dollar to crap out from all the stimulus printing.

Yeah, the rollout had technical issues. And the drop was unfortunate, but had nothing to do with this, or Bitcoin. Apparently something like $730 million of Ethereum got margin called and liquidated, causing ETH to crash, and automatic trading bots on different exchanges just followed it down, taking Bitcoin and all cryptos with them. The government didn't have to buy Bitcoin. They just bought 200, then 200 more to add to their treasury, and when Bitcoin dropped, they bought 150 more to "buy the dip." Likely a very good investment. With Bitcoin doubling roughly every year on average, that initial Bitcoin purchase will fund whatever BTC<>USD exchange fees the government has to subsidize for a long time.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Sep 19, 2021)

Yakamaru said:


> *keks in Venezuelean Bolivar*
> 
> $1USD is worth over 4 million. Welcome to inflation, a Furry's paradise.
> 
> Oh noes, someone oppose something, means it must be bad, right?


Putting aside the whether the citizens of a country have a right to determine whether their government makes major changes to their economic and monetary systems as well as the fact the 67.9% of the population opposed making Bitcoin legal tender, there are obvious problems with El Salvador adopting Bitcoin as its legal tender. 

The most obvious problem is that El Salvador doesn't the necessary internet infrastructure to widely roll this out among most of the population, because only a third of the country has consistent internet access, which is well below for the Latin America. Add this to the technical and security flaws Bitcoin already suffers from and this isn't exactly infrastructure to be trusted for financial transactions. 

There is also the highly volatile nature of Bitcoin itself, illustrated by the fact the price of Bitcoin fell 17% the day El Salvador adopted the cryptocurrency as legal tender. That wasn't even the worse crash Bitcoin experienced and compared to the dollar, Bitcoin is widely unstable. 

Also consider the money laundering concerns that adoption of Bitcoin as legal tender opens the door to, especially since the country already as extant and major organized crime elements. These concerns also make the likelihood of international sanctions significant against the country, which could have effects of the wider Bitcoin market as El Salvadorans take their money out of the cryptocurrency and investors elsewhere follow suit.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Sep 19, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Bitcoin isn't backed by anything. It's just a foreign currency with zero exchange fee there. If it was backed, you'd be getting a fixed amount of dollars for a fixed amount of Bitcoin, which defeats the whole reason El Salvador is adding it, which is that, like many other countries, they're expecting the dollar to crap out from all the stimulus printing.
> 
> Yeah, the rollout had technical issues. And the drop was unfortunate, but had nothing to do with this, or Bitcoin. Apparently something like $730 million of Ethereum got margin called and liquidated, causing ETH to crash, and automatic trading bots on different exchanges just followed it down, taking Bitcoin and all cryptos with them. The government didn't have to buy Bitcoin. They just bought 200, then 200 more to add to their treasury, and when Bitcoin dropped, they bought 150 more to "buy the dip." Likely a very good investment. With Bitcoin doubling roughly every year on average, that initial Bitcoin purchase will fund whatever BTC<>USD exchange fees the government has to subsidize for a long time.


Rassah, you've been to El Salvador, so you should know that the government has assured that citizens will be able to convert their Bitcoin back to US dollars, which as you know should replaced the Colon as El Salvador's hard currency. The opposite is true as well.

With the government promising instant convertibility of the bitcoins into US dollars, in effect on conversion the owners of the bitcoins would receive a US dollar-denominated stablecoin.

Even assuming your explanation is correct (and your explanation flies in the face of what the financial industry has determined), the drop and the cause of the drop still demonstrate why Bitcoin is an unstable and unwise choice for El Salvador. Professionally, you can't disregard the fact that Moody's downgraded the country's debt rating in deeper junk territory, citing concerns over the country's Bitcoin policy.


----------



## Yakamaru (Sep 19, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> Depends, if they oppose something I don't personally like it means they're objectively right even if their reasons make no sense!


Right? 

It's not like the old have never opposed new things out of irrational fear. No sir, it's never happened before. Didn't happen with the newspaper, the radio, the TV, the internet, video games..


----------



## Rassah (Sep 20, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Putting aside the whether the citizens of a country have a right to determine whether their government makes major changes to their economic and monetary systems as well as the fact the 67.9% of the population opposed making Bitcoin legal tender, there are obvious problems with El Salvador adopting Bitcoin as its legal tender.


The change was the opposite of "major." The actual change is that "if you're a business, you must accept Bitcoin, if you're technically able to." It doesn't force anyone to use it, or to hold it, or do to anything with it. The 67.9% who opposed it did so because they didn't understand Bitcoin, or what this law did. People thought they would be forced to use and keep it, which isn't the case. And obviously the opposition to Bukele pushed HARD on the misinformation campaign.




Miles Marsalis said:


> The most obvious problem is that El Salvador doesn't the necessary internet infrastructure to widely roll this out among most of the population, because only a third of the country has consistent internet access, which is well below for the Latin America.



First, El Salvador absolutely has the internet infrastructure for this. In my travels around the country, the only places where I couldn't get internet data access was in some parts of the mountains, mainly in a few deep areas between two tall hills. Internet was available everywhere else. Second, your "only a third of the country has internet access" us talking about hard line internet, like FiOS. Cell phones with data plans are the most common way for people to get internet, and those numbers estimate that over 90% of people have internet access (https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2021-el-salvador). And finally, this still doesn't matter, because only businesses are required to accept Bitcoin, not everyone, and businesses have internet access. And, those who don't, are exempt by the "don't have technical capability to accept it."



Miles Marsalis said:


> Add this to the technical and security flaws Bitcoin already suffers from and this isn't exactly infrastructure to be trusted for financial transactions.


Bitcoin has never been hacked. As for technical issues, they're using Lightning Network for a lot of it, so transactions are almost free and instant. It was actually great seeing the technical flaws fixed and working on a large scale. Paying for things at McDonald's and Walmart was fast, easy, and flawless. Same for paying at souvenir shops and small marketplaces. 



Miles Marsalis said:


> There is also the highly volatile nature of Bitcoin itself, illustrated by the fact the price of Bitcoin fell 17% the day El Salvador adopted the cryptocurrency as legal tender. That wasn't even the worse crash Bitcoin experienced and compared to the dollar, Bitcoin is widely unstable.



I thought it was 10%? Either way, it was still not noticeable. Nobody cared. Nobody still cares. Those in El Salvador who understand it just ended up buying more.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Also consider the money laundering concerns that adoption of Bitcoin as legal tender opens the door to, especially since the country already as extant and major organized crime elements.


Nobody cared about that either. Most money laundering is done with dollars there. Bitcoin used for money laundering is an old trope that is just fud, since it doesn't even compare to the amount of money laundering done by big supposedly legit banks like Wells Fargo and Citibank, using USD.



Miles Marsalis said:


> These concerns also make the likelihood of international sanctions significant against the country, which could have effects of the wider Bitcoin market as El Salvadorans take their money out of the cryptocurrency and investors elsewhere follow suit.


That's actually one of the major reasons  Bukele wants to switch El Salvador to Bitcoin. US is an emperialist fascist state that controls the global banking transfer system, and together with the IMF uses that power to oppress and exploit countries, using sanctions or threats of cutting them off from global banking systems to force them to comply. Once El Salvador gains enough Bitcoin adoption, it will no longer be possible to use sanctions against it. It will be independent from USD and US's currency controls, and free to do what it wants. And other Latin American countries and Caribbean islands who are subject to those issues will follow suit. Why do you think US, IMF, and other global organizations are so pissed about El Salvador's decisions and trying to spread so much fud about it? 
I hope more people get this and don't get duped by fascist oppressive regimes with the "money laundering" and other such fud.


----------



## Rassah (Sep 20, 2021)

Seriously, I'm salivating at the prospect of El Salvador, Panama, and a bunch of other countries that have proposed a similar Bitcoin bill, or are planning on it, all switching from USD and local currencies to Bitcoin, and finally becoming completely immune to US sanctions and fascist imperialism. So many other countries around the world will follow suit. And it will be so ironic that those that claim to be anti fascism will find themselves on the wrong side of history XD


----------



## Yakamaru (Sep 20, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> There is also the highly volatile nature of Bitcoin itself, illustrated by the fact the price of Bitcoin fell 17% the day El Salvador adopted the cryptocurrency as legal tender. That wasn't even the worse crash Bitcoin experienced and compared to the dollar, Bitcoin is widely unstable.


A 10% drop or a 50% drop, it doesn't matter to those who trade in Bitcoin, so this is not going to work neither as an argument nor as an attempt at some sort of deterrent. The markets will recover, and in the long-term only increase in value over time. At current speaking moment BTC is back up to $47,000 USD, and will only climb up from here.

Does the concept of "long-term" elude you for some reason?


----------



## Rassah (Sep 20, 2021)

At this point over 1.6 million El Salvadorians are using Chivo Wallet, meaning they're able to buy, receive, and use Bitcoin.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1440034436909658114
And in other news, Chinese investors just found out why stashing their money in "real" and "physical" assets like real estate isn't always a good idea. Wonder how much of that fallout will leak out to the rest of the world...


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Sep 20, 2021)

Yakamaru said:


> A 10% drop or a 50% drop, it doesn't matter to those who trade in Bitcoin, so this is not going to work neither as an argument nor as an attempt at some sort of deterrent. The markets will recover, and in the long-term only increase in value over time. At current speaking moment BTC is back up to $47,000 USD, and will only climb up from here.
> 
> Does the concept of "long-term" elude you for some reason?


I have long-term investments and a degree in Economics, which allows to talk about the economic aspects on Bitcoin, and one in Computer Science, which informs my technical perspective on Bitcoin and blockchain. I'm also the guy who had to explain to you why the gold standard is a horrible, so you trying to act I don't know what a long-term investment is rich. 

Rassah, though I feel he is not acknowledging certain facts about Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, but I can't deny he has a degree in Finance and I admit he has storied career. PercyD also has the requisite experience to comment intelligently here, though you tried to disparage them. 

You on the other hand have made mostly anecdotal comments about Bitcoin and made the intellectually lazy argument that communism is flawed, a point which the Cold War and current lack of command economies has proven better than you.

So stow the condescension. 

Furthermore, 10% loss isn't necessarily a sign to pull out of an investment, but most financial advisors and institutions would cut their losses well before 50% since they wouldn't want to be wedded to a loss that big on the supposition that it will rebound, hypothetically, some time in the future. Or could ask why you wouldn't sell and then repurchase at a lower price, in order to profit on a potential rise instead of riding out the loss, ignoring (of course) the volatility of Bitcoin. 

Clearly that eluded you.


Rassah said:


> The change was the opposite of "major." The actual change is that "if you're a business, you must accept Bitcoin, if you're technically able to." It doesn't force anyone to use it, or to hold it, or do to anything with it. The 67.9% who opposed it did so because they didn't understand Bitcoin, or what this law did. People thought they would be forced to use and keep it, which isn't the case. And obviously the opposition to Bukele pushed HARD on the misinformation campaign.


I mean, adding a cryptocurrency as legal tender has major implications on any economy and most financial institutions recognize that. Business will have to contend with adopting Bitcoin infrastructure to profit and accommodate the public as well as navigate the volatility of market. The government is going to be a test for taxation regimes dealing with cryptocurrencies. 

That ain't minor.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Sep 20, 2021)

Rassah said:


> First, El Salvador absolutely has the internet infrastructure for this. In my travels around the country, the only places where I couldn't get internet data access was in some parts of the mountains, mainly in a few deep areas between two tall hills. Internet was available everywhere else. Second, your "only a third of the country has internet access" us talking about hard line internet, like FiOS. Cell phones with data plans are the most common way for people to get internet, and those numbers estimate that over 90% of people have internet access (https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2021-el-salvador). And finally, this still doesn't matter, because only businesses are required to accept Bitcoin, not everyone, and businesses have internet access. And, those who don't, are exempt by the "don't have technical capability to accept it."


Mobile connections are supported by internet infrastructure nowadays, Rassah. As you should know, traditional cellular networks could carry data fast enough and generally phone use wi-fi access points to connect to Internet routers which then utilize telephone lines, television cables, and dedicated Internet cable to transmit data. 

You also missed in your own articles where people may possess more than one mobile connection, like having dedicated personal and work phones, keeping older phones after purchasing newer phones, or having a burner phone for privacy-related reasons.

Bitcoin exchanges and markets rely on developed internet infrastructure; a cellular network isn't going cut it. 


Rassah said:


> Bitcoin has never been hacked. As for technical issues, they're using Lightning Network for a lot of it, so transactions are almost free and instant. It was actually great seeing the technical flaws fixed and working on a large scale. Paying for things at McDonald's and Walmart was fast, easy, and flawless. Same for paying at souvenir shops and small marketplaces.


The major security concern with Bitcoin is the Bitcoin exchanges, which are easily hacked and the weak link in that particular system. There is a Bitcoin exchange hack or collapse approximately every month which makes the news and I remember time when in 2015 a third of exchanges had been hacked, which really put me off it. Anyone who knows anything about Bitcoin knows that leaving any money exposed on a Bitcoin exchange is risky. 









						A Comprehensive List of Cryptocurrency Exchange Hacks
					

Hacks and data breaches happen on an almost daily basis. Cryptocurrency exchange hacks are particularly damaging because they typically affect thousands of users and involve the loss of funds. Here we provide an updated list of all major cryptocurrency exchange hacks.




					selfkey.org
				





Rassah said:


> I thought it was 10%? Either way, it was still not noticeable. Nobody cared. Nobody still cares. Those in El Salvador who understand it just ended up buying more.


If you're a business and your profits in Bitcoin fall 17% because of a market dip, you're going to care.


Rassah said:


> Nobody cared about that either. Most money laundering is done with dollars there. Bitcoin used for money laundering is an old trope that is just fud, since it doesn't even compare to the amount of money laundering done by big supposedly legit banks like Wells Fargo and Citibank, using USD.


That obvious thing I'm going to run with here is that money laundering accounts for a very small amounts of transactions conducted with traditional currencies and the financial system is well-equipped to deal with it when it arises. Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies experience a far higher rate of money laundering and tax evasion because the cryptocurrencies lend themselves well to clandestine criminal transactions and cryptocurrencies exchange don't adhere to the same strict reporting standards as the mainstream financial system in the developed world. 


Rassah said:


> That's actually one of the major reasons Bukele wants to switch El Salvador to Bitcoin. US is an emperialist fascist state that controls the global banking transfer system, and together with the IMF uses that power to oppress and exploit countries, using sanctions or threats of cutting them off from global banking systems to force them to comply. Once El Salvador gains enough Bitcoin adoption, it will no longer be possible to use sanctions against it. It will be independent from USD and US's currency controls, and free to do what it wants. And other Latin American countries and Caribbean islands who are subject to those issues will follow suit. Why do you think US, IMF, and other global organizations are so pissed about El Salvador's decisions and trying to spread so much fud about it?
> I hope more people get this and don't get duped by fascist oppressive regimes with the "money laundering" and other such fud.


I don't want to get too political here or stay from the core whether Bitcoin is a worthwhile investment, but I'd disagree that the United States is fascist empire and point out that El Salvador moved from the Colon to the US dollar because the US is hard currency and more stable. The US dollar doesn't fluctuate as wildly as Bitcoin and is negotiable virtually everywhere to point that even nations hostile to us keep a reserve of dollars to hedge against economic risk.


----------



## Rassah (Sep 21, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I have long-term investments and a degree in Economics, which allows to talk about the economic aspects on Bitcoin, and one in Computer Science, which informs my technical perspective on Bitcoin and blockchain. I'm also the guy who had to explain to you why the gold standard is a horrible, so you trying to act I don't know what a long-term investment is rich.


I didn't know, and I'm honestly surprised. I'm guessing just basic university economics without expanding beyond what the books taught, taking such fallacies as "deflationary spiral" at face value. But I guess not too surprised, since a lot of economists and a lot of IT people don't get Bitcoin. 



Miles Marsalis said:


> Furthermore, 10% loss isn't necessarily a sign to pull out of an investment, but most financial advisors and institutions would cut their losses well before 50% since they wouldn't want to be wedded to a loss that big on the supposition that it will rebound, hypothetically, some time in the future.


For large established companies and things like that, yeah. A large drop is concerning, and is usually a sign that there is some fundamental underlying flaw in the company being invested in. With regards to bitcoin, it's being treated as a new technology going through adoption stages, where large drops are to be expected, and with Bitcoin, despite the large drops, the underlying fundamentals haven't changed. It still works just as well, and has the same development (technological and economic) as before. Nothing changed. So such drops are just a loss in adoption optimism, nothing serious. Also, while a large drop in, say, Boeing may mean a long time for the company to fix whatever broke and to recover, since there's nothing broken with Bitcoin there's nothing to fix, and recoveries from drops are usually fairly short. In short, large institutions are investing in Bitcoin's fundamentals, not it's technical chart movements.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Or could ask why you wouldn't sell and then repurchase at a lower price, in order to profit on a potential rise instead of riding out the loss, ignoring (of course) the volatility of Bitcoin.


You can't predict the market. You can only predict that Bitcoin will continue to go up long term. As I've been telling you guys for almost a decade.



Miles Marsalis said:


> I mean, adding a cryptocurrency as legal tender has major implications on any economy and most financial institutions recognize that.


How? No institutions even bothered with it as far as I know. The largest institution affected there was Walmart.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Business will have to contend with adopting Bitcoin infrastructure to profit and accommodate the public as well as navigate the volatility of market.


Businesses will have to add systems to accept Bitcoin, sure, but whining wise that's no different from forcing El Salvador to accept Discover card or some new form of payment processing. No one even has to do accounting in Bitcoin if they don't want to. Just accept and convert instantly. Only ones affected by volatility are customers who choose to hold it. And the more they hold, the richer their population will me. I'm really looking forward to that.



Miles Marsalis said:


> The government is going to be a test for taxation regimes dealing with cryptocurrencies.



Bitcoin isn't taxed there since it's now a currency.


----------



## Rassah (Sep 21, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Mobile connections are supported by internet infrastructure nowadays, Rassah. As you should know, traditional cellular networks could carry data fast enough and generally phone use wi-fi access points to connect to Internet routers which then utilize telephone lines, television cables, and dedicated Internet cable to transmit data.
> 
> You also missed in your own articles where people may possess more than one mobile connection, like having dedicated personal and work phones, keeping older phones after purchasing newer phones, or having a burner phone for privacy-related reasons.


Yeah, I know how internet infrastructure works. Yes, the article I posted said people have more than one phone. And number of phones is way over 100%. Obviously not everyone has two phones. Point of that was to illustrate that the percent ownership of phones with data is pretty high. I was told by a representative of the country there that smartphone ownership is over 90%.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Bitcoin exchanges and markets rely on developed internet infrastructure; a cellular network isn't going cut it.


No need for exchanges. Chino Valley has a built in one run by government, and you can use any of the foreign investment too. Markets need barely any internet infrastructure, since each transaction takes up only a few bites. Not much bigger than a VISA swipe. And backbone infrastructure doesn't need much either. Maybe a couple of megs every ten minutes. Basically the infrastructure requirement is very minimal for Bitcoin. It was designed to be that way. Yeah, a basic cellular network will be more than enough.



Miles Marsalis said:


> The major security concern with Bitcoin is the Bitcoin exchanges, which are easily hacked and the weak link in that particular system. There is a Bitcoin exchange hack or collapse approximately every month which makes the news and I remember time when in 2015 a third of exchanges had been hacked, which really put me off it. Anyone who knows anything about Bitcoin knows that leaving any money exposed on a Bitcoin exchange is risky.



There is the risk of that one Chivo Wallet exchange getting hacked. But since people in El Salvador don't trust government, they tend to look for other wallets to store their bitcoins on. Ones that don't use exchanges. Also that's a disgustingly gross exaggeration: exchanges do not get hacked every month. Once or twice a year we may hear about some tiny offshore one running into problems, but the big main ones are fine. Coinbase, Gemini, Bitstamp, Kraken, and other biggest ones have never been hacked, even though they've been around for many years. BitGo apparently runs the back end for Chivo (or at least the ATMs), and they've been around for I think over 5 years without a hack too.




Miles Marsalis said:


> A Comprehensive List of Cryptocurrency Exchange Hacks
> 
> 
> Hacks and data breaches happen on an almost daily basis. Cryptocurrency exchange hacks are particularly damaging because they typically affect thousands of users and involve the loss of funds. Here we provide an updated list of all major cryptocurrency exchange hacks.
> ...


This is actually a good example of what I was talking about. Besides Binance, the rest of those exchanges I've never even heard of. There tiny and irrelevant.



Miles Marsalis said:


> If you're a business and your profits in Bitcoin fall 17% because of a market dip, you're going to care.


Easy solution: don't hold Bitcoin. You won't be affected. Though if you understand it, then you won't care about a 17% drop because you've been holding it and had a 200% gain before. More and more people are learning that, and not caring about small drops. "Buy the dip" as they say.



Miles Marsalis said:


> That obvious thing I'm going to run with here is that money laundering accounts for a very small amounts of transactions conducted with traditional currencies and the financial system is well-equipped to deal with it when it arises. Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies experience a far higher rate of money laundering and tax evasion because the cryptocurrencies lend themselves well to clandestine criminal transactions and cryptocurrencies exchange don't adhere to the same strict reporting standards as the mainstream financial system in the developed world.


Money laundering, not at all. Bitcoin is just too risky to use for money laundering. I'm assuming you understand what money laundering is? Where you cover the source of your money by setting up a business and paying yourself, making it look like that business is the source of your money, not some other illicit activity? Imagine having to set up a Bitcoin business and claiming you're earning a lot of Bitcoin by paying yourself Bitcoin. Such a Bitcoin business alone will attract attention. But, yeah, you can look for the data yourself. Bitcoin money laundering is tiny. Cash and big banks are kings for that. Tax evasion? Absolutely. That's the whole point of it being sovereign currency. But, that doesn't apply to El Salvador. There's no tax on Bitcoin trades. It's just money there.
As for "strict reporting requirements in the developed world," that's not a thing. It's strict reporting requirements in hyper paranoid fascist USA that is terrified about terrorism, people moving large amounts of money without US tracking it (even if done by foreigners), and countries moving away from USD standard, especially for trading oil. US is f'in nuts with regards to what it demands and how it forces other countries to comply. And other countries really hate US for it. As they should. So fuck'em. As I said, with this, countries can finally fight against emperialist and fascism by being their own sovereign countries for a change.



Miles Marsalis said:


> I don't want to get too political here or stay from the core whether Bitcoin is a worthwhile investment, but I'd disagree that the United States is fascist empire and point out that El Salvador moved from the Colon to the US dollar because the US is hard currency and more stable. The US dollar doesn't fluctuate as wildly as Bitcoin and is negotiable virtually everywhere to point that even nations hostile to us keep a reserve of dollars to hedge against economic risk.



Unfortunately, in today's world, being neutral and independent (on money, speech, political opinions, etc) is itself a highly charged political position. Crazy, "I just want to leave people alone and be left alone" is an extremist idea... Yeah, El Salvador moved from Colon to USD, because USD was more stable currency. It's world reserve, usable almost everywhere in the world, with a huge economy to give it stability. And El Salvador still uses USD. That didn't change. Nobody is forced to use Bitcoin. But the legal ruling allows everyone to use Bitcoin if they want to, and it does force companies to figure out how to implement it for payments as well, which is definitely a plus. Our financial system is so obsolete it's just stupid at this point. I actually ran into its problem just this weekend. I need to make a $42,000 purchase, which was something that had to be paid that day. Problem is, it was a Saturday. I couldn't send a wire, banks are closed. Couldn't use my credit cards because I didn't have enough credit, and paying them down would only make them available Wednesday. Couldn't use a debit card, since my bank one has $5000 daily limit, and my Bitcoin linked one has $10,000 limit. You know what I had to do? Take an Uber to the local Office Depot, buy some check paper, find a printer I could hook up to at my hotel's business center, and print a check. A fucking check. Which the company policy allowed them to accept, but I'm not sure if my bank will even allow to clear. Say least it gave me a few days, so if that check fails, I can wire the money during the week. With Bitcoin I could've sent that money and they would've had it in 10 minutes. The whole "oh, it's volatile!" is such a minor issue compared to the benefits...

This is actually kinda sad. A country of only 6.8 million, that had 70% unbanked, has 1.6 million who are now banked, in just the first few weeks, and many more are joining, becoming banked for the first time in their lives. And one of local contacts there just told me that
"The activity at the Bitcoin ATMs in El Salvador is about 5x our most optimistic projections right now."
That's the 200 ATMs spread throughout the country, that people can now use instead of their banks or price gouging Western Union to get access to cash or deposit cash to make online purchases they never could before. This is wonderful news for some of the poorest of the world! 
And y'all are complaining about volatility and some exchanges being hacked *sigh* I'm the one people here accused of "not caring about the poor," but here I am helping a country of millions step into the 21st century, and donating materials to help educate a whole new generation of kids about money and investing so they can finally have a shot as a middle class future, and others here are just pissed off that something they were saying was going to fail years ago is continuing to grow.


----------



## Yakamaru (Sep 21, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I have long-term investments and a degree in Economics, which allows to talk about the economic aspects on Bitcoin, and one in Computer Science, which informs my technical perspective on Bitcoin and blockchain. I'm also the guy who had to explain to you why the gold standard is a horrible, so you trying to act I don't know what a long-term investment is rich.


I have traded Bitcoin and been paying attention to it for about a decade, so my experience and knowledge I would say is better than yours on this very topic. One's education and degrees are kind of pointless to point at in this day and age as most people have either or both. One can make up for a lack of education/degree(s) through experience and knowledge on a topic. We're not living in the 1800's anymore.

As for the gold standard, you can't just print money and hope the problem solves itself. Any economist worth a damn would be against just printing money as it causes inflation. Sure you will have more Dollars around, but they will per Dollar be worth less. Or is Venezuela a poor example of simply printing money hoping it solves the problem? Do they not teach about how inflation/deflation works in in the US during economics classes? Having something tangible and finite bound to your currency is extremely useful and kind of necessary.


Miles Marsalis said:


> Rassah, though I feel he is not acknowledging certain facts about Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, but I can't deny he has a degree in Finance and I admit he has storied career. PercyD also has the requisite experience to comment intelligently here, though you tried to disparage them.
> 
> You on the other hand have made mostly anecdotal comments about Bitcoin and made the intellectually lazy argument that communism is flawed, a point which the Cold War and current lack of command economies has proven better than you.


Communism isn't just flawed. It fails where ever it is attempted and is garbage through and through. But we're touching too much upon politics which isn't allowed here.


Miles Marsalis said:


> Furthermore, 10% loss isn't necessarily a sign to pull out of an investment, but most financial advisors and institutions would cut their losses well before 50% since they wouldn't want to be wedded to a loss that big on the supposition that it will rebound, hypothetically, some time in the future. Or could ask why you wouldn't sell and then repurchase at a lower price, in order to profit on a potential rise instead of riding out the loss, ignoring (of course) the volatility of Bitcoin.
> 
> Clearly that eluded you.


Bitcoin went from $60,000 down to $30,000 in the last dip. Did that deter investors? A couple, maybe. Anyone who have been trading in Bitcoin knows there will be ups and downs and sees them as opportunities. Be them average Joe investors(such as myself who don't invest that much into it but get a lot of returns regardless) or big-time investors, such as for instance Rassah here. Having as much as 0.01BTC(yes, you can buy as little as 0.00001BTC. Shocking, I know :> ) is still going to net you quite a bit of returns if you pay attention and don't panic sell. And lo and behold, it's climbing back up again to no one's surprise.

Long-term. As in a lot of time. A few months isn't really considered long-term, but couple of years however can and will be. As more and more people become aware of and interested in Bitcoin it's only going to expand from here. That is what I mean by long-term. Years, not months, not weeks, not days. Years.


Miles Marsalis said:


> So stow the condescension.


Flaunting your supposed education and degrees around for no reason as if you're some sort of authority on the matter? "I am educated and you're not, so shut up peasant". I would indeed called that condescending, so stop it please. It's making you look silly if anything.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 21, 2021)

I noticed this report on the e-waste from mining machines in the news today.









						Bitcoin mining producing tonnes of waste
					

Waste from the cryptocurrency process is similar to that from IT equipment somewhere like the Netherlands.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				





A lot of the responses in this thread end up being angry tirades of insults.
Personally, I feel a bit sorry looking on at people getting sucked into what really looks like tulip-mania (when people argue that something that's _meant_ to be a currency halving in value wouldn't worry them, I can't help but think that's something of a red flag), but it's their money, so they decide what level of risk they accept.

The energy use and waste production does affect everybody else though. So instead of anger and insults, I think the supporters of cryptocurrencies should try thinking of solutions to the problems associated with mining.

Imagine finding out that trading Pokémon cards produced as much landfill as a western european nation, for example. Whether or not you like Pokémon, something's gotta be done to solve that problem.
Currently each Bitcoin transaction is resulting in the equivalent of about two smart-phones of electronic waste. Obviously that's not sustainable or compatible with it ever being used as a currency to buy goods and services at scale.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Sep 21, 2021)

Yakamaru said:


> I have traded Bitcoin and been paying attention to it for about a decade, so my experience and knowledge I would say is better than yours on this very topic. One's education and degrees are kind of pointless to point at in this day and age as most people have either or both. One can make up for a lack of education/degree(s) through experience and knowledge on a topic. We're not living in the 1800's anymore.


Experience can make up for a lack of education, but you seem to be confused on several economic concepts and study to make up for that knowledge gap requires extensive reading. I'm skeptical you've done that reading considering you've admitted to only two books over a decade on here. I also don't know why you'd say degrees are pointless, especially in banking, since university education often provides the skills and the verification of those skills for employment in fields like computer science, medicine, law, and even education. You definitely need to degrees in higher education to participate in those fields and employers generally take university degrees as verification for someone having to skills to do the jobs they require and proof they can devote themselves to an area of study. There is also wage gap between those who do graduate from university and those who do not. 

More personally, I can speak with some authority on economics because it was one of my majors and I spent four years working towards it. I can also definitely cite the work of academic who certainly more experienced and distinguished in field and I think you are not in a position to question Nobel laureates like Paul Krugman on economic matters or Bitcoin.

So I don't know where you get off questioning university education and the US university educational system.

You keep bringing up Venezuela, but its hyperinflation crisis isn't really germane to profitability prospects of Bitcoin and the relative strength of the US dollar, which is backed by the full strength and credit of the US government as well as the robustness of US economy. The gold standard is unrealistic because of the lack of enough gold back the value of all the US dollars, how the rush to back currency with gold would cause vital shortages in the technology and jewelry industries, or the fact that the gold standard doesn't necessarily prevent inflation from happening, to name a few reasons. See the inflation that occurred after the California Gold Rush expanded the money supply but didn't correspond in tandem with an increase in economic input. There is also the Price Revolution, which provides an example with bimetallism.

Only people who don't understand economics advocate for the gold standard; it's considered fringe by most economists.


Yakamaru said:


> Communism isn't just flawed. It fails where ever it is attempted and is garbage through and through. But we're touching too much upon politics which isn't allowed here.


I mean, we're in agreement here, though I'd note that this has literally been most of what you've been arguing about with MechaMegs instead provided hard data about how profitable Bitcoin is, which at least Rassah tries to do. 


Yakamaru said:


> Bitcoin went from $60,000 down to $30,000 in the last dip. Did that deter investors? A couple, maybe. Anyone who have been trading in Bitcoin knows there will be ups and downs and sees them as opportunities. Be them average Joe investors(such as myself who don't invest that much into it but get a lot of returns regardless) or big-time investors, such as for instance Rassah here. Having as much as 0.01BTC(yes, you can buy as little as 0.00001BTC. Shocking, I know :> ) is still going to net you quite a bit of returns if you pay attention and don't panic sell. And lo and behold, it's climbing back up again to no one's surprise.
> 
> Long-term. As in a lot of time. A few months isn't really considered long-term, but couple of years however can and will be. As more and more people become aware of and interested in Bitcoin it's only going to expand from here. That is what I mean by long-term. Years, not months, not weeks, not days. Years.


Yeah, I know what long-term terms means, but you're not answering the question of why it wouldn't be wise to have a threshold to cut your losses and maybe buy back Bitcoin when it picks up again. Experienced, responsible investors tend to not ride out losses, but rather sell at a certain point when the stock price or Bitcoin price dips below a certain threshold and buy when the price is on the rise again. 

Why tie yourself to that loss if can you help it and keep some of your investment intact for when the market improves?

Also, Bitcoin faces major bans and regulation in China and India as well as increased regulatory scrutiny here in the States for financial reporting and taxation. It's not written in stone that Bitcoin will keep expanding, especially other cryptocurrencies, particularly government-backed cryptocurrencies, could outcompete Bitcoin and fix the existing flaws it has.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Sep 21, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Yeah, I know how internet infrastructure works. Yes, the article I posted said people have more than one phone. And number of phones is way over 100%. Obviously not everyone has two phones. Point of that was to illustrate that the percent ownership of phones with data is pretty high. I was told by a representative of the country there that smartphone ownership is over 90%.


I assuming you've done business before El Salvador, but I'm still going say that it may be wise to not accept the figures the rep gave you as gospel, especially since it conflicts with the report you provided here yesterday. The underlying issue here is that the internet infrastructure is going to underwrite both the mobile and Bitcoin transaction infrastructure and it seems as though El Salvador's government hasn't made those public investments yet, according to the report you provided. 


Rassah said:


> There is the risk of that one Chivo Wallet exchange getting hacked. But since people in El Salvador don't trust government, they tend to look for other wallets to store their bitcoins on. Ones that don't use exchanges. Also that's a disgustingly gross exaggeration: exchanges do not get hacked every month. Once or twice a year we may hear about some tiny offshore one running into problems, but the big main ones are fine. Coinbase, Gemini, Bitstamp, Kraken, and other biggest ones have never been hacked, even though they've been around for many years. BitGo apparently runs the back end for Chivo (or at least the ATMs), and they've been around for I think over 5 years without a hack too.


Just posting this as an entry level resource.

Cryptocurrency wallets are vulnerable as well too, though.

Also, I'm rolling some of my replies to your quotes for the sake of brevity, but Binance is the largest cryptocurrency exchange in the world. I think its nearest competitor has a trading volume of about a fifth of what of Binance has, so if Binance is has had security issues and they can afford the best cybersecurity with the business they do and yet are falling short, that doesn't bode well for the industry.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Sep 21, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Money laundering, not at all. Bitcoin is just too risky to use for money laundering. I'm assuming you understand what money laundering is? Where you cover the source of your money by setting up a business and paying yourself, making it look like that business is the source of your money, not some other illicit activity? Imagine having to set up a Bitcoin business and claiming you're earning a lot of Bitcoin by paying yourself Bitcoin. Such a Bitcoin business alone will attract attention. But, yeah, you can look for the data yourself. Bitcoin money laundering is tiny. Cash and big banks are kings for that. Tax evasion? Absolutely. That's the whole point of it being sovereign currency. But, that doesn't apply to El Salvador. There's no tax on Bitcoin trades. It's just money there.
> As for "strict reporting requirements in the developed world," that's not a thing. It's strict reporting requirements in hyper paranoid fascist USA that is terrified about terrorism, people moving large amounts of money without US tracking it (even if done by foreigners), and countries moving away from USD standard, especially for trading oil. US is f'in nuts with regards to what it demands and how it forces other countries to comply. And other countries really hate US for it. As they should. So fuck'em. As I said, with this, countries can finally fight against emperialist and fascism by being their own sovereign countries for a change.


I mean, this "fascist" country took you and your family in when you were fleeing communism and 9/11 was real thing, so maybe you mind want to tamp down the rhetoric, eh?

More on point, money laundering can and is done with Bitcoin since criminals can hold cryptocurrencies without divulging their identity, which allows them to move money through front and legitimate Bitcoin businesses to wash it and Bitcoin mixing makes the process even easier. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are used by criminal groups for payment methods in ransomware attacks because they can remain anonymous and cash out their ransom proceeds for hard currency. Major exchanges have also been complicit in this. 

"Elliptic estimates that between 2011 and 2019, major exchanges helped cash out between 60 per cent to 80 per cent of bitcoin transactions from known bad actors."


----------



## Rassah (Sep 21, 2021)

Someone is once again demonstrating his cluelessness on this subject by posting an article that uses Alex de Vries as a source  As I've showed before, anything that uses him as a source can and should be dismissed outright. When people wilfully ignore or dismiss information from experts in a field, they just come out looking dumb ("tulips"? Still? XD). Or worse, unknowingly end up supporting fascism and oppression of poor people in poor countries, despite claiming to support the opposite.
The reason he and people like him are getting anger and not solutions to the problems he brought up is because those problems don't exist in the first place.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Sep 21, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Someone is once again demonstrating his cluelessness on this subject by posting an article that uses Alex de Vries as a source  As I've showed before, anything that uses him as a source can and should be dismissed outright. When people wilfully ignore or dismiss information from experts in a field, they just come out looking dumb ("tulips"? Still? XD). Or worse, unknowingly end up supporting fascism and oppression of poor people in poor countries, despite claiming to support the opposite.
> The reason he and people like him are getting anger and not solutions to the problems he brought up is because those problems don't exist in the first place.


You're kind of disregarding that there are people here who know what they are talking about and are not markedly against Bitcoin, but still have serious reservations about Bitcoin's future and sustainability. 

Without getting too political, and we shouldn't be since we're talking about the nature and profitability of Bitcoin and politics should not factor into investment decisions except in terms of risk assessment, Nayib Bukele pushed the Bitcoin Law through against wishes of almost 70% of the public and was responsible for intimidating his legislature over increasing his security powers and funding by sending in armed soldiers during their vote, an event which most in the international community called an attempt coup. 

Perhaps you are not on the side of angels here, Rassah.

That aside, your experience with the technology side of the Bitcoin industry should tell you that Bitcoin mining is computing-intensive and the hardware used for it has a finite lifespan before it needs to be replaced. 1.29 years isn't far-fetched when you consider that 3 to 5 years is the normal replacement for server hardware for far less computing-intensive work. And we're not even talking about obsolescence and the fact that legitimate financial institutions often every 2 years keep an edge. So this really shouldn't be unbelievable to you, given your experience. 

Bitcoin mining generates of a lot of e-waste and all of that e-waste isn't recyclable. 

Also, remember that the e-waste isn't the only problem, but the increase needed in manufacturing supply to meet the added demand for Bitcoin mining for hundreds of thousands graphics cards and other computing hardware means addition resources need to be procured. That means these resources need to be sourced and mined. 

GPUs are mainly silicon, but also contain tiny amounts of copper, gold, silver, platinum, irridium, and other rare earth elements. 

If you know anything about mining and I feel you do, mining raw metals is pretty much the dirtiest major industry out there.  Even worse, not all of the metals get recovered as not all of it gets recycled, and even the ones that do, bear in mind that recycling electronics often means burning the electronics and having small children sift through the incredibly toxic garbage.  Then there's the issue that much of these metals are finite, hence the name rare earth metals, and that using up all of the rubidium we have on crunching fake numbers for Bitcoin mining could be a real problem in the future.


----------



## TyraWadman (Sep 21, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> GPUs are mainly silicon, but also contain tiny amounts of copper, gold, silver, platinum, irridium, and other rare earth elements.


Isn't Cobalt one of them? It rings a bell.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Sep 21, 2021)

TyraWadman said:


> Isn't Cobalt one of them? It rings a bell.


This is something my ex or Fallowfox would know better, but while cobalt is rare, it's not a rare earth metal. However, it's extremely important to technological manufacturing and sourcing new mines is something that would find investment. There have also been low-intensity conflicts over mines as well.


----------



## Rassah (Sep 21, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> There is also wage gap between those who do graduate from university and those who do not.


Those with history, English, communication, and even accounting degree earn $30k. Apprenticeship jobs in HVAC, plumbing, and construction earn $60k and up. It's relative. Some universities also suck. And you can tell that finance degrees are insufficient, because a majority of bankers still don't understand Bitcoin simply because they don't understand what money is.



Miles Marsalis said:


> I think you are not in a position to question Nobel laureates like Paul Krugman on economic matters or Bitcoin.


Yaka might not be but I am. Krugman is an idiot. A celebrity who even has entire economic blogs dedicated to debunking him. I started to realize how and why he was wrong before I even finished by bachelor's. He's even more clueless when it comes to Bitcoin. 



Miles Marsalis said:


> You keep bringing up Venezuela, but its hyperinflation crisis isn't really germane to profitability prospects of Bitcoin and the relative strength of the US dollar, which is backed by the full strength and credit of the US government as well as the robustness of US economy.


Bolivar was backed by the full faith and credit if the richest country in South America, as well as its robust economy. US economy is on an irreversible downward trend, and faith in its credit is waning around the world (foreign countries continue to dump it). Especially with all the newly printed trillions. At this point it's just a matter of time. The reason so many people are bringing up Venezuela is because US is making the same economic mistakes that caused Venezuela to fall.




Miles Marsalis said:


> The gold standard is unrealistic because of the lack of enough gold back the value of all the US dollars.


This is dumb and you with your econ degree should know better. You know that the value of everything is relative. If we went to the gold standard, the value of gold will simply rise to meet demand. I heard the claim that "Bitcoin can't replace the dollar because there are only 21 million bitcoins for everyone" too, but Bitcoin is very divisible, and so is gold.



Miles Marsalis said:


> gold standard doesn't necessarily prevent inflation from happening, to name a few reasons. See the inflation that occurred after the California Gold Rush expanded the money supply


Yeah, that's why Bitcoin is considered a superior currency even to gold.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Only people who don't understand economics advocate for the gold standard;


This is false too. Only people who subscribe to the flawed Keynesian theory and the things that were based on it are against the gold standard. Keynes's theory ended up shown to be flawed, so we ended up with almost a century of economic hand wringing to try to fix it and make it "fit" the desired outcome, which is largely what "modern economic theory" is about. But it's a theory that gives governments the excuse to print money for themselves and enrich those at the top, so obviously it's the one that those at the top will push the most. People who understand economics and know the centuries of history of money obviously still support a fixed money supply, like gold.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Yeah, I know what long-term terms means, but you're not answering the question of why it wouldn't be wise to have a threshold to cut your losses and maybe buy back Bitcoin when it picks up again.


Two reasons: 
1) You can't predict the market.
2) It's a technology that is going through adoption, not just plain business growth. So it's impossible to tell which rise up in price is just another bell curve where it will come back down, and which one is it surpassing some threshold where it completes the S curve and simply plateaus. Or even replaces the currency you "cash out" into, making your "cash out" quickly become worthless. 
Only thing we know is that it will reach that level of adoption eventually, so you might as well just hold.




Miles Marsalis said:


> Experienced, responsible investors tend to not ride out losses, but rather sell at a certain point when the stock price or Bitcoin price dips below a certain threshold and buy when the price is on the rise again.


That's day traders or technical investors. 75% of those fail to even keep up with the market. Actual experienced investors, like Buffet and large institutions and investment banks, buy based on the fundamentals of the investment, and ignore the short term price movements. Aside from Buffet, that's what those large institutions and investment banks (and even some foreign pension plans and foreign governments) are doing now, just buying and holding.
Please don't trade stocks by trying to time tops and bottoms. You'll lose so badly...




Miles Marsalis said:


> Also, Bitcoin faces major bans and regulation in China and India as well as increased regulatory scrutiny here in the States for financial reporting and taxation.


That's fine. That's a loss for China, India, and US, not for Bitcoin or those who use and invest in it. China banned most of the internet. Who is hurt, those around the world using the internet, or Chinese?




Miles Marsalis said:


> It's not written in stone that Bitcoin will keep expanding, especially other cryptocurrencies, particularly government-backed cryptocurrencies, could outcompete Bitcoin and fix the existing flaws it has.


Government-backed cryptocurrencies can't compete. They're not different from government digital currencies we all use today, so they have no competitive advantage over Bitcoin. Those other copycat cryptos don't either. If your interested in economics, economic history of money, and how that relates to Bitcoin and its guaranteed takeover, I can recommend a fascinating book.


----------



## Rassah (Sep 21, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> it may be wise to not accept the figures the rep gave you as gospel,


It was a government rep in charge of communications. He would know.



Miles Marsalis said:


> especially since it conflicts with the report you provided here yesterday.


It doesn't conflict. The report says 150% connected cell phone usage. Even if every single person who owned a cell phone owned two, that's 75% of people connected. Obviously most people own just one (they're not that rich there). It also says 66% of the population has social media. Not everyone has social media accounts either. Mostly it's just for email. Either way it's higher than the 33% you claimed, and I would rather believe the guy who is in charge of tracking these stats for his 90% number.



Miles Marsalis said:


> The underlying issue here is that the internet infrastructure is going to underwrite both the mobile and Bitcoin transaction infrastructure and it seems as though El Salvador's government hasn't made those public investments yet, according to the report you provided.


As I said, Bitcoin requires minimal infrastructure. Theirs is more than sufficient. And if it's not, they just continue to use paper today cash until things improve. It's not an issue.
Actually, now that I think about it, there's an incentive for foreigners to come in and expand their internet infrastructure further. Those Chivo ATMs were created and rolled out by foreign company, so they would have an incentive to set up a better internet connection, and even provide free wifi access to those who want to use them.




Miles Marsalis said:


> Just posting this as an entry level resource.



If you wish to know how Bitcoin or its various applications can be hacked, just ask me, don't @ me with stupid articles. In short, Bitcoin can't be hacked, but computers and phones that store it can. That doesn't mean Bitcoin has a security flaw. If your computer or phone is hacked, hackers can just as easily steal your banking and identity info and empty your banks too. But nobody seems to claim "the dollar can be hacked"...



Miles Marsalis said:


> Cryptocurrency wallets are vulnerable as well too, though.



Not very. Over the last decade we have hardened them quite a bit. There's also the risk/reward issue. Hackers hacking a bank may spend thousands of dollars to steal hundreds of millions. But hackers spending thousands to hack a wallet may get a few hundred. When money is distributed among so many individuals, it gets rid of the large "honeypot" incentive. Then there's also hardware wallets which are unhackable because they never even connect to the internet...



Miles Marsalis said:


> Also, I'm rolling some of my replies to your quotes for the sake of brevity, but Binance is the largest cryptocurrency exchange in the world. I think its nearest competitor has a trading volume of about a fifth of what of Binance has, so if Binance is has had security issues and they can afford the best cybersecurity with the business they do and yet are falling short, that doesn't bode well for the industry.


I didn't know Binance was the largest. I think that may be due to their use of Tether stablecoin, that they're also getting in trouble for. They're certainly not one that all the big business and investors use or trust. But that they're biggest also means they have more insurance to cover losses too. Incidentally, that's been a thing for years now too. Like FDIC you have in banks, large crypto exchanges are also insured.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Sep 21, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Those with history, English, communication, and even accounting degree earn $30k. Apprenticeship jobs in HVAC, plumbing, and construction earn $60k and up. It's relative. Some universities also suck. And you can tell that finance degrees are insufficient, because a majority of bankers still don't understand Bitcoin simply because they don't understand what money is.


This kind of a canard, since knowing economics, you should know the correct way to phrase frame the wage gap is among people in the same profession and same industry, college graduates tend to make more than those without college degrees, partly because those with degrees have potentially more mobility in the company and college debt to pay off. Trade school and apprentice opportunities are often mentioned as substitutes to a college education and those graduates often make more those who did not go through those programs, provided those who did not can get licensed.

The reason a majority of bankers haven't jumped on the Bitcoin bandwagon because there is still significant concern about the long-term prospects of the industry and Bitcoin is less regulated than the legitimate financial system with far less safeguards.


Rassah said:


> Yaka might not be but I am. Krugman is an idiot. A celebrity who even has entire economic blogs dedicated to debunking him. I started to realize how and why he was wrong before I even finished by bachelor's. He's even more clueless when it comes to Bitcoin.


Yakamaru definitely isn't, but Paul Krugman is literally won the Nobel Prize in Economics. I don't want to minimize your accomplishments, but I'm going go with vast majority of economists out there and say he has more authority on economics and Bitcoin's future than you.

His body of work and career speaks for itself.


Rassah said:


> Bolivar was backed by the full faith and credit if the richest country in South America, as well as its robust economy. US economy is on an irreversible downward trend, and faith in its credit is waning around the world (foreign countries continue to dump it). Especially with all the newly printed trillions. At this point it's just a matter of time. The reason so many people are bringing up Venezuela is because US is making the same economic mistakes that caused Venezuela to fall.


The US has a diversified economy and its currency is traded and held in reserve around the world by countries to hedge against economic and financial risk.

Venezuela's economy was primarily dependent on oil exports and the US as its largest partner. Since US energy industry has significantly lessened the need for Venezuelan oil exports and there are strained diplomatic relations and sanctions between our two governments, the Venezuelan economy has taken a serious hit, though its has been in decline for awhile. Add the expropriation and mismanagement of nationalized assets in the country and the hyperinflation the Chavez and Maduro administrations created and you have the mess Venezuela is currently in.

As for the irreversible downward you referencing, this summer the Dow Jones hit its highest point.









						Dow Jones Industrial Average Price, Real-time Quote & News - Google Finance
					

Get the latest Dow Jones Industrial Average (.DJI) value, historical performance, charts, and other financial information to help you make more informed trading and investment decisions.




					www.google.com
				




This is during an ongoing pandemic.

The long-term is in our favor.



Rassah said:


> This is false too. Only people who subscribe to the flawed Keynesian theory and the things that were based on it are against the gold standard. Keynes's theory ended up shown to be flawed, so we ended up with almost a century of economic hand wringing to try to fix it and make it "fit" the desired outcome, which is largely what "modern economic theory" is about. But it's a theory that gives governments the excuse to print money for themselves and enrich those at the top, so obviously it's the one that those at the top will push the most. People who understand economics and know the centuries of history of money obviously still support a fixed money supply, like gold.


I mean, I can only say you are lying about the field because the vast majority of economists, whether they supply-side or Keynesian economists, recognize the Austrian school as an fringe or heterodox school of economic thought.

Like, this isn't just me saying this; it's accepted consensus.

Furthermore, Milton Friedman, ironically for the libertarians out there, argued that the gold standard was a major factor in causing the Great Depression, contributing to the contraction of the money supply in 1929-1933. Friedman's argument is now conventional wisdom among economists and historians across a variety of schools of thought, though there is minor disagreement on just how big a role gold played in the Depression.

You're misrepresenting our field.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Sep 21, 2021)

Rassah said:


> This is dumb and you with your econ degree should know better. You know that the value of everything is relative. If we went to the gold standard, the value of gold will simply rise to meet demand. I heard the claim that "Bitcoin can't replace the dollar because there are only 21 million bitcoins for everyone" too, but Bitcoin is very divisible, and so is gold.


In our last talk about this, I explained that the largest problem in returning to the gold standard is that there is not enough gold in the world to cover the quantity of currency presently in existence. To put it another way, even if the US were somehow able to purchase the world's entire gold stocks, which is an impossible, there would still be nowhere near enough gold to cover the total value of dollars in existence. It is estimated that the total amount of gold that has been mined in the world is equal to about 142,000 metric tons. Assuming a price of $50,000 per kilogram, corresponding to around $1550 per troy ounce, that equals about 7 trillion dollars, which you know is not enough to cover all circulating money and deposits in the United States, let alone the entire world. A return to the gold standard would require a massive devaluation of the US dollar, which in turn in the exact scenario advocates of returning to the golden standard are trying to prevent. 

Remember this only applies to the US. If all the world's other countries were simultaneously trying to do the same thing as us then this problem would be even worse. In addition, if the US were to follow the policy of buying the world's gold as outlined above then a large number of the actual dollars would have ended up overseas and the US would have the metal.  Presumably, the US would then have to create more dollars for internal use, which would definitely not be a counter-inflationary policy. 

To put a cherry on top of this, consider that gold has gained several industrial uses in the last century that we didn't have to contend with before, particularly in the tech industry and some medical uses, as well as traditional uses in jewelry. The ensuing hyper-deflation of a return to the gold standard would collapse the jewelry industry and the tech industry as the extensive use of gold interconnects in chip packaging would send component prices through the roof. 

But you should know this.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Sep 21, 2021)

Rassah said:


> I didn't know Binance was the largest. I think that may be due to their use of Tether stablecoin, that they're also getting in trouble for. They're certainly not one that all the big business and investors use or trust. But that they're biggest also means they have more insurance to cover losses too. Incidentally, that's been a thing for years now too. Like FDIC you have in banks, large crypto exchanges are also insured.


The FDIC insures denominations in US dollars, not Bitcoin, so if your wallet and exchange is hacked, which I've been saying repeatedly are the vulnerabilities in the Bitcoin transaction infrastructure, you're out that money. 

That being said, how do you not know they are the largest exchange? You work in the industry and it's common knowledge among those in financial industry that Binance dominates the exchange.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Sep 21, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Two reasons:
> 1) You can't predict the market.
> 2) It's a technology that is going through adoption, not just plain business growth. So it's impossible to tell which rise up in price is just another bell curve where it will come back down, and which one is it surpassing some threshold where it completes the S curve and simply plateaus. Or even replaces the currency you "cash out" into, making your "cash out" quickly become worthless.
> Only thing we know is that it will reach that level of adoption eventually, so you might as well just hold.


1.) It's less about predicting the market and more planning out ahead of time what the maximum amount of loss you're willing to tolerate is. You don't necessarily have to repurchase the stock if seem to be on the rise, but you can definitely take precautions to keep from losing too much; this is why we have orders on exchanges. 

2.) Again, you can decide what price threshold you will sell at if the price of Bitcoin plunges below in order to keep losses acceptable. There are also plenty of technologies that failed to catch on and even if cryptocurrencies catch on, there is no guarantee that Bitcoin will be most viable cryptocurrency in a world with government-backed cryptocurrencies, particularly US- and EU-issued ones.


Rassah said:


> That's day traders or technical investors. 75% of those fail to even keep up with the market. Actual experienced investors, like Buffet and large institutions and investment banks, buy based on the fundamentals of the investment, and ignore the short term price movements. Aside from Buffet, that's what those large institutions and investment banks (and even some foreign pension plans and foreign governments) are doing now, just buying and holding.
> Please don't trade stocks by trying to time tops and bottoms. You'll lose so badly...


There is a different between large individual and institutional investors who can ride out and afford to lose in market instabilities and most investors who rather not lose that money and maintain some liquidity. I would say that it is smart regularly determine how much of your investment and profit you are willing to lose if the stock price goes down. I'm less concerned about losing out on further profit if I pull my money out early and stock price rises than if I keep my money in and lose a significant portion of my investment. 

I believe in cautious investment.


----------



## Rassah (Sep 21, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I mean, this "fascist" country took you and your family in when you were fleeing communism and 9/11 was real thing, so maybe you mind want to tamp down the rhetoric, eh?


Sure. And then it changed. Countries do that. It used 9/11 as an excuse to expand actual fascism, with domestic spying, propaganda and misinformation campaigns, etc. At this point the Soviet "if you suspect your friends and family of being enemies of the state, please report on them to the KGB" is a thing that is being pushed here too. So I and others are running because we know what comes next.



Miles Marsalis said:


> More on point, money laundering can and is done with Bitcoin since criminals can hold cryptocurrencies without divulging their identity, which allows them to move money through front and legitimate Bitcoin businesses to wash it and Bitcoin mixing makes the process even easier.


Technically that's more concealing, but that's good. Governments have no business spying on people's personal finances. Still, as I said, Bitcoin accounts for I think something like 3% of criminal activity.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are used by criminal groups for payment methods in ransomware attacks because they can remain anonymous and cash out their ransom proceeds for hard currency. Major exchanges have also been complicit in this.


Ransomers also take wires and money orders. And as you probably saw, one of those ransom payments was largely recovered because that Bitcoin transaction ended up being tracked to an exchange.


Miles Marsalis said:


> You're kind of disregarding that there are people here who know what they are talking about and are not markedly against Bitcoin, but still have serious reservations about Bitcoin's future and sustainability.


Not with regards to him. He doesn't know shit. He's still comparing it to a tulip bubble ROFL!



Miles Marsalis said:


> Without getting too political, ..., Nayib Bukele pushed the Bitcoin Law through against wishes of almost 70% of the public ...



Bitcoin is by its nature political, because it's a technology that resists political force - financial censorship - just like internet itself is political, because it circumvents censorship of speech. Resisting oppression has always been a political thing.
With Bukele, as I said it's a complicated situation. While what you said is true and is troubling, you have to consider it against the backdrop that the government he took over was one of the most corrupt governments in Latin America, in a country with one of the highest crime rates in the world, with those corrupt people in power fighting very hard to stay in power. And what he did with regards to bitcoin is effectively to force an option of financial freedom on people, which is the opposite of a dictatorial move.
As the people I talked to there said, it's concerning, but it's something we have to wait and see where it goes.


Miles Marsalis said:


> Bitcoin mining is computing-intensive and the hardware used for it has a finite lifespan before it needs to be replaced. 1.29 years isn't far-fetched


Average miner lasts about 3 years. 


Miles Marsalis said:


> Bitcoin mining generates of a lot of e-waste and all of that e-waste isn't recyclable.


Relatively not that much actually. Smartphones, and data centers we use for useless videos and social media posts, and most other things we just take for granted make even more. Only reason people are upset is because they don't understand the value that Bitcoin mining provides.


Miles Marsalis said:


> the added demand for Bitcoin mining for hundreds of thousands graphics cards and other computing hardware means addition resources need to be procured.


Bitcoin doesn't use GPUs at all.  Miners use basic chips for ASICs and whatever goes into regular servers to manage them. 



Miles Marsalis said:


> Then there's the issue that much of these metals are finite, hence the name rare earth metals, and that using up all of the rubidium we have on crunching fake numbers for Bitcoin mining could be a real problem in the future.


It's not fake numbers, it's a very valuable service to secure literally billions in wealth and trillions of dollars a month in transactions on a global financial system. 



Miles Marsalis said:


> The reason a majority of bankers haven't jumped on the Bitcoin bandwagon because there is still significant concern about the long-term prospects of the industry and Bitcoin is less regulated than the legitimate financial system with far less safeguards.



No, it's because, based on what they are saying, it seems that the majority of bankers genuinely, and ironically, don't understand money: its purpose of and its core aspects. They just understand how to move money around and how to lend and manage it. That's it.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Yakamaru definitely isn't, but Paul Krugman is literally won the Nobel Prize in Economics. I don't want to minimize your accomplishments, but I'm going go with vast majority of economists out there and say he has more authority on economics and Bitcoin's future than you.


He did win. A long time ago. In an unrelated field. And he's been terribly wrong about lots of things since. He still believes the ridiculous "broken windows" fallacy.  He's a great example of what happens when someone is praised too much, gets too big of a head, and stops learning. He's a joke to those who aren't starstruck by his celebrity.
Feel free to go with the vast majority of economists who have zero education in money and Bitcoin, but it's basically like going with the majority opinion of dentists when you're looking for advice on cancer. You're not listening to those who specialize on the topic, just to those who have a general understanding of something tangentially related. Few economists go beyond basic school education to learn economic history and money, and there's lots of incentives for them NOT to.



Miles Marsalis said:


> The US has a diversified economy and its currency is traded and held in reserve around the world by countries to hedge against economic and financial risk.


And US economy is dying, with indistries diversifying overseas. The reserve status is dying too, with foreign countries dumping dollars and treasuries, and trying to switch to other currencies, much to the ire of US and its military. That's what El Salvador and a few other Latin countries are doing with their attempt to switch to Bitcoin. As countries stop being afraid of US's military and oppression, they're getting more bold in attempting to throw the dollar chains off.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Venezuela's economy was primarily dependent on oil exports and the US as its largest partner. Since US energy industry has significantly lessened the need for Venezuelan oil exports and there are strained diplomatic relations and sanctions between our two governments, ........


You pretty much missed the entire reason sanctions were eventually imposed, why inflation happened, why things ended up in the hands of those who mismanaged them, and why wealth left the country causing the final she total collapse. Since you don't know, you wouldn't know what that has to do with US economic trends.




Miles Marsalis said:


> As for the irreversible downward you referencing, this summer the Dow Jones hit its highest point.
> 
> This is during an ongoing pandemic.
> 
> The long-term is in our favor.


Yeah, that's NOT a good signal, that's a BAD signal. That's a loss in confidence in the dollar, and it's a huge risk for the market. Watch this when you have a chance 







Miles Marsalis said:


> I mean, I can only say you are lying about the field because the vast majority of economists, whether they supply-side or Keynesian economists, recognize the Austrian school as an fringe or heterodox school of economic though.


You mean the vast majority of economists who are trained by the "let us print more money" government schools agree that money supply should not be fixed. 
It's funny that the Austrian school is considered "fringe" when it, or its tenents, have been the main school of economic thought all throughout human history right up until Keynes came up with his cooky ideas just a century ago, started a new school, and then started to call everyone else "fringe." And Austrian school isn't the only group that favors sound monetary policy and rejects economic central planning. 



Miles Marsalis said:


> Furthermore, Milton Friedman, ironically for the libertarians out there, argued that the gold standard was a major factor in causing the Great Depression,


Milton Friedman is irrelevant, was wrong, and is even considered a strawman. Someone who is supposed to represent opposition, for the "mainstream" to attack, even though he didn't retirement opposition. He's not the main Austrian or the main counter to Keynesianism. He was wrong on the Great Depression too, as are many "popular" economic ideas about it.


----------



## Rassah (Sep 21, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> In our last talk about this, I explained that the largest problem in returning to the gold standard is that there is not enough gold in the world to cover the quantity of currency presently in existence. To put it another way, even if the US were somehow able to purchase the world's entire gold stocks, which is an impossible, there would still be nowhere near enough gold to cover the total value of dollars in existence. It is estimated that the total amount of gold that has been mined in the world is equal to about 142,000 metric tons. Assuming a price of $50,000 per kilogram, corresponding to around $1550 per troy ounce, that equals about 7 trillion dollars, which you know is not enough to cover all circulating money and deposits in the United States, let alone the entire world. A return to the gold standard would require a massive devaluation of the US dollar, which in turn in the exact scenario advocates of returning to the golden standard are trying to prevent.
> 
> Remember this only applies to the US. If all the world's other countries were simultaneously trying to do the same thing as us then this problem would be even worse. In addition, if the US were to follow the policy of buying the world's gold as outlined above then a large number of the actual dollars would have ended up overseas and the US would have the metal.  Presumably, the US would then have to create more dollars for internal use, which would definitely not be a counter-inflationary policy.
> 
> ...


Seriously, why are you not able to wrap your head around this? "Assuming a price of $50,000 per kilogram, corresponding to around $1550 per troy ounce," what will happen is that as dollars are bought up to back the new US dollar gold reserve currency, that $1550 per troy ounce will climb to $2000, $20,000, $200,000, and up, to whatever value an ounce of gold would have to be to cover the entire worth of all the dollars. If there were only 50 ounces of gold in the entire world, and all of the US dollars in circulation were worth $200 trillion, that would just mean that each ounce of gold would end up being worth $4 trillion. The price of gold isn't fixed, value is relative to something else. True, it wouldn't be possible to just take the current worthless paper and claim it's backed by gold. The treasury would have to release new paper that corresponds to a fixed amount of gold, likely a tiny fraction of an ounce. But as the treasury keeps buying up gold to issue more and more of these new gold backed dollars, the value of that gold will simply go up, to the point that it can encompass the value of the entire us dollar base, with the value of gold backed dollars going up as well. Which is fine, since we can just use dollars that represent ever smaller fractions of ounces of gold. Hell, you can run the entire world's economy on just a single ounce of gold if you just subdivide it enough.
In short, yes, it would be logistically difficult, but the problem of "there's not enough gold" is non-existent in a world where all values are relative. And, thankfully, that's not even necessary anymore. People are voluntarily switching from unbacked inflationary fiat to hard money asset currency. One that WILL cause a massive devaluation of the dollar, but that at least doesn't have any secondary uses like industrial ones that can mess with its valuation.


----------



## Rassah (Sep 21, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> The FDIC insures denominations in US dollars, not Bitcoin, so if your wallet and exchange is hacked, which I've been saying repeatedly are the vulnerabilities in the Bitcoin transaction infrastructure, you're out that money.
> 
> That being said, how do you not know they are the largest exchange? You work in the industry and it's common knowledge among those in financial industry that Binance dominates the exchange.



Bitcoin exchanges don't use FDIC. They use their own insurance. So if you lose 10 Bitcoin, you will get 10 Bitcoin, unless insurance takes too long to pay out during a period when Bitcoin goes up too rapidly and the exchange takes too long to buy that Bitcoin back.

I did not know they're the largest exchange because they're not the ones that large investors, institutions, and businesses use, and because, as I said, they have a reputation of "not to be trusted," so most people I know avoid them. Also I deal with Bitcoin, not "shitcoins," Binance seems to mostly deal in shitcoins, including Tether, and I guess I didn't realize jost how big the shitcoin market got in the last year. If you want to deal with Bitcoin, I still recommend Gemini, Kraken, Bitstamp, Coinbase (pro), or a few others, NOT Binance. Binance is so bad that apparently it's not even used as a source of current Bitcoin prices for things that need them. (Like price tracking apps, Bitcoin ATMs, etc).


----------



## Rassah (Sep 21, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> 1.) It's less about predicting the market and more planning out ahead of time what the maximum amount of loss you're willing to tolerate is. You don't necessarily have to repurchase the stock if seem to be on the rise, but you can definitely take precautions to keep from losing too much; this is why we have orders on exchanges.


One of the people in my Bitcoin Furs telegram group thought that way. He put in a stop loss order at $30,000, so that if Bitcoin touches that price, he automatically sells to limit the "maximum amount of loss" as you say. Bitcoin "flash crashed" touching $30,000, liquidating his positions, and then bounced right back to $35,000, before continuing to climb back to $40,000. Needless to say, he's not doing that anymore. I had a similar situation when Bitcoin crashed to $3600 last year before popping back up. So even though it sounds like a good idea - Just sell if it gets too low to limit your loses - in practice it's still gambling that can lose you money.




Miles Marsalis said:


> 2.) Again, you can decide what price threshold you will sell at if the price of Bitcoin plunges below in order to keep losses acceptable. There are also plenty of technologies that failed to catch on and even if cryptocurrencies catch on, there is no guarantee that Bitcoin will be most viable cryptocurrency in a world with government-backed cryptocurrencies, particularly US- and EU-issued ones.


Again, government backed currencies have a MASSIVE MAJOR HUGE INSURMOUNTABLE FLAW that Bitcoin solves, which is a large part of what gives Bitcoin all of its value: it's not government-backed. How can a government-backes currency solve the issue of government-backing? Until someone figures that out, Bitcoin is not threatened by those.



Miles Marsalis said:


> There is a different between large individual and institutional investors who can ride out and afford to lose in market instabilities and most investors who rather not lose that money and maintain some liquidity.


Yep. We call them "institutional investors" and "retail investors." Used to be that retain investors dominated. As of a year ago, institutional investors dominate, and dwarf retail investors. If retail investors are smart, they would keep their money in Bitcoin same as institutional investors, knowing that institutional ones aren't going to just dump it every time it dips. As for liquidity, if you want liquidity, holding bitcoin is your best option. Dollars in a bank account aren't as liquid as Bitcoin.




Miles Marsalis said:


> I would say that it is smart regularly determine how much of your investment and profit you are willing to lose if the stock price goes down. I'm less concerned about losing out on further profit if I pull my money out early and stock price rises than if I keep my money in and lose a significant portion of my investment.
> 
> I believe in cautious investment.



You're conflating an investment that involves "taking a risk to earn a profit," with an investment of "hedging risk in one vs hedging risk in another." In other words, you're not trying to earn wealth by risking USD to buy Bitcoin, you're picking a place to store wealth to minimize loss of that wealth. Like, people don't buy gold because they think it will make them rich, they buy it because they think keeping it in dollars will lose their wealth. It just happens that dollars have fallen tremendously compared to Bitcoin.
I believe in cautious investment too. That's why I'm almost 100% in Bitcoin. Stocks and dollars are just way too much of a risk.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 22, 2021)

Something like 15% of the posts in this thread are a user attempting to evade a block I put in place on them. 
Continue discussing the subjects by all means, but like, this is the seventh or eighth time and it is getting silly. 

Personally I think this thread has deviated way into 'pointless political discussion' territory anyway, because people are already accusing one another of promoting fascism.


----------



## Rassah (Sep 24, 2021)

For anyone still pushing articles based on Alex de Vries's Digiconomist garbage, or freaking out about energy usage warnings based on his claims:

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1441037322980560899


----------



## pilgrimfromoblivion (Sep 24, 2021)

So is the whole thing about China making crypto illegal true?


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2021)

pilgrimfromoblivion said:


> So is the whole thing about China making crypto illegal true?


Yes, that's true. 








						China declares all crypto-currency transactions illegal
					

Trading Bitcoin and other crypto-currenices is a criminal activity, China's central bank says.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				




digital 'mining' activities used to be most concentrated in China, but recently they have migrated to countries such as Kazakhstan and the Unites States.


----------



## pilgrimfromoblivion (Sep 24, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> Yes, that's true.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah. This is most likely gonna be a hit for Bitcoin value. Well, Bitcoin investors sure are optimistic, if nothing else.


----------



## Yakamaru (Sep 24, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> Yes, that's true.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This coming from a country that rations toilet paper and have limited video game time to 3 hours a week. Welcome to the most Totalitarian place on Earth. I wouldn't take cues from this shitty country even if you paid me.


----------



## MechaMegs (Sep 24, 2021)

Down 10k in half a month. I would be so happy to have something that volatile as my currency


----------



## DemonHazardDeer (Sep 25, 2021)

I know know what it is, but don't have, let's say, a very positive opinion on cryptocurrencies personally.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 25, 2021)

Yakamaru said:


> This coming from a country that rations toilet paper and have limited video game time to 3 hours a week. Welcome to the most Totalitarian place on Earth. I wouldn't take cues from this shitty country even if you paid me.



I agree that China's decisions here are poor; I'm not endorsing their approach.


----------



## Yakamaru (Sep 25, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> I agree that China's decisions here are poor; I'm not endorsing their approach.


Aye, glad we agree. The miners will simply move elsewhere. China is banning things left and right and is a clear sign of a nation in decline.


----------



## Yakamaru (Sep 25, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Yeah, I know what long-term terms means, but you're not answering the question of why it wouldn't be wise to have a threshold to cut your losses and maybe buy back Bitcoin when it picks up again. Experienced, responsible investors tend to not ride out losses, but rather sell at a certain point when the stock price or Bitcoin price dips below a certain threshold and buy when the price is on the rise again.
> 
> Why tie yourself to that loss if can you help it and keep some of your investment intact for when the market improves?


But that's the thing now isn't it? It's not an actual loss unless you sell your Bitcoin in a FIAT currency. You have the exact same amount of Bitcoin. The only difference is the FIAT currency variations of which will go up and down. Having 2 Bitcoin is having 2 Bitcoin. Its value in FIAT is completely relative and will change day to day.

Having $10,000USD is having $10,000USD regardless of how much those Dollars are worth. They are not going to move from your account unless you personally do so.


Miles Marsalis said:


> Experience can make up for a lack of education, but you seem to be confused on several economic concepts and study to make up for that knowledge gap requires extensive reading. I'm skeptical you've done that reading considering you've admitted to only two books over a decade on here. I also don't know why you'd say degrees are pointless, especially in banking, since university education often provides the skills and the verification of those skills for employment in fields like computer science, medicine, law, and even education. You definitely need to degrees in higher education to participate in those fields and employers generally take university degrees as verification for someone having to skills to do the jobs they require and proof they can devote themselves to an area of study.


Confused? Or have a different perspective than you? You're confusing being in disagreement with you with lack of knowledge my man. Recommend you separate the two.


Miles Marsalis said:


> There is also wage gap between those who do graduate from university and those who do not.


There is indeed a gap. Is this a problem, considering you mentioned it?

Different jobs nets you a different income, this should come without saying.


Miles Marsalis said:


> More personally, I can speak with some authority on economics because it was one of my majors and I spent four years working towards it. I can also definitely cite the work of academic who certainly more experienced and distinguished in field and I think you are not in a position to question Nobel laureates like Paul Krugman on economic matters or Bitcoin.


Ah, but I will indeed question and I will do so openly and directly. Authority, regardless of who or what it is, deserve to be questioned. By anyone. I mentioned earlier the condescending attitude. Do I have to constantly address it in every reply of mine, or are you going to stop at some point? Thank you.

If opinion on economics was uniform we as a species wouldn't be discussing it to this extent to begin with. And this thread isn't really about economics, it's about Bitcoin. Economics just so happen to be a side topic due to how big Bitcoin have become and its economical effects and is a topic I have many years of experience and knowledge on.


Miles Marsalis said:


> Only people who don't understand economics advocate for the gold standard; it's considered fringe by most economists.


I mentioned inflation in my previous post. Why was that ignored?

Printing money without anything of proper substance to back it up with, like the gold standard, makes it a lot more susceptible to infinite printing, like what the US is currently doing. Printing money infinitely is going to cause inflation, which is something even people without an economics degree understand. Quite a lot of people support the gold standard, be it businessmen to economists to those who trade in stocks. Saying it is "fringe" is outright wrong.








						What Is the Gold Standard?
					

Learn more about the gold standard, including its complicated global history and its connection to the fiat system and the U.S. dollar today.




					www.investopedia.com
				



The gold standard if anything is a good way to prevent people from fucking over an economy due to it being tied to something finite. Which is one of the reasons Bitcoin is so attractive to people: It's finite in quantity, like what precious metals are.


Miles Marsalis said:


> You keep bringing up Venezuela, but its hyperinflation crisis isn't really germane to profitability prospects of Bitcoin and the relative strength of the US dollar, which is backed by the full strength and credit of the US government as well as the robustness of US economy. The gold standard is unrealistic because of the lack of enough gold back the value of all the US dollars, how the rush to back currency with gold would cause vital shortages in the technology and jewelry industries, or the fact that the gold standard doesn't necessarily prevent inflation from happening, to name a few reasons. See the inflation that occurred after the California Gold Rush expanded the money supply but didn't correspond in tandem with an increase in economic input. There is also the Price Revolution, which provides an example with bimetallism.


I bring it up because it's the perfect example of people who don't understand something as simple as supply and demand. You don't need an economist to understand this simple concept. High supply and low demand, the price will be low. Low supply and high demand the price will be high. This is one of the very fundamentals on how markets work. This is pretty much high school at worst material.

In December of 2016 $1 USD was worth approximately 10 Bolivars. Now as of current date we are sitting at 4,000,000 VES. Someone fucked something up.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Sep 25, 2021)

Yakamaru said:


> But that's the thing now isn't it? It's not an actual loss unless you sell your Bitcoin in a FIAT currency. You have the exact same amount of Bitcoin. The only difference is the FIAT currency variations of which will go up and down. Having 2 Bitcoin is having 2 Bitcoin. Its value in FIAT is completely relative and will change day to day.
> 
> Having $10,000USD is having $10,000USD regardless of how much those Dollars are worth. They are not going to move from your account unless you personally do so.


I think you are confusing the amount of Bitcoin with the fluctuating value of Bitcoin in terms of dollars. The price of the US dollar does move at times, but not wildly and it is largely stable the vast majority of time, whereas the price of Bitcoin versus the dollar is extremely volatile as demand rises and falls for the cryptocurrency. You will not seem the kind of seismic shifts in the value of the US dollar that you do with Bitcoin and I think you are ignoring the fact the US dollar is negotiable and convertible to other currencies in far more countries and markets than Bitcoin is, which contributes to the dollars versatility versus Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. 


Yakamaru said:


> There is indeed a gap. Is this a problem, considering you mentioned it?
> 
> Different jobs nets you a different income, this should come without saying.


I mean, generally, if you put two workers in the same job in the same profession and one has university education while the other doesn't, the worker with the university education will probably make more. 

Yeah, obviously you will have a wage disparity between someone who works in the fast food industry as a cashier and someone who is doctor, but they work in completely different job, in two different industries, and with two different levels of skill requirements. 

That isn't a meaningful comparison, though you can say that university education does open up the possibility of higher paying jobs that command a greater salary that jobs that require little skill or education. 

If have two people who are office workers, though, in the same entry-level job in the same profession, the worker with a university education will probably be paid more upfront because they will be judged to mobility in the organization that predisposes them for promotion. 

Furthermore, most studies have found that university-educated workers generally make more money over their lifetimes than those who have not obtained a university degree and more likely to retire comfortably.


Yakamaru said:


> Ah, but I will indeed question and I will do so openly and directly. Authority, regardless of who or what it is, deserve to be questioned. By anyone. I mentioned earlier the condescending attitude. Do I have to constantly address it in every reply of mine, or are you going to stop at some point? Thank you.
> 
> If opinion on economics was uniform we as a species wouldn't be discussing it to this extent to begin with. And this thread isn't really about economics, it's about Bitcoin. Economics just so happen to be a side topic due to how big Bitcoin have become and its economical effects and is a topic I have many years of experience and knowledge on.


Anyone can question anything. 

What matters is if there is a basis for questioning, especially the people doing the questioning is unqualified and doesn't know how they don't know about the subject they are discussing. 

For example, if you knew about economics, you would that there are two schools of economics, the Keynesian economics and free market economics. The Keynesian school has some become more in vogue for governing in liberal and conservative circles, since some government action to prevent economic crises is considered prudent and some public investment is good thing, as you probably have personal experience with in Norway.

There are definitely difference between the two schools of thought, but as I've pointed out here, there are agreed-upon commonalities like why the gold standard is ill-advised as shown by Milton Friedman's criticism of the gold standard along with more liberal Keynesian economists. 

If you truly knew about economics, you would know that the Austrian School thought deals more in politics than with economics, specifically libertarian politics, which why I dropped off commenting partly due to not wanting to delve into politics. 

There are a number problems with Austrian School economics, like how controlling the money supply is much more difficult in practice than theory suggests and that the gold standard can create severe economic problems like deflation and high employment as seen in the United Kingdom in the 1920s. The economic models for Austrian School have a tendency to be very vague and subjective, which extends to their view of economics as unwittingly shown by you. Austrian School economist tend to critique Keynesian economists as being too interventionist and contend that economies will recover on their own, but advocate for leaving it to market forces to move an economy back to full capacity which will take a long time, if ever. (See the advice they gave about the Great Depression.) 

Paul Krugman, the Nobel laureate Rassah was criticizing, has objected to the Austrian School model that consumption will rise in a recession, since common sense tells you that in a recession there is a powerful negative multiplier effect reducing output of all sectors of the economy. Milton Friedman argued that an examination of US data suggests the Austrian School theories of credit cycles are wrong, which I've given historical examples of earlier in the thread. 

One main things to consider about the Austrian School, which you embody, is that they misunderstand the concept of inflation as it relates to money as well as the function and constraints of the Federal Reserve. 

Like, how the Federal Reserves doesn't print money at will; this is a common misconception. The Federal Reserve doesn't run new paper bills of the press; some dollar printing does happen at the Treasury, but most of the American money supply is digitally debited and credited to the major banks. The Federal Reserve creates money through open market operations like purchasing securities in the market using new money or by creating bank reserves issued to commercial banks, though you need to remember that there are legal limits on how much money the Fed introduce into the system and that the banks are capital-constrained, not reserve-constrained. Also, the Fed can take money out of the economy by buying up bonds too.

That Venezuela comparison you keep making about their currency compared to ours isn't applicable because of the limits on how the Fed operates and the fact that the US dollar is so widely sought and used for reserves.

You don't understand the concepts you are talking about.


----------



## Yakamaru (Sep 26, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I think you are confusing the amount of Bitcoin with the fluctuating value of Bitcoin in terms of dollars. The price of the US dollar does move at times, but not wildly and it is largely stable the vast majority of time, whereas the price of Bitcoin versus the dollar is extremely volatile as demand rises and falls for the cryptocurrency. You will not seem the kind of seismic shifts in the value of the US dollar that you do with Bitcoin and I think you are ignoring the fact the US dollar is negotiable and convertible to other currencies in far more countries and markets than Bitcoin is, which contributes to the dollars versatility versus Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.


Having lets say, 1 Bitcoin is you having 1 Bitcoin. That numeric value of Bitcoin will never change unless you do something with it, be it buy more of it or sell it off, fully or only like 0.01BTC. Unless the supply you have of Bitcoin is touched in any way, shape or form nothing will happen to it. If looking to sell it in lets say USD you do indeed need to do a comparison between how much you bought that Bitcoin for to how much you want to sell for. This is basic risk assessment and market speculation/trading. It's something I've been doing for almost a decade and have made quite a lot of profit as a small-time investor.

However, most people who trade in Bitcoin don't care for short-term ups and downs, and may even use those short-term dips into buying more as Bitcoin's value have only ever exponentially increased over the years.

And no, I am not confusing anything, I am explaining the basics. Supply and demand as well as various market forces can and will affect Bitcoin, like how it will affect stocks. People who trade in Bitcoin knows this and pays somewhat attention. For outsiders however dips like this may seem like an issue, while in reality they aren't. They are expected, and if people pay even remotely attention can increase their profit margins by quite a lot.


Miles Marsalis said:


> I mean, generally, if you put two workers in the same job in the same profession and one has university education while the other doesn't, the worker with the university education will probably make more.
> 
> Yeah, obviously you will have a wage disparity between someone who works in the fast food industry as a cashier and someone who is doctor, but they work in completely different job, in two different industries, and with two different levels of skill requirements.
> 
> ...


People want different things. People want different jobs. Having an education isn't a requirement nor is it necessary for a lot of jobs. And quite a lot of people aren't using their degrees in their current job/field either.








						How many college grads don't use their degree? | finder.com
					

Finder breaks down the value of a college degree in America. We analyzed data on how three generations value the worth of their degree.




					www.finder.com
				



Changing careers, not finding a job in their respective fields.. The list is very long over reasons someone isn't using their degrees. Glorifying education in this manner is silly to me as a lot of people's degrees end up being practically useless. For example, a PhD in physics is going to be utterly useless when working as the department manager in an IT company. It is neither relevant to the job you're working in nor is it helpful in any way. 

In other words, that education become a waste of time and effort, time and effort you cannot get back. Education is something that people need to take into account carefully and what they want to work with in the future. Education for the sake of calling yourself educated is stupid and reeks of insecurity. 



Miles Marsalis said:


> Anyone can question anything.
> 
> What matters is if there is a basis for questioning, especially the people doing the questioning is unqualified and doesn't know how they don't know about the subject they are discussing.


Anyone can question anything, but you need a basis for that questioning? That is practically a contradiction, mate. If anyone can question anything then they shouldn't need a reason nor basis for those questions. 



Miles Marsalis said:


> For example, if you knew about economics, you would that there are two schools of economics, the Keynesian economics and free market economics. The Keynesian school has some become more in vogue for governing in liberal and conservative circles, since some government action to prevent economic crises is considered prudent and some public investment is good thing, as you probably have personal experience with in Norway.
> 
> There are definitely difference between the two schools of thought, but as I've pointed out here, there are agreed-upon commonalities like why the gold standard is ill-advised as shown by Milton Friedman's criticism of the gold standard along with more liberal Keynesian economists.
> 
> ...


Thomas Sowell would definitely disagree. Free market economics>Keynesian economics.

You don't need an education in order to understand how something works. This is a fallacy and a rather dumb one at that. Doing something as simple as your own research and this incredible thing called observation doesn't make it hard to understand how something operates even if that understanding isn't Mariana Trench-esque deep. 

I bring up Venezuela because it is, again, a perfect example of what can happen to a country. Especially if you let the government affect let alone control the economy.

And the Federal Reserve ought to get abolished for the utterly moronic idea that it is.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Sep 26, 2021)

Yakamaru said:


> People want different things. People want different jobs. Having an education isn't a requirement nor is it necessary for a lot of jobs. And quite a lot of people aren't using their degrees in their current job/field either.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I mean, many employers hire people with university degrees at a higher salary because there is the perception that those employees are more educated, regardless of the degree. There is also the fact people generally go for majors than they intend to pursue careers in. They may not get a job in their field immediately, but having a university degree does automatically allow you demand higher salary and improves your prospects of rising in an organization. I would argue that we need better job placement services for university graduates, which is slowly being implemented at university career centers, rather than say that university degrees are a waste of time. 


Yakamaru said:


> Anyone can question anything, but you need a basis for that questioning? That is practically a contradiction, mate. If anyone can question anything then they shouldn't need a reason nor basis for those questions.


It's not because you can choose to question certain things, like whether vaccines are effective and climate change is happening, but the overwhelming evidence out there has already settled the matter on those issues. 


Yakamaru said:


> Thomas Sowell would definitely disagree. Free market economics>Keynesian economics.
> 
> You don't need an education in order to understand how something works. This is a fallacy and a rather dumb one at that. Doing something as simple as your own research and this incredible thing called observation doesn't make it hard to understand how something operates even if that understanding isn't Mariana Trench-esque deep.
> 
> ...


Thomas Sowell isn't exactly a mainstream economist in the same Jordan Peterson isn't a mainstream psychologist, though free market economics isn't a fringe school of economic thought like the Austrian school.

I would point out that the Keynesian economic has been the default economic model for developed economies, whether under conservative or liberal governments, for a while now and in the US we have only experienced short-term recessions under Keynesian policies with no full-blown depressions, while under the gold standard economic depressions were commonplace. 

I'll also note that you didn't comment on the working of the Fed here. 

Look, though; I don't think you understand the purpose and functions of the Fed because if you did, you'd know that the Fed had limits on how it can increase the money supply and definitely fights inflation through contractionary monetary policy. See this:









						How Do Governments Fight Inflation?
					

There are many methods used by the government to control inflation; one popular method is contractionary monetary policy.




					www.investopedia.com
				




On one last point, depending on the topic, you don't necessarily need an education to understand a topic ... but an education provides a decent framework for learning about a topic or field and the educational system provides a way verifying that students understand the material they are learning. It also helps to have educators available to help students with material they are struggling to learn.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 26, 2021)

For fact checking, I looked up the Sterling value of bitcoin going back to 2015, to see whether it's true that the value has 'only ever risen exponentially over the years'

It doesn't look like any simple function. There are exponential segments, usually followed by rapid falls. Weirdly a lot of them have a periodic duration. 
My first thought is that it's a stacked series of bubbles in which the final price is usually slightly higher leaving the bubble than entering it. 

I can't be the first person to think this, because the wikipedia article on economic bubbles uses the fluctuations in bitcoin value as an example. 


Spoiler












Is there a good reason to believe that the long term rise in the value of Bitcoin isn't simply part of a much larger bubble in the value of the currency?


----------



## Rassah (Sep 27, 2021)

pilgrimfromoblivion said:


> So is the whole thing about China making crypto illegal true?


It is true that China banned Bitcoin. Again. They banned it about five times so far. Last big ban was actually back in early fall of 2017. That was right before Bitcoin had its huge run-up to $20k. I wonder if there will be a run-up this time too?
In any case, China banned Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, YouTube, Twitter, Skype, and lots of other things. It's really a problem for China, not for Bitcoin and those other things.


----------



## Rassah (Sep 27, 2021)

Sorry, I gotta address some things here...



Miles Marsalis said:


> .For example, if you knew about economics, you would that there are two schools of economics, the Keynesian economics and free market economics.


There's neoclassical, which is based on Keynesian and includes some free-market principles, and Austrian, which is the one you thought was free market. There's also Marxist, but that one is the equivalent of flat earth pf economics.



Miles Marsalis said:


> The Keynesian school has some become more in vogue for governing in liberal and conservative circles, since some government action to prevent economic crises is considered prudent and some public investment is good thing



It's considered prudent because our world is ruled by democratic governments, and neoclassical economics gives governments excuse to get more power over money and business. Obviously governments will push for the economic school that excuses their actions, and unfortunately, vast majority (almost all) of the economic crises throughout the last 100+ years have actually been caused by government intervention to begin with...



Miles Marsalis said:


> There are definitely difference between the two schools of thought, but as I've pointed out here, there are agreed-upon commonalities like why the gold standard is ill-advised as shown by Milton Friedman's criticism of the gold standard along with more liberal Keynesian economists.


Milton Friedman is more of the same neoclassical Keynesian based economics, just with a "free market" twist. And, saying "as shown by Milton Friedman's criticism" doesn't actually *show* anything. Who cares what he says. Make your own point.




Miles Marsalis said:


> If you truly knew about economics, you would know that the Austrian School thought deals more in politics than with economics, specifically libertarian politics, which why I dropped off commenting partly due to not wanting to delve into politics.


It doesn't. Austrian economic "policy" only extends to "we shouldn't have politics determine or control our business." Lately, Austrian school has been dealing mostly with criticizing results of neoclassical and Keynesianism policies.



Miles Marsalis said:


> There are a number problems with Austrian School economics, like how controlling the money supply is much more difficult in practice than theory suggests


That's a problem for neoclassical, since Austrians are against controlling the money supply. 



Miles Marsalis said:


> and that the gold standard can create severe economic problems like deflation


Deflation isn't a problem. Never has been. When Keynes came up with an explanation of how it was problematic, it was riddled with ahistorical fallacies.



Miles Marsalis said:


> The economic models for Austrian School have a tendency to be very vague and subjective, which extends to their view of economics as unwittingly shown by you.


That's your personal subjective opinion. To me they're pretty straightforward and logical. Actually Austrian economics prides itself on avoiding subjectivity. 



Miles Marsalis said:


> Austrian School economist tend to critique Keynesian economists as being too interventionist and contend that economies will recover on their own, but advocate for leaving it to market forces to move an economy back to full capacity which will take a long time, if ever. (See the advice they gave about the Great Depression.)


Leaving it to market forces has actually led to quick recoveries. Economic recessions in the 1800's were all pretty short. And while Austrians recommended lack of interventionism during the Great Depression, we instead ended up with MASSIVE interventions from the beginning of that economic calamity, which itself was caused by economic interventionism that pumped up the Roaring 20's bubble, so I'm not sure what your point is. Likewise our Great Recession of 2008 was again caused by government interventionism and further interventionism dragged it out for almost 8 more years.
If Keynesians claim that Austrians are wrong, and that having government intervene will reduce recessions and reduce their duration, they have yet to demonstrate that.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Paul Krugman, the Nobel laureate Rassah was criticizing, has objected to the Austrian School model that consumption will rise in a recession, since common sense tells you that in a recession there is a powerful negative multiplier effect reducing output of all sectors of the economy.


One thing that being an economist teaches you is that economics are often counterintuitive. This common sense example of yours is an example of that. In a recession, consumption of assets will actually increase, because the price of assets will fall. It's just that the consumption will be done by those who managed their money well, who will be buying from those who invested poorly. Assets/wealth will transfer from bad hands to good hands, and be reinvested more efficiently. There's no "multiplier" like he suggests. The "depressionary spiral" is a myth. On the other hand, in our interventionist economy bad hands who made bad investments just got bailed out, and continued to hold their assets, while those who saved up and managed their investments well ended up losing, either due to inflation, or due to government picking winners at the expense of their own companies. This has resulted in continuing growth of bad companies with bad investments, such as our too big to fail banks.



Miles Marsalis said:


> One main things to consider about the Austrian School, which you embody, is that they misunderstand the concept of inflation as it relates to money as well as the function and constraints of the Federal Reserve.


They don't. They understand inflation as being monetary inflation, and price inflation, same as neoclassical school. They just understand that monetary inflation will lead to price inflation, while neoclassical school believes that monetary inflation doesn't necessarily lead to price inflation, and then comes up with various, usually wrong, reasons for it. They simply see prices not inflating, and use that data alone as their "proof" that monetary inflation doesn't cause price inflation. But they ignore foreign countries buying up a lot of our dollars, or that the economy has been growing to absorb that supply. And they ignore that without this monetary inflation, we would actually all be much wealthier with wages continuing to grow instead of stagnating, and prices going down with relation to the growing economy.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Like, how the Federal Reserves doesn't print money at will; this is a common misconception.


It used to be a misconception. It's not anymore. Especially not with the most recent round of bailouts.



Miles Marsalis said:


> most of the American money supply is digitally debited and credited to the major banks.


And major banks are able to just print money out of thin air too if they lend it out. Lending isn't done from fractional reserve savings anymore. Banks just print the money they lend out of thin air.



Miles Marsalis said:


> though you need to remember that there are legal limits on how much money the Fed introduce into the system and that the banks are capital-constrained, not reserve-constrained.


What are these other limits? I haven't heard of them before.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Also, the Fed can take money out of the economy by buying up bonds too.


That doesn't take money out of the economy though, since the money for the bonds has to be paid back eventually, and even adds payments as interest. 



Miles Marsalis said:


> That Venezuela comparison you keep making about their currency compared to ours isn't applicable because of the limits on how the Fed operates and the fact that the US dollar is so widely sought and used for reserves.


I'm hoping you can explain what those limits are and why Venezuela didn't have them too. And for the "used for reserves" argument, as I mentioned, many countries around the world are now dumping dollars, so the dollar is losing its reserve status. At best that argument is "dollars will take longer to fall." Plus Bitcoin is growing and becoming the new global reserve, so dollars have a challenger to contend with.


----------



## Rassah (Sep 27, 2021)

On the topic of Bitcoin, I just have one question:
Regarding what you said here



Miles Marsalis said:


> I think you are confusing the amount of Bitcoin with the fluctuating value of Bitcoin in terms of dollars. The price of the US dollar does move at times, but not wildly and it is largely stable the vast majority of time, whereas the price of Bitcoin versus the dollar is extremely volatile as demand rises and falls for the cryptocurrency. You will not seem the kind of seismic shifts in the value of the US dollar that you do with Bitcoin and I think you are ignoring the fact the US dollar is negotiable and convertible to other currencies in far more countries and markets than Bitcoin is, which contributes to the dollars versatility versus Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.


is the situation with Bitcoin getting better, worse, or staying the same? Is Bitcoin fluctuating just as much as it always was and is it just as hard to trade it for other currencies and things? Or is fluctuation decreasing as its market cap and adoption grows, and the conversion and tradeability improving?
Because if it's improving (and it is), then this is not really an argument against Bitcoin, but an argument that it's a new technology (which it is) that is just growing.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Sep 27, 2021)

I don't really want to quote everything and I'd like to talk to other people on here before they run out of daylight, so I'm just going to reply in this post to the outstanding issues here. 

@Rassah , I know your mentioned working in finance around the Great Recession, so you should know what the constraints on the Federal Reserve are and how the Fed operates. Yakamaru has the excuse not being exposed to it through education or research or work, but this is ground-level knowledge anyone who has worked in the banking industry should know. The Federal Reserve Act, and particularly Section 13 of it, enumerates the constraints on the powers of the Fed. 

You should definitely know that the reason why Venezuela didn't have those limits and went into an economic crisis was because ... they have a different style government and economy that resembles a command economy which was highly dependent on oil revenues from state production. When oil prices fell and as we gained greater energy independence here in the US, the oil revenue fell and government spending increased without fixing the core problems of the economy like the need of diversification of industries and possibly privatization of certain businesses. The Central Bank of Venezuela stopped publishing metrics key metrics during the crisis, which resulted in less transparency and uncertainty among investors and the general public, creating further panic. The CBV is mainly controlled by the Maduro government and lack the controls and independence the Fed does have here. Neither the Maduro government or the CBV has been operating according to Keynesian policy. I'm also going to throw in that US dollar is far more robust than the Bolivar. Like, China isn't keeping reserves of the Bolivar. Major governments aren't stockpiling Bitcoin either. 

To talk about the US dollar a bit, the US dollar remains the dominant currency for international trade and investment, foreign exchange market turnover and settlements, debt issuance and official foreign exchange reserves held by central banks. There has been a bit of a drop-off recently because of the chaos your man in the Oval Office caused, but the US dollar is still the big draw. The strength of the US dollar is due the imcomparble size, depth, and liquidity of US dollar capital markets, backed by our high quality political and economic institutions. I'm not saying this to be political; I'm just stating the economic reality that is widely accepted by the majority of the banking and finance community. 

Getting back to the Fed, you should know that when the Fed needs to decrease the size of the money supply, it can raise the banks' reserve requirements. To answer another point you made, when the Fed sells bonds from its account, it takes in cash and removes money from the economic system.

Also, banks don't print money; the Federal Reserve doesn't even print money. The Treasury prints money while the Federal Reserve manages the money supply. You also need to remember that Fed sets reserves requirements for banks, there are laws stipulated what assets need to be held in reserve by the banks themselves, and the banks need to pay back money loaned to them by the Fed, meaning banks need to make money off the loans they make to the public, fees, investments, etc. Which you should know. 

Now you said that that leaving recovery from recession and depressions to market forces was effective and that the recoveries in the 1800s were quick. 

This is factually wrong. 

Under the gold standard as well as before the implementation of Keynesian monetary policies and World War II, eight recessions in the US which worsened into depressions in 1807, 1837, 1873, 1882, 1893, 1920, 1933, and 1937. Keep in mind these weren't mild recessions, but hard depressions, particularly the Long Depression in 1873 which last until 1896 in the UK and from 1873-1879 here in the US. 





__





						Long Depression - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




6 to 23 years is long time to wait for economic improvement.

One thing that the Keynesian monetary policy has done and what is the greatest benefit of these policies is that depressions have been eliminated. There have been 11 recessions, in 1945-1946, 1949, 1954, 1956, 1960-1961, 1970, 1973-1975, 1980-1983, 1990-1992, 2001, and the Great Recession, which we recovered from under Obama with historically low unemployment and high economic growth. And while recessions are definitely bad, we've been able to bounce back from them quickly and not suffer devastating depressions because our ability to expand the money supply in times of unemployment and recession, which we couldn't do under the gold standard. 

The gold standard is deflationary. In a closed economy under the gold standard, a country's money supply is determined by its stock of gold. To increase its money supply, the government must mine more gold. Economic growth is inherently constrained by the gold supply. Limited supply of gold stifles economic growth and causes deflation. True, inflation is bad, but deflation is even worse. Firms will have to lay off workers as the price declines.

Quoting the World Gold Council and their numbers, annual production of gold is about 2,500 metric tons or 80 million troy ounces. This implies that gross world product can't grow much. If the world been on the gold standard today, this amount would just accommodate GWP growth of only $400 billion (M1 is roughly 5 × GDP), so the gold standard would cause a severe deflation in the world economy. US money stock (M1) was $3.6 trillion in 2017, about 20% of US GDP. Had the world been on the gold standard today, GWP would grow by only $.4 trillion, rather than $3 trillion (3.6% of GWP).

This is a good reason we're not on the gold standard. 

Lastly, there are two schools of academic merit in economics that the vast majority of economist subscribe to, namely Keynesian and free market economics. 









						Why Can't Economists Agree?
					

Learn the many reasons why economists can be given the same data and come up with entirely different conclusions.




					www.investopedia.com
				




The Austrian school is not one of them and both school of thought agree on that much.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Sep 27, 2021)

To bring this back to Bitcoin as an investment, I'm bearish toward Bitcoin and other private cryptocurrencies, but I'll admit that other cryptocurrencies beside Bitcoin might be an worthwhile speculative investment that are high risk, provided they institute certain improvements. That being said, I'm more confident in other forms of investment and savings and I will argue the US dollar is more sound to have your savings in rather Bitcoin which calls for trust in a currency system built and managed, in large part, by anonymous parties and private individuals not necessarily accountable to their clients than rather traditional currency systems built and managed by governments of the people, by the people.

Bitcoin raises a lot of questions about it's origins that I'd like answers to, like who is Satoshi Nakamoto really for starters.


----------



## Rassah (Sep 27, 2021)

@Miles Marsalis regarding the economic stuff,

If there were any constraints on the federal reserve, they're obviously gone now. We literally increased our total money supply by trillions in just two years. If there were any constraints, that wouldn't have been possible.

Regarding fractional reserve constraints on banks, that hasn't been the case in a long while now either. I don't know when they changed it on us, but they did. Read this https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/truth-money-iou-bank-of-england-austerity

Venezuela didn't have a different style of government. They had a wealthy democracy with strong private property rights and privately owned oil companies. They succumbed to both, Marxist economic idea of central planning and envy, which resulted in the government seizing oil industry, and Keynesian economic ideas which resulted in massive taxation and wealth redistribution that were in the form of many social and welfare programs. They also obviously went for the Keynesian idea of borrowing and printing money to pay off debt to help pay for those social programs. What you described was just the resultant mistakes and fallout from those Keynesian economic ideas, including that once the government started to run out of money to pay for itself, it started to print more and more to keep itself afloat. I'm seeing the same trends in US, parts of Europe, and elsewhere, with more calls to seize control of industries and spend more on social programs, all while governments are running out of money to fund themselves.

Yes, countries are letting reserves of USD as you keep saying. And countries are increasingly dumping their reserves of USD as I keep countering. Despite your insistence that USD is still strong, the trend is continuing downward. Same for other currencies, as you may have heard with things going down in China. 

When the Fed sells bonds, it takes in cash and sells the bond. That cash value isn't gone, it's just stuck as a bond. When the mond term expires, the Fed has to give that cash back to the bond holder. It doesn't reduce the amount of dollars, it locks them up, and at best kicks the problem down the road in hopes that the economy will continue to grow to absorb them. But if it doesn't...

All those pre Keynesian recessions were quick and minor. But you wrongly mixed the Great Depression in with pre Keynesian ones. Keynes's ideas originated in the 20's. His ideas of stimulating the economy by pumping money to increase the velocity of money was what caused the Roaring 20's and the stock bubble that it created, as I've mentioned. And that bubble, that was created with his ideas, was what popped to make the Great Depression. Similarly to how the way we dealt with the Dot Com bubble was to follow Keynesian economic ideas to stimulate the economy, which in turn created the housing bubble, which caused the Great Recession of '08. And now the economic stimulus to pump up the economy from 2008 and more recently from COVID lockdowns has created another bubble, including a perfect stage for a crack-up boom in the stock market, which will again result in an economic crash soon. 





Rather than prevent or deal with recessions and depressions, Keynesian economics is actually CAUSING them.

Regarding the Long Depression, it was apparently largely a myth. There was no monetary contraction, the money supply continued to expand at 2.7%. There was a huge growth of industry in railroads, production goods, and personal income. And there was an overall 4 to 6 percent growth in national goods/wealth. It seemed like a contraction or a recession because the high growth of the economy during that period resulted in a fast drop in prices. Overall, it wasn't really a recession, just a change in economic output and change in consumption due to innovation, much like the decline in purchases of typewriters and a rapid drop in computer and tech prices isn't a recession, but just a change in economic output and what we consume. You should look up the history of the event on mises.org.

Economic growth can't be constrained by gold. If that was the case, the massive be unprecedented economic growth of the Gilded Age would've been impossible. It sounds like you're again forgetting that prices of gold and money are relative. If the value of all gold is $1 trillion, that doesn't mean that the economy can't grow beyond $1 trillion. It just means that if the total economy doubles, prices in the money used in that economy will fall by half. That $1 loaf of bread will cost $0.50, and the total amount of gold will be worth the equivalent of $2 trillion. The ONLY way that a fixed money supply constraints the economy is by preventing malinvestment, where people won't invest in wasteful projects if they can get a better return just holding gold. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malinvestment
Interestingly, neoclassical Keynesian-based economics doesn't even take malinvestment into account despite it being blatantly on display. Such as when before 2008 the fudging if interest rates made building new housing developments look like a lucrative investment, only to have the investments run out of money and unfinished housing projects get left to rot.

Deflation is not bad either. Companies don't have to lay off workers, workers just get an automatic wage increase continuously throughout the year instead of a single 3% wage increase every year. Or on scene situations they may be asked to take a pay cut. All while the price of goods and cost of living continues to decline, and their savings continue to rise. Deflation makes the workers more rich. Inflation makes those at the top more rich. Who do you think we get pushed inflation all the time?

Austrian is free market. Austrians believe in free market. The "free market" is more a political idea than an economic one anyway.


----------



## Rassah (Sep 28, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I'll admit that other cryptocurrencies beside Bitcoin might be an worthwhile speculative investment that are high risk, provided they institute certain improvements.



Other cryptocurrencies can't be as good as Bitcoin, for the simple fact that when Bitcoin was created, it was created in a time when no one was in control and everything was set up in a very decentralized manner from the start. Especially with regards to mining to secure it. Any currency that is created now will necessarily be created by a single person or single group, and it will be impossible for them to take that centralized ownership and control and force it to be distributed. Much the same way as when the Internet was created (following the ARPANET's abandonment) it was secured and developed by a decentralized group of people, while follow-up "improvements" on it like AOL and CompuServe ended up being privately owned entities.



Miles Marsalis said:


> I will argue the US dollar is more sound to have your savings in rather Bitcoin which calls for trust in a currency system built and managed, in large part, by anonymous parties and private individuals not necessarily accountable to their clients than rather traditional currency systems built and managed by governments of the people, by the people.


With dollars, you have to trust your bank and your government. Governed of the people by the people? Did you or the people predict that government would increase the supply of dollars by 25% in a year, and thus potentially reduce their value by that much? I still like the most interesting factoid of the whole situation, that:
The amount of money that was created and spent on the three COVID stimuluses was more than what we spent during the New Deal to build the entire nationwide highway system. And what we spent to send a man to the moon. Combined. Times five.
And yes, that's adjusted for inflation. So, what do the people have to show for it? If those who control the dollar are accountable to the people, where did that money go?

On the other hand, with Bitcoin you don't have to trust anonymous parties or private individuals. That's the reason it works. You have a copy of the transaction ledger, that you yourself verified (or your computer/app did for you). Any transactions you receive, to verify yourself. Anyone making more Bitcoins or sending fake transactions isn't a threat, because you yourself verify everything, automatically. Not only is it of the people by the people, but the people are actually directly in control, and not even in a "majority decides" kind of way where you hope the majority doesn't screw you, but in each individual makes their own decision kind of way.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Bitcoin raises a lot of questions about it's origins that I'd like answers to, like who is Satoshi Nakamoto really for starters.


When Bitcoin code and operation is completely transparent and open source, and you personally verify that what you use confirms to the rules you want, does it even matter? Do you care who invented the internet or email to be able to rely on it?


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Sep 28, 2021)

I don't want this eating up my lunch, so I'll be quick about this.

Being blunt, there are a lot of facts you got wrong here, most glaringly the fact the Long Depression definitely happened and economists and historians agree on that. There was a contraction. In fact:



> In the United States, economists typically refer to the Long Depression as the *Depression of 1873–1879*, kicked off by the Panic of 1873, and followed by the Panic of 1893, book-ending the entire period of the wider Long Depression.[5] The U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research dates the contraction following the panic as lasting from October 1873 to March 1879.  At 65 months, it is the longest-lasting contraction identified by the NBER, eclipsing the Great Depression's 43 months of contraction.[6][7]  In the United States, from 1873 to 1879, 18,000 businesses went bankrupt, including 89 railroads.[8] Ten states and hundreds of banks went bankrupt.[_citation needed_] Unemployment peaked in 1878, long after the initial financial panic of 1873 had ended. Different sources peg the peak U.S. unemployment rate anywhere from 8.25%[9] to 14%.[10]







__





						Long Depression - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




If the Ludwig von Mises Institute site is telling you otherwise, that is a sign they aren't dealing in serious economics or even reality. 

Also, check the statistics, for those other depressions; I don't think you can honestly say those other depressions were minor with effects of the Baring Crisis, the Panic of 1893, or the Panic of 1910-1911.

Moving on, the Federal Reserve has emergency powers and some autonomy, which allowed it to undertake a broad array of actions to limit the economic damage from the pandemic, including up to $2.3 trillion in lending to support households, employers, financial markets, and state and local governments, to quote them. 

That wasn't frivolous aid and it kept the market and economy in recession mode and out of depression territory.

For Venezuela, I would say you are gravely to say they were similar to us historically and economically. While you can argue, somewhat, that Venezuela did democracy after independence for a time, they have had anything but under Chavez and now Maduro. The oil industry you are just flat wrong about because it's been nationalized since 1976, so there isn't privately owned industry there. They definitely didn't follow Keynesian monetary policy, partly because Keynes developed his policies to counteract Marxism but also because Keynesian monetary policy also includes a whole suite of policies besides just printing money to get out of recessions. 

You also said that Keynes developed his policies in the 20's ... but he is widely known to have developed them the 1930s, specifically around he published his General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money which was 1935 to 1936. His policies were not implement by governments fully until 1946. He actually created his policies while attempting to understand the Great Depression: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/keynesianeconomics.asp



> Keynesian economics is a macroeconomic economic theory of total spending in the economy and its effects on output, employment, and inflation. Keynesian economics was developed by the British economist John Maynard Keynes during the 1930s in an attempt to understand the Great Depression. Keynesian economics is considered a "demand-side" theory that focuses on changes in the economy over the short run. Keynes’s theory was the first to sharply separate the study of economic behavior and markets based on individual incentives from the study of broad national economic aggregate variables and constructs.
> 
> Based on his theory, Keynes advocated for increased government expenditures and lower taxes to stimulate demand and pull the global economy out of the depression. Subsequently, Keynesian economics was used to refer to the concept that optimal economic performance could be achieved—and economic slumps prevented—by influencing aggregate demand through activist stabilization and economic intervention policies by the government.



Unless Keynes was clairvoyant, there is no way your false assertion that he developed his policies in the 20s for them to influence the Great Depression to be right. It flies in the face of history.

About what you said about the gold standard, you want your currency backed by gold (which one can ask why you support Bitcoin which isn't backed by anything), but you also advocate devaluing the gold backing your currency to allow for economic growth, which undercuts your original reason for wanting to go back to gold standard in the first place. Never mind that there isn't enough gold to go back to the gold standard, that the gold standard would cause a massive devaluation of the dollar if implemented, gold is only divisible but so much, and there is little to keep the government on the gold standard once it adopts so the gold standard is a poor way to rein in government. 

I'm bringing all this up because Austrian school economics is a poor foundation of knowledge to make investing or economic decisions on.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Sep 28, 2021)

Now about Bitcoin, quickly. 

I've heard that the insecure nature of Bitcoin has turned out to be a major issue, with an estimated 17-25%, something between 2.78 and 3.79 million Bitcoins valued at US$8500 each in November 2017, of all Bitcoins lost forever, notably not including Bitcoins lost to theft. The losses can occur "from a misdirected transaction or the loss of a private key through death or carelessness", which I note wouldn't be an insurmountable problem in the regular banking system with traditional currencies. The wide range in estimates is due to the uncertainty of whether the original "Satoshi" Bitcoins were lost, but I bring this up because if the "Satoshi" coins were not lost, and they suddenly appear, it could very well deliver a massive shock to the Bitcoin market. 

That is one good reason, but also if I'm investing in something, it's not unreasonable to know who created the investment vehicle.

I'd also point how often Bitcoin exchanges have collapsed or been compromised, including the heavies like Binance.


----------



## Rassah (Sep 28, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> If the Ludwig von Mises Institute site is telling you otherwise, that is a sign they aren't dealing in serious economics or even reality.


If they're using actual historical factual data showing contributing growth of dollars and growth in business and manufacturing, then more likely it's that some recent economists looked at that period through lack of contemporary understanding, came up with the wrong conclusion based on flawed economics, and decided to stick to that idea like it's some sort of dogma. It's actually pretty much what happened with the myth of the deflationary spiral that gets blamed for the Great Depression, but which makes no sense if you actually examine it in more depth.
Incidentally, here's one article examining the Long Depression. Feel free to check it to see the "contrarian" view and if you find anything wrong with their findings https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Long_Depression





Miles Marsalis said:


> Also, check the statistics, for those other depressions; I don't think you can honestly say those other depressions were minor with effects of the Baring Crisis, the Panic of 1893, or the Panic of 1910-1911.


Compared to Great Depression, the recessions of oil shocks and S&L's, and 2008 recession, yeah, they're minor. And the next one will be even bigger, because every time these happen, rather than let the market inefficiencies fall apart and get liquidated like they used to, we just print more money to bail them out and cover them up. I'm moving out of US btw, and so are my parents and a number of my friends. We don't want to be here when that comes, because we've seen what happens from history.




Miles Marsalis said:


> Moving on, the Federal Reserve has emergency powers and some autonomy, which allowed it to undertake a broad array of actions to limit the economic damage from the pandemic, including up to $2.3 trillion in lending to support households, employers, financial markets, and state and local governments, to quote them.
> 
> That wasn't frivolous aid and it kept the market and economy in recession mode and out of depression territory.


There was also about $7 trillion in new money on top of that. You say it kept the market and economy in recession mode... but more specifically, where did it go? Lots of businesses shut down permanently, while stocks continued to rise like crazy, even despite global economy being in lockdown. You do see that there's something really wrong with this picture, don't you?




Miles Marsalis said:


> For Venezuela, I would say you are gravely to say they were similar to us historically and economically. While you can argue, somewhat, that Venezuela did democracy after independence for a time, they have had anything but under Chavez and now Maduro. The oil industry you are just flat wrong about because it's been nationalized since 1976, so there isn't privately owned industry there. They definitely didn't follow Keynesian monetary policy, partly because Keynes developed his policies to counteract Marxism but also because Keynesian monetary policy also includes a whole suite of policies besides just printing money to get out of recessions.


Oops, you're right. I thought oil was nationalized more recently than that. I guess it's just all the other things that got nationalized more recently that got everyone running. Keynesian policies were actually based on Marx. Not as a counteraction, but as a more proper way to implement them. And unfortunately since Keynes, more ideas from that school kept being added, mostly as a means of "how do we create equality" and "how do we redistribute the wealth." That's the whole point of taxation and inflation. After all, inflation is just redistributing wealth from savers to someone else. Venezuela followed those same ideas under Chavez, trying to pump up their economy by massively funding infrastructure and social programs. Same as US and other countries are doing. And Venezuela ran out of money (due to Saudis tanking the oil price). Same as US and EU countries are doing. Venezuela could only print and borrow so much until the money was worthless and no one trusted it to lend to it anymore. US is in the same situation, where we are printing and borrowing so much that we're losing trust. It's only a matter of time before no one trusts US to lend to it anymore too. Then inflation really kicks in to cover debts, businesses that raise prices are accused of price gouging and forced to shut down or get nationalized, same as in Venezuela, and businesses start to run while the economy falls.




Miles Marsalis said:


> You also said that Keynes developed his policies in the 20's ... but he is widely known to have developed them the 1930s, specifically around he published his General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money which was 1935 to 1936. His policies were not implement by governments fully until 1946. He actually created his policies while attempting to understand the Great Depression: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/keynesianeconomics.asp


He came up with the initial idea that was implemented in the 20's, and continued to develop them as they failed in the 30's. He and his followers then continued to develop them as they kept failing all throughout the 1900's and 2000's. Austrians, meanwhile, just kept pointing out how they will fail, and watched it happen. Austrians insist on things like "central planning doesn't work" and "socialism is doomed to fail due to economic calculation problem," and then just watch those things get proven over and over. Unfortunately it just took a long time, and we figured out how to cover up this problems by just printing more money. Even more unfortunately for everyone else, since people are moving more and more into Bitcoin and printing will become impossible, all these economic problems will come to bear pretty hard.



Miles Marsalis said:


> About what you said about the gold standard, you want your currency backed by gold (which one can ask why you support Bitcoin which isn't backed by anything), but you also advocate devaluing the gold backing your currency to allow for economic growth, which undercuts your original reason for wanting to go back to gold standard in the first place. Never mind that there isn't enough gold to go back to the gold standard, that the gold standard would cause a massive devaluation of the dollar if implemented, gold is only divisible but so much, and there is little to keep the government on the gold standard once it adopts so the gold standard is a poor way to rein in government.



Bitcoin isn't backed by anything, same as gold and oil aren't backed by anything. They're their own assets that themselves have value. As I mentioned before, backing is an IOU, a promise to redeem for the actual asset. You don't want the promise where someone else holds your asset and you trust them not to steal it. You want to hold the actual asset. I.e. backing is a bad thing. Gold failed as money not because of its scarcity, but because it had performed terribly on two core functions of money: portability and divisibility. It's hard to transact over distances due to it being difficult to transport (impossible on digital economy), and its difficult to divide for small purchases, since you would be paying for coffee with specs of dust that are easy to lose. That's why we were forced to use gold certificates backed by gold, which were much easier to transport as can be divided however we want. But unfortunately they relied on having to trust someone, and that trust was MASSIVELY betrayed, when everyone who held an IOU for gold - a real asset - was told that they can't get their gold back anymore, and that they're just stuck with those fist papers.
Bitcoin is itself an asset, and it solves that problem of gold by being portable and divisible all on its own.


----------



## Rassah (Sep 28, 2021)

And, I seem to still be having trouble explaining the point about "there isn't enough gold to back the whole economy." Yes, there is enough gold. Gold's value isn't fixed. If you have two gold coins and the entire economy has one apple, one apple is worth two coins. If the number of apples doubles where there's one coin per apple, one apple is worth one coin. If the number of apples increases by a hundred fold, you can't say that there isn't enough gold to back all those apples because you have two hundred apples but only two coins. No, what will happen is that one apple will be worth 1/100th of a coin. As the economy grows, each unit of economy is covered by less and less gold. The value of gold will simply grow to swallow up the entire economy. That's what Bitcoin is doing now. People used to say that there's only 21 million bitcoins, and since Bitcoin is only worth $1, that $21 million isn't enough to cover the entire economy, so obviously Bitcoin can't become global money. There's just not enough of it. But you can hopefully see the flaw in that, where Bitcoin is now worth $40,000, so it can cover $840 billion of global economy. And as more people switch from their government currencies to bitcoin, its price continues to grow and to engulf more and more of the wealth of the global economy. If we had decided to go to bank to the gold standard (which I only don't recommend because the IOU backing has already proven to be a failure), it would work the same way, with the value of gold currency growing as more and more people switched back to it.



Miles Marsalis said:


> I'm bringing all this up because Austrian school economics is a poor foundation of knowledge to make investing or economic decisions on.


That's just your opinion. People who invested in currencies and economic events based on Austrian economics did very well.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Now about Bitcoin, quickly.
> 
> I've heard that the insecure nature of Bitcoin has turned out to be a major issue, with an estimated 17-25%, something between 2.78 and 3.79 million Bitcoins valued at US$8500 each in November 2017, of all Bitcoins lost forever, notably not including Bitcoins lost to theft. The losses can occur "from a misdirected transaction or the loss of a private key through death or carelessness", which I note wouldn't be an insurmountable problem in the regular banking system with traditional currencies. The wide range in estimates is due to the uncertainty of whether the original "Satoshi" Bitcoins were lost, but I bring this up because if the "Satoshi" coins were not lost, and they suddenly appear, it could very well deliver a massive shock to the Bitcoin market.



It's actually not that different from any other currencies. Gold gets lost during transport and can be recovered again. Dollars get lost or destroyed too, and you don't always know if the person who lost them actually lost them, or if there's a Breaking Bad kind of stash of them hiding out in someone's house or storage. But that's fine, because the total amount is known and fixed, and if they're not lost, whoever holds them will just spend them in the economy, redistributing them again. Worst case is that there will be a short term inflation, which you believe is good anyway. The idea that their owner will suddenly dump them is unlikely, since the owner is motivated to keep their wealth up too.




Miles Marsalis said:


> That is one good reason, but also if I'm investing in something, it's not unreasonable to know who created the investment vehicle.


Does the fact that Henry Ford is the inventor of Ford Motors, or that Thomas Edison is the inventor of General Electric, influence your decision with regards to investing in those companies? Just like them, Satoshi no longer runs or controls any aspect of Bitcoin.




Miles Marsalis said:


> I'd also point how often Bitcoin exchanges have collapsed or been compromised, including the heavies like Binance.



True. Don't keep your money on exchanges. I'd likewise point out how often banks have collapsed or been compromised, even recently, in parts of the world where there is no bank insurance and people lost all their savings, but unfortunately for them they have no choice but to keep their government money in there if they wish to participate in the global digital economy.

Actually, that's why so many in El Salvador are unbanked. They don't trust their own banks, which have lots of issues. But now they don't need to, and can keep their money on their own phones.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Sep 28, 2021)

Rassah said:


> He came up with the initial idea that was implemented in the 20's, and continued to develop them as they failed in the 30's. He and his followers then continued to develop them as they kept failing all throughout the 1900's and 2000's. Austrians, meanwhile, just kept pointing out how they will fail, and watched it happen. Austrians insist on things like "central planning doesn't work" and "socialism is doomed to fail due to economic calculation problem," and then just watch those things get proven over and over. Unfortunately it just took a long time, and we figured out how to cover up this problems by just printing more money. Even more unfortunately for everyone else, since people are moving more and more into Bitcoin and printing will become impossible, all these economic problems will come to bear pretty hard.


You keep saying this, but he didn't develop his core policies before the 30s and they certainly implemented until after World War II. This is fact, which you are refusing to acknowledge. 









						Keynesian economics - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				





> *Keynesian economics developed during and after the Great Depression from the ideas presented by Keynes in his 1936 book, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.**[5*] Keynes' approach was a stark contrast to the aggregate supply-focused classical economics that preceded his book. Interpreting Keynes's work is a contentious topic, and several schools of economic thought claim his legacy.
> 
> *Keynesian economics, as part of the neoclassical synthesis, served as the standard macroeconomic model in the developed nations during the later part of the Great Depression, World War II, and the post-war economic expansion (1945–1973*).


Keynesian economics may have certain aspects geared towards the societal good, but it is not a socialist school of economic thought and Keynesian was certainly a capitalist. 





__





						Common Myths About Keynesian Economics – Pragmatic Capitalism
					






					www.pragcap.com
				





> *1.  Keynes was a capitalist.* He even stated, in plain English that he was on the side of the capitalists:
> 
> 
> 
> > _“I can be influenced by what seems to me to be justice and good sense; but the class war will find me on the side of the educated bourgeoisie.”_





> But he also understood that unfettered capitalism could actually undermine its own existence and lead to socialism.  Yes, Keynes did not favor socialism, but was worried that an extreme case of capitalism could actually lead to a socialist takeover. This makes complete sense because capitalism is inherently monopolistic. A good capitalist wants to own all of the means of production so they can maximize profits. That’s fine except that it has a tendency to result in a world of haves and have nots. A democracy filled with a few capitalists who own everything and a working class that feels like it has been screwed could turn to the government to overturn what looks like an injustice. This is precisely what Keynes feared. Keynes thought _some_ use of government could actually keep capitalism healthier in the long-run.





> *2. Keynes would be considered a modern day moderate conservative.* Many honest conservatives like Peter Drucker and Bruce Bartlett have pronounced Keynes to be a conservative and even a neoconservative. As Drucker noted:
> 
> 
> 
> > _“[Keynes] had two basic motivations…one was to destroy the labor unions and the other was to maintain the free market. Keynes despised the American Keynesians. His whole idea was to have an impotent government that would do nothing but, through tax and spending policies, maintain the equilibrium of the free market. Keynes was the real father of neoconservatism, far more than [economist F.A.] Hayek!”_





> *3. Keynes disliked socialists and communists.*  He once said this about socialism:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> > *4. The foundation of Keynesian economics is built around driving business investment.* Keynes understood that entrepreneurs and businesses were the key to maximizing prosperity. He said:
> >
> >
> >
> > ...





> > *5. Keynes was not in favor of “big government”.* He was in favor of using government as a tool to help smooth the business cycle. He thought that we should buffer the bust with government intervention and reduce government intervention during the boom. He was in favor of budget deficits during the contraction and surpluses during the expansion.  As noted in “What Keynes Really Said about Deficits“: ...
> >
> > ... Not only was Keynes against “nonproductive” forms of government spending, but he was against running a budget deficit during boom periods. Unfortunately, some people have taken the idea of using _some_ government to mean total authoritarian control via government.
> >
> > ...


----------



## Rimna (Sep 28, 2021)

I have heard of Bitcoin. I've never had any money to actually buy some, but now that I do(as in, I have disposable income that I could afford to spend some on cryptocurrency, not that I can afford one bitcoin at current price) - I stay away from cryptocurrencies. There's just something off-putting about some made up virtual coin suddenly raising from $20,000 to $100,000 and then back to whatever the hell it is now. 

So, I am aware of it, but it's not something that I consider spending my time and money in.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Sep 28, 2021)

Rassah said:


> If they're using actual historical factual data showing contributing growth of dollars and growth in business and manufacturing, then more likely it's that some recent economists looked at that period through lack of contemporary understanding, came up with the wrong conclusion based on flawed economics, and decided to stick to that idea like it's some sort of dogma. It's actually pretty much what happened with the myth of the deflationary spiral that gets blamed for the Great Depression, but which makes no sense if you actually examine it in more depth.
> Incidentally, here's one article examining the Long Depression. Feel free to check it to see the "contrarian" view and if you find anything wrong with their findings https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Long_Depression


I mean, part of the problem here is that the Austrian school is a shoddy source for economic insight, so offering up evidence from an institute supporting the Austrian school isn't helping your case, particularly when the Wikipedia articles offered far more hard data and historical context, along with dozen of sources of primary accounts.


Rassah said:


> Oops, you're right. I thought oil was nationalized more recently than that. I guess it's just all the other things that got nationalized more recently that got everyone running. Keynesian policies were actually based on Marx. Not as a counteraction, but as a more proper way to implement them. And unfortunately since Keynes, more ideas from that school kept being added, mostly as a means of "how do we create equality" and "how do we redistribute the wealth." That's the whole point of taxation and inflation. After all, inflation is just redistributing wealth from savers to someone else. Venezuela followed those same ideas under Chavez, trying to pump up their economy by massively funding infrastructure and social programs. Same as US and other countries are doing. And Venezuela ran out of money (due to Saudis tanking the oil price). Same as US and EU countries are doing. Venezuela could only print and borrow so much until the money was worthless and no one trusted it to lend to it anymore. US is in the same situation, where we are printing and borrowing so much that we're losing trust. It's only a matter of time before no one trusts US to lend to it anymore too. Then inflation really kicks in to cover debts, businesses that raise prices are accused of price gouging and forced to shut down or get nationalized, same as in Venezuela, and businesses start to run while the economy falls.


As mentioned above, Keynesian policies are not Marxist, but more importantly you're missing the fact the world's economies are dependent on the US economy and currency, which wasn't the case with Venezuela and that Venezuela was not following Keynesian policies in the first place, as I also mentioned and proved above.


Rassah said:


> Compared to Great Depression, the recessions of oil shocks and S&L's, and 2008 recession, yeah, they're minor. And the next one will be even bigger, because every time these happen, rather than let the market inefficiencies fall apart and get liquidated like they used to, we just print more money to bail them out and cover them up. I'm moving out of US btw, and so are my parents and a number of my friends. We don't want to be here when that comes, because we've seen what happens from history.


Depressions are serious economic downturns by universally-agreed upon definitions, so all because they weren't as bad the Great Depression doesn't mean they were grave concerns at the time that caused massive upheaval.

As mentioned before, Milton Friedman actually argued that the gold standard was a major factor in causing the Great Depression, contributing to the contraction of the money supply in 1929-1933.

Interestingly, nations that dropped the gold standard saw dramatic recoveries during the 1930s compared to those that didn't, which either continued to stagnate or declined slightly.





__





						Econbrowser: The gold standard and the Great Depression
					





					web.archive.org
				






			https://web.archive.org/web/20091122233208/http://papers.nber.org/papers/w3488.v5.pdf
		







So this is definitely an indictment of the gold standard.



Rassah said:


> There was also about $7 trillion in new money on top of that. You say it kept the market and economy in recession mode... but more specifically, where did it go? Lots of businesses shut down permanently, while stocks continued to rise like crazy, even despite global economy being in lockdown. You do see that there's something really wrong with this picture, don't you?


From the Bureau of Labor Statistics: https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2021/a...the-country-battles-the-covid-19-pandemic.htm


> A decade-long economic expansion ended early in 2020, as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and efforts to contain it led businesses to suspend operations or close, resulting in a record number of temporary layoffs. The pandemic also prevented many people from looking for work. For the first 2 months of 2020, the economic expansion continued, reaching 128 months, or 42 quarters. This was the longest economic expansion on record before millions of jobs were lost because of the pandemic.1
> 
> Total civilian employment, as measured by the Current Population Survey (CPS), fell by 21.0 million from the fourth quarter of 2019 to the second quarter of 2020, while the unemployment rate more than tripled, from 3.6 percent to 13.0 percent. This was the highest quarterly average unemployment rate in the history of the CPS.2 (See the box that follows for more information about the CPS, as well as the Current Employment Statistics survey.)


We've gradually improved from that situation, as the market and employment numbers show, since then and the Fed intervention helped us bounced despite still being in the pandemic right now. I'm not saying this is an ideal economic situation, but this was pervasive crisis and it could have been even worse with the measures the Fed took.



Rassah said:


> Bitcoin isn't backed by anything, same as gold and oil aren't backed by anything. They're their own assets that themselves have value. As I mentioned before, backing is an IOU, a promise to redeem for the actual asset. You don't want the promise where someone else holds your asset and you trust them not to steal it. You want to hold the actual asset. I.e. backing is a bad thing. Gold failed as money not because of its scarcity, but because it had performed terribly on two core functions of money: portability and divisibility. It's hard to transact over distances due to it being difficult to transport (impossible on digital economy), and its difficult to divide for small purchases, since you would be paying for coffee with specs of dust that are easy to lose. That's why we were forced to use gold certificates backed by gold, which were much easier to transport as can be divided however we want. But unfortunately they relied on having to trust someone, and that trust was MASSIVELY betrayed, when everyone who held an IOU for gold - a real asset - was told that they can't get their gold back anymore, and that they're just stuck with those fist papers.
> Bitcoin is itself an asset, and it solves that problem of gold by being portable and divisible all on its own.


Bringing this back to Bitcoin, gold and oil have value because there are commodities that are prized and have real industrial uses; Bitcoin doesn't. Bitcoin, from your perspective, should be worse the fiat currency because at least with fiat currency, especially the US dollar, you have guarantee of the full faith and credit of the US government backing it and the stability of system staking the denomination. 

With Bitcoin, I only have vague assertions that the price of Bitcoin will rise again it significantly loses value. 

There is a lot of speculation in the Bitcoin markets as well, which does put me off it.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Sep 28, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Does the fact that Henry Ford is the inventor of Ford Motors, or that Thomas Edison is the inventor of General Electric, influence your decision with regards to investing in those companies? Just like them, Satoshi no longer runs or controls any aspect of Bitcoin.


I'm doubting Henry Ford is going rise from the grave and dump Bitcoins on the market that severely tank my hypothetical investment. 

Also, if my Ford (which I don't own) crashes due to a defect, I can sue Ford to recoup my money and be compensated for my losses in the accident. 

If Bitcoin there is a serious and unforeseen flaw in Bitcoin itself or some market disturbance caused by technical issues, I may not have any recourse to get my investment back.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 2, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I mean, part of the problem here is that the Austrian school is a shoddy source for economic insight, so offering up evidence from an institute supporting the Austrian school isn't helping your case, particularly when the Wikipedia articles offered far more hard data and historical context, along with dozen of sources of primary accounts.


I find Wikipedia to be more of a representation of popular opinion, with sources to other populist opinions, written by kids and recent graduates. It tends to avoid or even just delete opposing views (I've seen big fights with articles locked down for ideological reasons over the years). I as a professional wouldn't bother wasting time contributing to it, and neither would anyone else in my field that I know. Mises.org and some others, though, are more in depth analysis and explanation of concepts at a more university or post graduate level, that also adds dozens of sources and historical data. Especially historical data that "populist" views tend to ignore or delete (like all the data that proves Long Depression wasn't actually one). I guess it's why I consider Wiki high school or college level, and other sources like Mises graduate and post graduate level.
But if you're just dismissing a claim because of its source, not even bothering to look into the content of the claim and all the sources and data it uses, *shrug* guess this can't go any further.



Miles Marsalis said:


> As mentioned above, Keynesian policies are not Marxist,



One of the planks of Marxism is a central bank that controls currency on a national level btw, which is both a key aspect of Keynesianism, and the most fundamental thing that allows socialism to exist, after taxes. Can't fund government and socialism without taxing and borrowing, and can't borrow without being able to print money. Which is why if you're someone who really depends on or supports social programs, I advise you to be prepared for Bitcoin making that much more difficult to implement.




Miles Marsalis said:


> Depressions are serious economic downturns by universally-agreed upon definitions, so all because they weren't as bad the Great Depression doesn't mean they were grave concerns at the time that caused massive upheaval.


If you're willing to ignore the data in the counterargument article...




Miles Marsalis said:


> As mentioned before, Milton Friedman actually argued that the gold standard was a major factor in causing the Great Depression, contributing to the contraction of the money supply in 1929-1933.


Yes, I read that, and he was wrong. Why cares about Milton Friedman. Like I said, he's not Austrian, he's more of a strawman created by Keynesians as an example of opposition they could argue against, rather than arguing against actual opposition. For one, as I mentioned, Great Depression followed by a ton of money expansionist policies, rather than a contraction of money as "gold standard" would suggest, and all that did was prolong the depression.




Miles Marsalis said:


> Interestingly, nations that dropped the gold standard saw dramatic recoveries during the 1930s compared to those that didn't, which either continued to stagnate or declined slightly.


It's not interesting, and was both predicted and warned about by Austrians. It's as interesting as someone living paycheck to paycheck sees a dramatic improvement in their lifestyle when they get a credit card. And the problem is that once bills come due, you're screwed. Thus Weimar, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Cyprus, Greece, and others. And soon US, China, and Europe too. Despite Keynesian claims that "you can't go bankrupt if you're printing your own currency," countries all throughout history did just that. Those graphs of yours that show a rise from the point where gold standard was dropped will all show up as bell curves in the long run, same as every country for the last two thousand years that tried to inflate its own currency.



Miles Marsalis said:


> We've gradually improved from that situation, as the market and employment numbers show, since then and the Fed intervention helped us bounced despite still being in the pandemic right now. I'm not saying this is an ideal economic situation, but this was pervasive crisis and it could have been even worse with the measures the Fed took.


I mean, $7 trillion dollars could have been $320,000 for every person living in US regardless of age. Instead it went... somewhere? Few unemployment benefits and eviction protections here and there... Most likely it went where money usually goes when it's printed like that: to big businesses and wealthy connected types who use it to buy more real assets like stocks, real estate, and commodities. Probably explains why stocks continued to grow at such a rate despite world economy being in shambles.
Problem is that it will make things even worse in the near future. More money = more inflation is pretty set, so people are expecting a high inflation plus all the fallout in the markets that entails (did you watch the Crack-up Boom YouTube video btw?).




Miles Marsalis said:


> Bringing this back to Bitcoin, gold and oil have value because there are commodities that are prized and have real industrial uses; Bitcoin doesn't.


Right, because Bitcoin is a money, and a transaction network, not a commodity. Warren Buffett is one of the biggest investors in American Express, which only has value because it's a transaction network. Bitcoin is that, plus money.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Bitcoin, from your perspective, should be worse the fiat currency because at least with fiat currency, especially the US dollar, you have guarantee of the full faith and credit of the US government backing it and the stability of system staking the denomination.


First of all, "guarantee full faith and credit" is a meaningless term. It literally doesn't mean anything with regards to value. What's being guaranteed? What faith? What credit? I get credit from other real people. US government doesn't give me or anyone else anything to secure that value. And second, "stability of the system" is a major liability, because that means I have to trust this unstable, imperialist, warmongering bureaucracy not to go on a massive spending and printing spree, not to create political unrest, as as a result not to blow up the currency I'm holding. As I said, it just betrayed the stability of the system by suddenly increasing the money supply by 25%. That's risky as hell! 

The biggest reason people value Bitcoin and are putting literally hundreds of millions into it is precisely because it doesn't depend on some government to provide stability. Bitcoin and its stability is guaranteed by math. No bureaucrats or politicians can change it or suddenly inflate it. And that's why it will keep rising, as more and more people realize this and move their money out of risky dollars and euros and into Bitcoin. But that rise will only happen during the adoption stage.



Miles Marsalis said:


> I'm doubting Henry Ford is going rise from the grave and dump Bitcoins on the market that severely tank my hypothetical investment.


I doubt Satoshi would either. Again, you're confusing Bitcoin the money with Bitcoin an investment. You spend Bitcoin on stuff, like money, not dump it into other money. So if Satoshi is still alive, considering he knows that Bitcoin is better money than dollar more than anyone else, at best he may start spending some of it on things.
Ironic that this is your concern though. Imagine if someone was hoarding 25% of USD, and then suddenly "rose up" and dumped USD on the market. Would that concern you too? Except that's literally what happened with the COVID stimulus. So why is that a worry for Bitcoin, but not for USD???




Miles Marsalis said:


> Also, if my Ford (which I don't own) crashes due to a defect, I can sue Ford to recoup my money and be compensated for my losses in the accident.


If your wallet or service crashes and you lose Bitcoin, you can do the same. Bitcoin itself can't crash. There's nothing in it to crash. It's a protocol, a language, like TCP/IP. If something breaks on your end making you not be able to communicate with other nodes, you just fix your end of it.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Oct 2, 2021)

@Rassah .

First, I've answered every point you've made, but you have tendency to make assertions that fly in the face of the reality. Like, we could have a spirited debate about Keynesian economics or free-market economics being better in certain situations. That can be somewhat subjective. 

What is not subjective is that Keynes and his policies weren't Marxist, that the Austrian school is a fringe school of economics practiced by a distinct minority, that the gold standard has been discredited, that Great Depression happened before Keynesian policies were ever formulated or implemented, or that the Long Depression was a major economic depression that happened.

Those are hard facts.

I did answer the limited data you linked to in the Mises Wiki entry on the Long Depression; the Wikipedia article directly contradicts it and cites multiple sources explaining the breadth of the depression on both sides of the Atlantic. The great thing about Wikipedia is that the sources are clearly indicated and those sources for economic content are often written by historians and economists with post-graduate education.

So I did address what you about the Mises Wiki article, but I'll go further and point that the Mises Institute isn't even an accredited academic institution and its presence in academia is minimal at best. 

Though, despite the lack of academic credentials it has and its heterodox nature, it seems that even the Mises Institute doesn't think Bitcoin has much of future or is a substitute for gold:









						The Bitcoin Money Myth | Frank Shostak
					

Bitcoin is not a new form of money that replaces previous forms, but rather a new way of employing existent money in transactions.




					mises.org
				






> Besides, Bitcoin is not a new form of money that replaces previous forms, but rather a new way of employing existent money in transactions. Because Bitcoin is not real money but merely a different way of employing existent fiat money, obviously it cannot replace it.



So even the Mises Institute, as far out as they are, isn't bullish on Bitcoin's future prospects or its capability to replace the US dollar or any other fiat currency.

Speaking of fiat currency, as the Mises article I cited points out, Bitcoin has no inherent value and is a fiat currency, though without the security of a government backing it, which arguably makes it even more unstable. Instead, Bitcoin relies on the trust of its users and vendors willing accept it for transactions. The US government meets its financial obligations, the US economy and banking system is strong, and our currency provides stability for the world financial system. 

If you're willing to accept Bitcoin is a feasible currency despite the massive drops in value it regularly experiences and that it relies on the trust of its holders and vendors, then you have to reasonably accept that the US dollar is a sounder proposition because it is a fiat currency that is legal tender for the world's largest and stablest economy while being guaranteed by a government that has never defaulted on its debt. 

As for the where the stimulus package money when ... you have a degree or degrees in international business and economics, so you should know that takes funds to keep the state and city governments running during the pandemic as well as to help them combat the pandemic. You also have to give funds to healthcare system to help them augment their response. There were also the payments made to large and small businesses to keep them running during the lockdowns. 

By the time you deal with those expenses and the other systemic expenditures you could probably name, there isn't going to be enough to give "$320,000" to every American, even if you thought that was going to be a feasible policy. Furthermore, you should know that there was 4 trillion dollars in spending done while Trump was in office to combat the pandemic, which was stretched out over 2020, with an additional 1.9 trillion dollars approved by Biden, so your number "$320,000" is erroneous and should be much be lower even if the policy was to give every American an equal payout of money.

As for the meaning of the full faith and credit of the United States government and what it means, you should know that, given that you worked in finance, particularly around the Great Depression. 









						Full Faith and Credit
					

Full faith and credit describes one entity's unconditional guarantee or commitment to back the interest and principal of another entity's debt.




					www.investopedia.com
				




"Full faith and credit refers to the full borrowing power of a government that pledges to fulfill its payment obligations in a timely manner. The U.S. Treasury issues bills, notes, and bonds as a means of borrowing money from the public to fund the government’s capital projects.1

These securities require that interest payments be made to lenders and investors periodically. On the maturity date, bondholders expect full repayment of the face value of the securities. To encourage investors to purchase the debt issues, the Treasuries are backed by the full faith and credit of the government, providing assurance to fixed income investors that the expected interest payments and principal repayments will be made regardless of the economic situation.

Because Treasury securities are backed by the full faith and credit of the government, they are referred to as risk-free securities. The government cannot default on its obligations as it has the power to print more money or increase taxes in order to repay its debt. In addition, the interest rate on these risk-free securities also act as the benchmark rate for other fixed income securities that have some level of risk. In effect, the interest rate applied to debt instruments with risk is the risk-free rate plus a premium determined by the riskiness of the bond."



Rassah said:


> I doubt Satoshi would either. Again, you're confusing Bitcoin the money with Bitcoin an investment. You spend Bitcoin on stuff, like money, not dump it into other money. So if Satoshi is still alive, considering he knows that Bitcoin is better money than dollar more than anyone else, at best he may start spending some of it on things.
> Ironic that this is your concern though. Imagine if someone was hoarding 25% of USD, and then suddenly "rose up" and dumped USD on the market. Would that concern you too? Except that's literally what happened with the COVID stimulus. So why is that a worry for Bitcoin, but not for USD???


Bitcoin is an investment in that most people buy Bitcoin because its value relative to US dollar; many Bitcoin investors only buy Bitcoin to cash out eventually to take their gains in US dollars. This certainly has happened repeatedly with the many Bitcoin bubbles that happened throughout its history.

The reason I didn't have a problem with the COVID stimulus is because those policies prevented us from slipping into a depression, which we are evidently not in. 

I made the inquiry about the lost Satoshi coins because of this: https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-nearly-4-million-bitcoins-133009164.html

"Finally, there’s the question of what became of the bitcoins belonging to Satoshi, the pseudonymous creator of the crypto-currency, who has not been not been heard from since 2011. Chainalysis says wallets associated with Satoshi represent about 1 million bitcoins (the company will provide a more specific figure later this year), and that its model assumes that those coins--which date from a time when it was easy to mine 50 bitcoin with a laptop--are gone forever. This assumption is a big one and, if it proves to be incorrect, the number of circulating bitcoins could suddenly increase significantly and deliver a shock to the market."



Rassah said:


> If your wallet or service crashes and you lose Bitcoin, you can do the same. Bitcoin itself can't crash. There's nothing in it to crash. It's a protocol, a language, like TCP/IP. If something breaks on your end making you not be able to communicate with other nodes, you just fix your end of it.


There have been cases where the wallet and exchanges did not have to pay if those suing had their funds in Bitcoin, so that why I asked.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 4, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> What is not subjective is that Keynes and his policies weren't Marxist, that the Austrian school is a fringe school of economics practiced by a distinct minority, that the gold standard has been discredited, that Great Depression happened before Keynesian policies were ever formulated or implemented, or that the Long Depression was a major economic depression that happened.
> 
> Those are hard facts.


Nah, these are still your opinions, or in some cases just distortions or omissions.
One of the planks of Marxist economics is a need for a central bank, mainly as a way of transition from capitalism to full communism. Another central tenent of Marxism is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Whether that's a direct aspect of Keynesianism, fact is that you can't have Marxist/Socialist economic policies without the central tenent of Keynesianism that is a central bank with fiat currency that it can print to fund such programs.
The Austrian school isn't "fringe," that's your loaded biased opinion word. Sure it's a minority, despite following the main economic theory that lasted for centuries, simply because the new Keynesian idea came up and Austrians rejected it as illogical idiocy, but I explained why kinesian school is the most popular too: Almost all economic schools are government run, or government funded, so obviously government would have a huge incentive to support whatever school of economics gives it the most power to control economy and business.
The gold standard has been discredited by those in Austrian school too, because the gold backing experiment has demonstrably failed. We can't trust anyone to back money, as that broken trust is what resulted in dollars becoming just unbacked paper fiat. That doesn't mean sound, hard money with a limited supply has been discredited. It's actually government inflationary fiat that has been discredited, with that experiment failing over and over and over again throughout recent history, where the average lifespan of government fiat is only about 27 years (USD being one exception.
The Great Depression happened shortly after a central bank was created, and was the direct result of a massively inflationary money policy that was the result of both having to pay back WW1 war bonds and trying to stimulate the economy by increasing the velocity of money. You're right, Keynes came up with his economic theory after 1930 (I thought it was prior), but rather than using the failure of the 20's boom creating a bubble that led to the Depression as am example of what not to do, Keynesian economics seems to have embraced that and decided that the problem was that we needed MORE of that.
If your look at the actual facts of production numbers and shinning growth, as provided by the article I linked to, which has its own sources as well, while people may have felt that there was a depression, the actual data shows otherwise.  It's the same case with the Great Depression claims that it was due to contraction of money, when the data shows there was an expansion and greatly increased government spending. Or that the current markets show that we are growing, of you were to look at the S&P500, when economic data shows where in a pretty bad recession with people getting desperate.




Miles Marsalis said:


> I did answer the limited data you linked to in the Mises Wiki entry on the Long Depression; the Wikipedia article directly contradicts it and cites multiple sources explaining the breadth of the depression on both sides of the Atlantic. The great thing about Wikipedia is that the sources are clearly indicated and those sources for economic content are often written by historians and economists with post-graduate education.


You didn't and the Wiki didn't. The Wiki just presents the old populist opinion, and didn't address the actual numbers showing continued economic growth. The Great thing about Mises is that the sources in the economic articles are clearly indicated too, and those sources are often written by historians, economists with post graduate education, and even government sources themselves.



Miles Marsalis said:


> but I'll go further and point that the Mises Institute isn't even an accredited academic institution


Neither is Wikipedia. That's not the point.

That out of the way, on to Bitcoin


----------



## Rassah (Oct 4, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> [it seems that even the Mises Institute doesn't think Bitcoin has much of future or is a substitute for gold:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just one economist's opinion, back from 2013, where his central argument was that he didn't think Bitcoin would be able to establish a price or be used in trade. Bitcoin has since proven him wrong. Like many economists he seems to be stuck in a "money must be a physical thing/gold" mindset. That's fine, Bitcoin has and will continue to prove these types wrong as it continues to be adopted as money by people.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Speaking of fiat currency, as the Mises article I cited points out, Bitcoin has no inherent value and is a fiat currency,


Nothing has inherent value. Bitcoin wasn't given value by decree. Its value is based entirely on people willing to use it and invest in it, same as gold, which makes it not a fiat currency.



Miles Marsalis said:


> though without the security of a government backing it, which arguably makes it even more unstable.



Bitcoin doesn't have the massive downside of "government backing." Like gold, Bitcoin needs no backing. And if you want to compare stabilities, look at the stability of a fixed supply currency like gold, in which prices of things have been fairly stable for centuries, vs stability of inflationary fiat currencies which have hyperinflated and crashed so often that their average lifespan is only 27 years. Even USD just got pumped by 25% without warning. How can anyone trust that shit?



Miles Marsalis said:


> Instead, Bitcoin relies on the trust of its users and vendors willing accept it for transactions.


No, that's not where its trust comes from. You're forgetting the MASSIVE globally decentralized security system worth literally hundreds of billions of dollars, which at this point no nation on the planet is capable of attacking. At the core of it all, the "trust" for ALL money comes from "how much of a risk is there that its supply will not be suddenly increased and the money devalued?" All money trust comes from the concept of " how hard" is the money, meaning how hard it is to increase its supply should demand suddenly increase too. For government fist that trust comes from trusting that politicians will not simply print a ton more. Debts and obligations have nothing to do with it. So for the dollar we have a large government with strict rules preventing unlimited printing (ha, kinda), and a large economy we hope grows fast enough to absorb whatever does get printed. And for Bitcoin, we have a set of protocols that are secured by global mining and a set of incentives that make it more worthwhile to secure Bitcoin than to destroy it (the opposite of incentives in a central banking currency).




Miles Marsalis said:


> The US government meets its financial obligations, the US economy and banking system is strong, and our currency provides stability for the world financial system.


More opinions. And wrong ones

But, I'm an economist who's job it is to know and keep track of this kind of stuff, and you're not.

Want hard proof that the dollar is in trouble? Bitcoin went from almost nothing to a total value of almost a trillion in just 10 years, despite, as you say, it not being backed by anything. That's almost a trillion dollars worth of value that people around the world decided not to trust that "safe" dollar with.



Miles Marsalis said:


> for the world's largest and stablest economy while being guaranteed by a government that has never defaulted on its debt.


The job of an economist isn't to be a historian, it's to figure out the science behind human action with regards to trade so we can make predictions. In this case, the job isn't to say "the US government has never defaulted on its debt" as a historian would, it's to look at the signs to see if and when the US government may default on its debt. I'm perplexed by the amount of economists who treat the market as a steady state system existing only in the present...




Miles Marsalis said:


> As for the where the stimulus package money when ... you have a degree or degrees in international business and economics, so you should know that takes funds to keep the state and city governments running during the pandemic as well as to help them combat the pandemic.


I do, and I do know how much it takes in funds. It's not as much as was printed. Even assuming everyone stopped paying their taxes, the amount of funds printed was higher than needed. The example of "highways + moon landing times five" was just to illustrate the point of how ridiculous it was, and how massive of a handout it was to those already at the top, at all of our expense. Which is EXACTLY the problem Keynesian policies enable, as was predicted by Austrians, and EXACTLY why Bitcoin was created.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Furthermore, you should know that there was 4 trillion dollars in spending done while Trump was in office to combat the pandemic, which was stretched out over 2020, with an additional 1.9 trillion dollars approved by Biden, so your number "$320,000" is erroneous...


National debt went from $21 trillion to $27 trillion. That's the number I was using. You're right, I could have used others, like direct stimulus spending plus overnight lending, plus a bunch of other things. Either way it's not good.




Miles Marsalis said:


> As for the meaning of the full faith and credit of the United States government and what it means, you should know that, given that you worked in finance, particularly around the Great Depression.


Yes, I know what it means. It's a promise. An IOU. It's meaningless, and depends on promises of politicians who's job it is to lie to get elected, and then to lie to stay elected. It's a promise by a country that may default, or could simply fulfill its promises to pay debts by printing more and more, thus devaluating the actual value of the debt you hold. As many countries have done throughout history.


Miles Marsalis said:


> The government cannot default on its obligations as it has the power to print more money or increase taxes in order to repay its debt.


And yet, governments still default. When economies fall hard, especially due to attacks on property, wealth leaves and there's not enough to tax. Likewise, printing increasingly worthless money results in people just not willing to accept it anymore, again resulting in default.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Bitcoin is an investment in that most people buy Bitcoin because its value relative to US dollar; many Bitcoin investors only buy Bitcoin to cash out eventually to take their gains in US dollars.


That's only newbies, when they first get into it. But soon after, they start to understand it as a store of wealth and money, and just start using it to buy things directly. They
 no longer have the goal of "cashing out" some time in the future. There's absolutely no reason to. Like I said previously, what do you plan to cash out your dollars for? The very concept is meaningless. You just hold them and spend what you need.




Miles Marsalis said:


> I made the inquiry about the lost Satoshi coins because of this: https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-nearly-4-million-bitcoins-133009164.html
> 
> "This assumption is a big one and, if it proves to be incorrect, the number of circulating bitcoins could suddenly increase significantly and deliver a shock to the market."


Incorrect conclusion. The only way they would increase the supply in the market is if Satoshi dumped them on the market. Coins sitting in people's savings aren't a part of the market supply, whether they're lost or not.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 4, 2021)

But, honestly, this is all a waste of debate time. Really, the only two important questions are:

1) Is Bitcoin adoption and development growing or not? If it is, then all the arguments against it are moot, since it will just continue to eliminate them one by one.

2) Is US government money policy different from every other government throughout history? ("This time it will be different!"). If yes, how, and if not, then there's no reason for it to end up same as all the ones before it, since it's following all the same steps.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Oct 4, 2021)

We're making progress here, but I do want to point a few things you flip-flopped on. 

You were initially adamant that the gold standard was workable theory, but now are saying that:


Rassah said:


> The gold standard has been discredited by those in Austrian school too, because the gold backing experiment has demonstrably failed.


Except that the gold standard is still advocated by the Austrian school and those who believe in it to this day.

There is a contradiction here.

You also said: 


Rassah said:


> It's actually government inflationary fiat that has been discredited, with that experiment failing over and over and over again throughout recent history, where the average lifespan of government fiat is only about 27 years (USD being one exception.


This is at best a dishonest assertion which you should and probably do know better than because:


> But it does seem that Hewitt, the originator of the meme, did do some actual calculations to come up with the 27-year thing (albeit using some very selective methods). Hewitt claims to have counted 176 currencies that are still in circulation, and 599 that aren’t. Koning downloaded the full list to check Hewitt’s calculations. It turns out that you can indeed arrive at an average “lifespan” (more on that in a bit) of 27 years, but that’s only if you make one fairly significant omission. Yup, that’s right, it only is true if you leave out all 176 currencies still in circulation. So... just a little misleading, it seems fair to say. The other thing is that these 599 currencies that are no longer in circulation didn’t all just spontaneously combust, as the meme implies. Rather, they were actually deliberately replaced or ended for economic, political or social reasons. So the idea of counting up these currencies’ “lifespans” just doesn’t really make much sense.


Kelly goes into detail about why these currencies were phased out:


> The list contains all of the pre-euro currencies (Dutch gulder, French franc, Italian lira, etc). These currencies had good reasons for disappearing: they were swapped for a new monetary unit. Existing currency holders weren't robbed. They were fairly compensated for this switch. Another example of monetary reorganization occurred in East Africa. From 1919 to the 1960s, Britain's former east African colonies relied on the East African shilling, produced by the East African Currency Board. When these countries gained their independence, the currency board was dismantled. In its place Kenya began issuing its own shillings at par with the old ones, as did Tanzania and Uganda. In each case, existing owners of East African shillings could convert their holdings into new currency. No wealth was being destroyed during any of these switches. But people who throw around the phrase the average life expectancy for a fiat currency is 27 years as a criticism of the very institution of currency are using the data in a way that implicitly assumes that the East African experience--and others like it--were negative. They weren't.


This article covers the origin and faulty reasoning behind the meme.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Oct 4, 2021)

Another thing you were persistently incorrect about, despite the fact that you could easily have looked up the history and should know given your expertise, is that Keynes clearly didn't influence policy during the Great Depression and his policies weren't to blame, obviously. Which to your credit you did admit:


Rassah said:


> You're right, Keynes came up with his economic theory after 1930 (I thought it was prior), but rather than using the failure of the 20's boom creating a bubble that led to the Depression as am example of what not to do, Keynesian economics seems to have embraced that and decided that the problem was that we needed MORE of that.


You're still honing in on a portion of Keynes's monetary rather than seeing that he also advocated for increased government expenditures and lower taxes to stimulate demand to pull economies out recessions, which I've said and proven repeatedly. 

Moving on to the Long Depression, it was a major economic depression that actually happened and the Wikipedia article you clearly didn't read provides clear data demonstrating the depth and damage of the Long Depression. I pulled all of this from the article, which the Mises article fails to address:

Note the dip in GNP at 1873 and consider the magnitude of the depression needed to cause that.





You can also note the multiple depressions under the gold standard as well too.

The article also cites a publication noting the estimated declines in US manufacturing output in selected sectors from 1872 to 1876, as well as the 10% of the overall drop. 

To quote the article:

"In the United States, the Long Depression began with the Panic of 1873. The National Bureau of Economic Research dates the contraction following the panic as lasting from October 1873 to March 1879.  At 65 months, it is the longest-lasting contraction identified by the NBER, eclipsing the Great Depression's 43 months of contraction.[6][30] Figures from Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz show net national product increased 3 percent per year from 1869 to 1879 and real national product grew at 6.8 percent per year during that time frame.[31] However, since between 1869 and 1879 the population of the United States increased by over 17.5 percent,[32] per capita NNP growth was lower. Following the end of the episode in 1879, the U.S. economy would remain unstable, experiencing recessions for 114 of the 253 months until January 1901.[33]"



> The dramatic shift in prices mauled nominal wages - in the United States, nominal wages declined by one-quarter during the 1870s,[13] and as much as one-half in some places, such as Pennsylvania.[34] Although real wages had enjoyed robust growth in the aftermath of the American Civil War, increasing by nearly a quarter between 1865 and 1873, they stagnated until the 1880s, posting no real growth, before resuming their robust rate of expansion in the later 1880s.[35] The collapse of cotton prices devastated the already war-ravaged economy of the southern United States.[16] Although farm prices fell dramatically, American agriculture continued to expand production.[29]
> 
> Thousands of American businesses failed, defaulting on more than a billion dollars of debt.[34] One in four laborers in New York were out of work in the winter of 1873–1874[34] and, nationally, a million became unemployed.[34]
> 
> ...


That is a far cry from the Mises Wiki article.

Finally, about Austrian school:


Rassah said:


> The Austrian school isn't "fringe," that's your loaded biased opinion word. Sure it's a minority, despite following the main economic theory that lasted for centuries, simply because the new Keynesian idea came up and Austrians rejected it as illogical idiocy, but I explained why kinesian school is the most popular too: Almost all economic schools are government run, or government funded, so obviously government would have a huge incentive to support whatever school of economics gives it the most power to control economy and business.


The fringe, or the heterodox, are generally accepted to be the minority, particularly when their theories have discredited for decades. 


> *Mainstream economists generally reject modern-day Austrian economics, and argue that modern-day Austrian economists are excessively averse to the use of mathematics and statistics in economics.*[80] Austrian opposition to mathematization extends to economic theorizing only, as they argue that human behavior is too variable for overarching mathematical models to hold true across time and context. Austrians do, however, support analyzing revealed preference via mathematization to aid business and finance.[81]


See the range of economists who disagree about your assessment of the Austrian school in that section.

This isn't my subjective opinion; most of the field from both schools has reached this conclusion regardless of whatever I think and these are definitional concepts that you have been questioning.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Oct 4, 2021)

Rassah said:


> But, I'm an economist who's job it is to know and keep track of this kind of stuff, and you're not.


Respectfully, there is a lot of basic stuff you seem not know even someone like me, who definitely has less experience in the field than you, has internalized. I'm just a management consultant who sometimes economics depending on organization I'm with, but you definitely have a master's degree or degrees in international business and economics, so you should know exactly why the gold standard isn't workable, why the Austrian school is regarded the way it is, that Keynes didn't contribute to the Great Depression, that the Long Depression was a real matter, and that history is essential to economics because it provides a way to test and understand economic theory. History is as essential to economics as mathematics; it provides a rationale for developing sound economic theory. 

The reason we've both been citing historical examples for economic phenomenon is because history is so integral to economics.

I'm going avoid directly answering the question about the COVID relief packages if only because where the money and funding went for those package is a matter of public record and easily accessible.


Rassah said:


> Want hard proof that the dollar is in trouble? Bitcoin went from almost nothing to a total value of almost a trillion in just 10 years, despite, as you say, it not being backed by anything. That's almost a trillion dollars worth of value that people around the world decided not to trust that "safe" dollar with.


It just proves that Bitcoin is highly inflationary and people are bandwagoning on a nascent craze with a history of bubbles. The US dollars enduring dominance in our financial systems is evidence of its versatility. 


Rassah said:


> No, that's not where its trust comes from. You're forgetting the MASSIVE globally decentralized security system worth literally hundreds of billions of dollars, which at this point no nation on the planet is capable of attacking. At the core of it all, the "trust" for ALL money comes from "how much of a risk is there that its supply will not be suddenly increased and the money devalued?" All money trust comes from the concept of " how hard" is the money, meaning how hard it is to increase its supply should demand suddenly increase too. For government fist that trust comes from trusting that politicians will not simply print a ton more. Debts and obligations have nothing to do with it. So for the dollar we have a large government with strict rules preventing unlimited printing (ha, kinda), and a large economy we hope grows fast enough to absorb whatever does get printed. And for Bitcoin, we have a set of protocols that are secured by global mining and a set of incentives that make it more worthwhile to secure Bitcoin than to destroy it (the opposite of incentives in a central banking currency).


I mean, we've previously covered how exchange and wallet services are breached on a monthly basis and even the largest exchange, which you didn't know was Binance, has been hacked not too long ago. 

There is also the fact that Bitcoin is failing to scale already, which is bigger than the security issues to future of Bitcoin. Bitcoin lags in transactions per second behind payment processors like Paypal, Visa, and even Western Union. 


Rassah said:


> And yet, governments still default. When economies fall hard, especially due to attacks on property, wealth leaves and there's not enough to tax. Likewise, printing increasingly worthless money results in people just not willing to accept it anymore, again resulting in default.


The US government has never defaulted on its debt, though, and we're the lynchpin of the current global financial system.


Rassah said:


> National debt went from $21 trillion to $27 trillion. That's the number I was using. You're right, I could have used others, like direct stimulus spending plus overnight lending, plus a bunch of other things. Either way it's not good.


As an economist, you should have used the actual budget figures stipulated in the legislation, which is what economist assessing these packages regularly do, not estimate based on the national debt, which could pertain to expenses unrelated to the packages. 

There is also the whole issue that foreign government buy a lot of US Treasury bonds, which is great for us because we fund certain expenditures here domestically and great for those other countries because they get return on their low-risk investment and they keep buying our Treasury bonds because since the payout is in US dollars they can't use the dollars domestically in their own economies. 

Which you should know.


Rassah said:


> That's only newbies, when they first get into it. But soon after, they start to understand it as a store of wealth and money, and just start using it to buy things directly. They
> no longer have the goal of "cashing out" some time in the future. There's absolutely no reason to. Like I said previously, what do you plan to cash out your dollars for? The very concept is meaningless. You just hold them and spend what you need.


That kind of flies in the face of the previous sell-offs Bitcoin has experienced where the market fell by 80% or the drop the market suffered earlier in April of this year. I was talking about Bitcoin investors speculated, but the scenario could easily be Bitcoin holders selling in a panic.


Rassah said:


> Incorrect conclusion. The only way they would increase the supply in the market is if Satoshi dumped them on the market. Coins sitting in people's savings aren't a part of the market supply, whether they're lost or not.


I mean, what I'm concerned about is Satoshi or whoever holds those coins dumping them on the market abruptly. 

Which why I brought it up.


Rassah said:


> But, honestly, this is all a waste of debate time. Really, the only two important questions are:
> 
> 1) Is Bitcoin adoption and development growing or not? If it is, then all the arguments against it are moot, since it will just continue to eliminate them one by one.
> 
> 2) Is US government money policy different from every other government throughout history? ("This time it will be different!"). If yes, how, and if not, then there's no reason for it to end up same as all the ones before it, since it's following all the same steps.


2 is a little political, but argue that Keynesian policy by definition is different from what came before and has resulted in a more stable economic situation with the tools to shorten recessions while ensuring they don't become depressions. 

For 1, I'd say Bitcoin needs to address several several security and scalability issues first to become more viable as a currency and an investment.


----------



## TyraWadman (Oct 4, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> For 1, I'd say Bitcoin needs to address several several security and scalability issues first to become more viable as a currency and an investment.



Dis.
Right now it seems to be riding a hype market more than an 'I actually know what I'm doing with this' market. 
I've already asked questions that basically never got answered. So unless the uh... company? wants to make those necessary improvements, I can't see it taking off. Just look how many old people get cranky for having to learn how to tap their debit cards!


----------



## Rassah (Oct 10, 2021)

Somewhat off topic, but @Miles Marsalis  you keep claiming our economy is doing well?









						Cargo ships anchored near West coast ports could face a 4-week delay to dock, raising further fears over the global supply chain, a report says
					

Congestion at key US ports could reportedly delay the shipment of items, including toys, clothing, electronics, vehicles, and furniture.




					www.businessinsider.com
				




I think we're just about to enter some really dark times.


----------



## PLEASE DELETE ACCOUNT (Oct 10, 2021)

Rassah said:


> But, honestly, this is all a waste of debate time. Really, the only two important questions are:
> 
> 1) Is Bitcoin adoption and development growing or not? If it is, then all the arguments against it are moot, since it will just continue to eliminate them one by one.
> 
> 2) Is US government money policy different from every other government throughout history? ("This time it will be different!"). If yes, how, and if not, then there's no reason for it to end up same as all the ones before it, since it's following all the same steps.


And how are we going to combat the massive resources that grow by the day that are required to hash faster and faster for smaller and smaller payouts? We are talking not insignificant power requirements...

 The idea of a decentralised currency seems great. But at the same time it's only another financial barter tool, that still realistically needs to be exchanged to another currency/barter tool to be useful in most applications.

I don't think solved any problems, and instead created more :c


----------



## Rassah (Oct 10, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> We're making progress here, but I do want to point a few things you flip-flopped on.
> 
> You were initially adamant that the gold standard was workable theory, but now are saying that:



You misunderstood, for like the 3rd or 4th time now. I was correcting you in wrongly claiming that "there is not enough gold to account for all the US dollar wealth." The error in that claim is in thinking the value of gold is fixed at $1700 per ounce, or whatever it is today, and multiplying that amount by number of ounces in the world to find that total value of all gold is less than total value of all outstanding USD. That's not how it works though. If we went back on the gold standard, the value of gold per ounce would increase, and keep increasing until total amount of gold times price per ounce is equal to total amount of USD. Same as despite all of Bitcoin only being worth $1 trillion and there being $20+ trillion or however many dollars in circulation isn't a problem for Bitcoin, because the value of Bitcoins will just grow to equal the value of dollars. I didn't flip flop on that. I just added that gold, despite having a good aspect of being scarce, already failed as money due to having bad divisibility and portability.

Regarding Austrians, it's not gold specifically they're defending, it's a fixed money supply that doesn't grow or shrink with the economy, so that you can use it as an accurate measure of economic activity (imagine using a ruler where inches expand as you built bigger and bigger, and trying to use that to build a house). Many Austrians just don't understand that Bitcoin is a better alternative with regards to a fixed money supply, or fear it hasn't existed long enough to prove itself, that's all.



Miles Marsalis said:


> There is a contradiction here.
> 
> You also said: (stuff about fiat lasting 27 years)
> 
> This is at best a dishonest assertion which you should and probably do know better than because:


The counterargument points out the 176 currencies still in circulation. The counter counterargument is that a lot of those currencies aren't, actually. We still call them the "US dollars," but they're not the same currency today as they were 100 years ago. The current USD is only 50 years old. Before then, it was gold represented by gold certificates. Now it's just paper. Every other currency is similar.


Miles Marsalis said:


> Kelly goes into detail about why these currencies were phased out:
> 
> 
> > The list contains all of the pre-euro currencies (Dutch gulder, French franc, Italian lira, etc). These currencies had good reasons for disappearing: they were swapped for a new monetary unit.


Yeah, that's another way of saying "their currencies failed." You don't "swap out" money that people are using unless your old money is in big trouble, or just sucks compared to the new money. That the people who were forced to switch were compensated "fairly" is highly subjective. India recently phased out a certain denomination of bills and forced everyone to turn them in to keep their money safe. It was not a pretty process, with huge lines and people still losing money.
And currently, millions of people are simply swapping out their dollars for a new monetary unit called bitcoin. If bitcoin becomes dominant and USD becomes worthless, would that be considered "not a failure" of USD according to your guy, even though the reason people are switching is because Bitcoin is simply a better money?



Miles Marsalis said:


> This article covers the origin and faulty reasoning behind the meme.


But yes, thanks to your article I'll refrain from the 27 number. I'll just point out that every inflationary fiat currency ever attempted throughout the last few thousand years (including gold coins that were diluted to inflate the money supply) has always failed, that all the current fiat currencies including the USD is in the process of failure, and that inflationary fiat currencies have a very well defined mechanism for failure that seems to be impossible to fix due to their very nature. We just don't know how long it will take until a new inflationary adventure comes to its inevitable crash.



Miles Marsalis said:


> You're still honing in on a portion of Keynes's monetary rather than seeing that he also advocated for increased government expenditures and lower taxes to stimulate demand to pull economies out recessions, which I've said and proven repeatedly.


That's literally what I've been saying over and over: Keynesian style policies of government expenditures including government spending and increasing the money supply (printing rather than taxing) prolonged the Depression. You were saying that the Depression was caused by a contraction in money supply as an argument for why deflationary currencies are bad, and I pointed out that the Great Depression was preceded by a huge expansion of money supply that caused the Roaring 20's and inflated the economic stock bubble that caused the crash (same way the post 2001 stimulus caused the housing bubble that caused the 2008 crash), and then rather than a monetary contraction, the period of Great Depression saw a huge expansion of money and spending too.






Miles Marsalis said:


> Moving on to the Long Depression...





Miles Marsalis said:


> Note the dip in GNP at 1873 and consider the magnitude of the depression needed to cause that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So, reading all that, my first thought is that this "Depression" sounds pretty quaint compared to the Great Depression caused by devaluation of the dollar post WW1, and even not that big of a deal compared to the 2008 global recession that took over 8 years to come out of, which I think historians will still question whether we're out of it today. Stocks look great thanks to all the newly printed money being pumped into it, but the economy as a whole is still in shit and millions of people are still unemployed or underemployed. Check out any furry social media groups and you'll see people bitching that all they can get is retail jobs, and that they can't afford housing, or even basics like food. But, hey, if you think things have been great since we started "stimulating" every new bubble and recession, compared to how things were back then, agree to disagree. I obviously see things you don't, and you believe things I don't, so we won't come together on this.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 10, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Finally, about Austrian school:
> 
> The fringe, or the heterodox, are generally accepted to be the minority, particularly when their theories have discredited for decades.
> 
> ...


Lol, no, Austrian theories haven't been discredited at all. The Austrian business cycle theory was a theory that was attacked often during the 1900's, but which ended up proving itself true when post 2001 economic stimulus created the malinvestment in the housing sector exactly as Austrians predicted it will. And it continues to be proven right with all the malinvestment that's going on now.
Also, mainstream economists reject Austrian economists because they think they have an aversion to use of mathematics and statistics in economics. They're wrong. Of course we do! Much of the fundamental foundations of Austrian economics is exactly the same as that of mainstream economics. That Mises article I posted relied entirely on statistics. The main difference is that Austrian economics, just as other sciences, have certain "laws" that if your data seems to contradict, you initially reject the data and figure out where it went wrong rather than just accept it (e.g. perpetual motion machine putting out data showing that it's creating more energy than taking in would be outright rejected). So if economic law says that a price floor creates shortages, and the statistical data shows it doesn't, you don't reject the thoroughly proven law, you figure out where the data went wrong. For mainstream economists, they either ignore the laws, sticking to just pure data, or WORSE, try to come up with some financial math to finagle it to fit anyway.



Miles Marsalis said:


> so you should know exactly why the gold standard isn't workable,


I explained that it's not because "there's not enough gold" but because "it's not easily divisible and has to rely on IOUs (aka backing) to function. Has nothing to do with it being deflationary.



Miles Marsalis said:


> why the Austrian school is regarded the way it is,


Yep, I explained that multiple times. Those in power have an incentive to educate and then reward with financial incentives those who preach to keep giving them power.



Miles Marsalis said:


> that Keynes didn't contribute to the Great Depression,


He didn't, but the policies he later advocated for (that all nations adopted) did, which later on also caused the Great Recession.



Miles Marsalis said:


> and that history is essential to economics because it provides a way to test and understand economic theory.


Ironically, history is NOT essential to mainstream economists, because they seem to reject thousands of years of history for modern Keynesian gobbledygook that has been proven to be a failure throughout history already. Do you want to test modern economic theory of whether you can sustain an economy by continuously devaluing money so you can keep expanding national debt indefinitely and keep the lower classes "rich"  and happy with tons of social programs? Great. Just study the collapse of ancient Rome. Or if you want to study the effects of switching from hard money (hard to make and expand) to easy money, just study the effects and collapses of the British empire, Venetian empire, and even the history of the Golden Horde led by Khans who swept across Asia and into Eastern Europe, only to fall after a few centuries after they instituted monetary inflation.
But I'm sure if you ignore history and come up with fancy mathematics, you can handwave all that away.




Miles Marsalis said:


> It just proves that Bitcoin is highly inflationary and people are bandwagoning on a nascent craze with a history of bubbles.


Did you just claim that "Bitcoin went from almost nothing to a total value of almost a trillion in just 10 years" makes it highly inflationary? Pretty sure you meant deflationary. As for bubbles, like I said, adoption waves. Everything goes through those.



Miles Marsalis said:


> I mean, we've previously covered how exchange and wallet services are breached on a monthly basis and even the largest exchange, which you didn't know was Binance, has been hacked not too long ago.



Yeah, and we can also keep going in circles about how those are small insignificant exchanges, and the one big one is comparable to the number of large banks who also had similar issues. Or how early industries (like the internet) are usually rife with problems that get fixed over time. Or more importantly how Bitcoin actually solves that whole "you HAVE to keep your money in the bank" problem that creates MASIVE wealth targets for thieves to attack, letting everyone hold their money themselves.
But you won't listen. Bitcoin solves tons of problems, but you don't care to learn about them.



Miles Marsalis said:


> There is also the fact that Bitcoin is failing to scale already, which is bigger than the security issues to future of Bitcoin. Bitcoin lags in transactions per second behind payment processors like Paypal, Visa, and even Western Union.



See? Great example of you just wanting to be right and not listening. I already mentioned that Bitcoin is already capable of handling thousands of transactions a second and that this scalability issue is fixed. People using Bitcoin in El Salvador, before El Salvador even adopted it as legal tender, were already using the scalability solution, where their transactions were instant and cost pennies. But you're still regurgitating years old claims.




Miles Marsalis said:


> The US government has never defaulted on its debt, though, and we're the lynchpin of the current global financial system.


Just because it hasn't yet doesn't mean it isn't in the process of. And, remember that history? The UK, Spain, Venice, Rome, and others before it "never defaulted on their debt" and were the lynchpins of global finance at the time, where the rest of the world used their currencies. You know what happened? They switched from a trusted hard money to starting to inflate their money, losing international trust, and opening themselves up to competition from someone else offering hard money. All of them fell for that exact same reason. And that's literally what US did recently, and where Bitcoin comes in.




Miles Marsalis said:


> There is also the whole issue that foreign government buy a lot of US Treasury bonds


I already told you that they're buying less and less, and some foreign countries, including the biggest buyer China, are now actually dumping them. Foreign nations are losing trust in USD.



Miles Marsalis said:


> That kind of flies in the face of the previous sell-offs Bitcoin has experienced where the market fell by 80% or the drop the market suffered earlier in April of this year. I was talking about Bitcoin investors speculated, but the scenario could easily be Bitcoin holders selling in a panic.


The drop of 80% is only if you take the highest peak of $20k that lasted less than two weeks, and compare it to the bottom flash crash of $3,500 that lasted all of two days, and happened in April of last year, not this past year (time flies). For most people the price was between the low teens ($10k to $15k) before declining to high thousands (it stayed around $6,500 to $8,500 for many months). It's a drop, but it's a much less and much slower drop over a few years. The people who held and used Bitcoin over that time knew that it would go back up eventually, within four years. I told you that it would go back up plenty of times just a few years ago. And told you that after the first major crash from $1,200 many years before that. And once Bitcoin reaches the peak of its current bubble and drops, I'll tell you that it will be up again within the next 3 years. And I'll still be right same as I was before. People who go from FOMO speculators to understanding what it is, think like me and just use it to buy stuff, as I do all the time. And it's not even just about the "the price will go up" part. It's just so much safer and more convenient to use than having to deal with a bank.



Miles Marsalis said:


> I mean, what I'm concerned about is Satoshi or whoever holds those coins dumping them on the market abruptly.


They have no reason to crash the value of their own wealth. Why aren't you concerned about Bezos or Zuckerberg dumping all their Amazon or Facebook stocks and destroying their own net worth abruptly?


----------



## Rassah (Oct 10, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Which why I brought it up.
> 
> 2 is a little political, but argue that Keynesian policy by definition is different from what came before and has resulted in a more stable economic situation with the tools to shorten recessions while ensuring they don't become depressions.



What's different between Keynesian policy of printing money to enrich the upper classes while claiming it's to stimulate the economy with public works projects, and all those other old empires diluting coins or outright printing paper money to enrich the upper classes while spending tons on public works projects to stimulate the economy?
Do you have the historical knowledge to address this question of what the actual difference is?




Miles Marsalis said:


> For 1, I'd say Bitcoin needs to address several several security and scalability issues first to become more viable as a currency and an investment.



Bitcoin exchanges use the same level of digital security that banks use. It's just that the smaller startups don't. It's a growing pains problem. Bitcoin also solves the security issue that banks deal with in that unlike with banks, you don't have to store your money in a big pot. We have to use banks because we are in a digital economy, so we put all our money into a single place, and a hacker group spending maybe $100,000 to break security can see a potential windfall of millions. Bitcoin solves that problem by letting you store your money on your own phone, or for large amounts on discuss hardware devices, that use the same level of security as banks do internally. But now a hacker group spending $100,000 to break into someones "vault" has no idea how much is in it, and could end up stealing $2000 or less. The incentive is no longer there. Security issues are also constantly being addressed and improved. Your only argument here is that "Bitcoin can't improve and has no development behind it," which is obviously false.
With regards to scalability, that's already solved. The only issue is just time for all the new lightning nodes to propagate. That's happening on an exponential scale. A year and a half ago ago making a Lightning Network payment was cumbersome, usually had to be done using command line interface, and you had a pretty bad chance of it actually going through. Today you can install Lightning Network Bitcoin wallet app on your phone that does it for you, and 95% of lightning transactions can get through without a problem, with the other 5% sometimes requiring an extra push. When I was in El Salvador, I was paying locals using my lightning wallet without any problems.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 10, 2021)

TyraWadman said:


> So unless the uh... company? wants to make those necessary improvements, I can't see it taking off. Just look how many old people get cranky for having to learn how to tap their debit cards!



That's the benefit of Bitcoin. It's an open source platform. There's no "the company." There are dozens of companies - Strike, Square, BlueWallet, LN Labs, Zap, Phoenix, Mycelium, etc - all working independently to find and develop solutions. It's like the internet having the problem of shitty browser interface which back when it started was just text based only, and instead of the internet company fixing it, we had Netscape, Microsoft, Google, Opera, and others all competing to make better options.
Incidentally, a few companies are working to integrate Lightning Network payments into debit cards and Google Pay. If you can swipe your card or tap your phone to pay with USD, we're very close to you being able to do the same with Bitcoin Lightning. Twitter, the owner of Square pay, already integrated LN Bitcoin payments and tips into its service (to the chagrin of many furs I'm sure), and VISA is currently working to add support to it to it's own back end network to make funds transfers cheaper and easier.
I've been telling you guys that big companies have been investing and developing support for it for years. Don't know if you guys just didn't believe me or what, but much of the tech is already working and that support is starting to get rolled out.



Christine Vulpes said:


> And how are we going to combat the massive resources that grow by the day that are required to hash faster and faster for smaller and smaller payouts? We are talking not insignificant power requirements...


There's no such requirement. Bitcoin doesn't need an increased amount of resources to process more transactions. The only reason more resources are used is because miners are competing to capture more of the transaction processing market, but you can run the entire current Bitcoin infrastructure using the same level of mining as it used back when it was mined on PCs ten years ago. The benefit though is that Bitcoin miners are looking for the cheapest sources of power and don't care where it's at as long as they can also get an internet connection. That means they have the most interest in "free" sources of energy, like solar, wind, and hydro. So they're the ones who are and will be pushing for more development into that tech.
Regarding the power requirements themselves, that alone isn't an issue. Who cares if it's a lot of electricity used. We use way more just powering our refrigerators or playing 3D games around the world.



Christine Vulpes said:


> The idea of a decentralised currency seems great. But at the same time it's only another financial barter tool, that still realistically needs to be exchanged to another currency/barter tool to be useful in most applications.


Only in some places and only for now. In US you can buy a lot of things with Bitcoin directly. In El Salvador you can use it as your main money since they made it their reserve currency. And countries like Panama, Brazil, and a few others in Central America and Caribbean are working on the same kinds of bills.



Christine Vulpes said:


> I don't think solved any problems, and instead created more :c


More problems like what?
The biggest one I can think of is that the super rich will have a harder time getting their stimulus moneys printed for them, and once a Bitcoin Speculative Attack happens that will wipe out companies that rely on debt, and anyone who still insists on holding their government currency...


----------



## PLEASE DELETE ACCOUNT (Oct 10, 2021)

Sure the book keeping infrastructure is minimal yes.

 The mining is not. Bitcoin just passed .5% of all energy consumption in the world. This makes it 7 times larger than than Google. Since the pool is finite and the easier seeds are grabbed first it means it needs exponentially more power and compute time to unearth. It's a lot of waste to generate a pure fiat good with no natural usability. 

It's getting close now to using more electricity than Norway, and no, not everyone is using green energy to power it, many large farms were using coal fired or gas fired power sources( especially in China)

It's entire business model is speculation hoping it becomes something. Only there's no one to back it, and no requirement that anyone accept it. 

It doesn't actually solve issues normal fiats have either, and big investors and dark horses can and do hold large parts of the pie. If they all sell off at once it would crash the market just as standard securities fire sale would do for the stock market. They come out on top and ensure it has no future value for anyone else with a slice of the pie.

It's supposed to address issues of runaway inflation by having a good that his finite resources. It forgets that speculators until that point of having all tokens in circulation will just cause more money-power dynamic issues. It's a massive waste energy hog ( and yes I've heard arguments of "oh but How's it compare to the current system"...which is ignoring that it's not a replacement nor is it a competitor in most places. It's just another thing, to run transactions, that uses more resources.)

Replacing a fiat currency that's backed, with a fiat currency that's not is not going to go well long term.

It's all much ado about nothing. It's a get rich quick on speculative investing scheme. Nothing more. Nothing less. Everyone just hopes they get in early and make enough profit to make it worth while.


----------



## TyraWadman (Oct 10, 2021)

Rassah said:


> That's the benefit of Bitcoin. It's an open source platform. There's no "the company." There are dozens of companies - Strike, Square, BlueWallet, LN Labs, Zap, Phoenix, Mycelium, etc - all working independently to find and develop solutions. It's like the internet having the problem of shitty browser interface which back when it started was just text based only, and instead of the internet company fixing it, we had Netscape, Microsoft, Google, Opera, and others all competing to make better options.
> Incidentally, a few companies are working to integrate Lightning Network payments into debit cards and Google Pay. If you can swipe your card or tap your phone to pay with USD, we're very close to you being able to do the same with Bitcoin Lightning. Twitter, the owner of Square pay, already integrated LN Bitcoin payments and tips into its service (to the chagrin of many furs I'm sure), and VISA is currently working to add support to it to it's own back end network to make funds transfers cheaper and easier.
> I've been telling you guys that big companies have been investing and developing support for it for years. Don't know if you guys just didn't believe me or what, but much of the tech is already working and that support is starting to get rolled out.



I get that Bitcoin is in development. If it's going to be the future, then it will be here when it's ready and I will support it when it meets the conditions in which I feel comfortable and safe using it. Until then, I do not want to participate in something that has more cons than pros, in a part of the world that doesn't even accept bitcoin transactions (even Amazon sellers don't wanna ship out here, it's so isolated, I'm not exaggerating, so the people out here would be screwed over big time). 

If they wanna work on Security/account recovery and making sure places like Canada can actually keep the whole socialism and assist citizens when they run into dire straights, I would be a little more on board.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Oct 10, 2021)

I thought this was settled after a week, but I'm going answer this without quotes because I'm about at that level of effort. 

@Rassah , that article you posted details the supply chain issues endemic to the pandemic, which would be easier to solve if vaccinations were higher, though the mandates should be making hiring vaccinated workers to offload those shipments less difficult in the long term. As more employees at the docks get vaccinated, social distancing requirements will be able to relaxed and business will be back to normal. 

I see the backlog as a short term situation. 

About the gold standard, you're not understanding that besides there not being enough gold to cover the GDP of the US (and certainly not the GDPs of the world's other economies) and by going back the gold standard you would the very inflationary crisis you are worried about, but that the quantity of gold in currently recovered is only so divisible and can't cover all of the transactions and economic activity in our financial system. Like, you can't divide gold atoms and we're not even talking about how you are basically devaluing the dollar to make fit to the gold standard. You also are not accounting for the damage going back the gold standard would wreak havoc with jewelry and electronics industries. There is also nothing preventing governments from leaving the gold standard too, once they're on it. 

Returning to the gold standard or a fixed exchange system also does not prevent inflation, because you should know about the Mexican peso crisis of 1994 and the Icelandic financial crisis of 2009 (which I mentioned before), which undermines the very reason the Austrian school seeks to reinstate the gold standard.  All it means is that there will be a severe and debilitating crash in the currency when the government realizes it can no longer subsidize an artificially strong currency. 

Look at all the inflation that the gold standard didn't prevent:





Moving on, you finally admitted that Keynes didn't contribute to the Great Depression, but now you're saying his policies contributed to Great Recession, which arguably was caused by supply-side economics, the failure to renew Glass-Stengall, banks offering subprime mortgages, banks trading CMOs they knew were bad, the banks not being well capitalized like Keynesian policies advocated, and the general deregulation in the bank industry at that point in history. 

Keynesian policies made a strong comeback and prevent the Great Recession from becoming another Great Depression. Those policies also aided in the economic recovery and the eventual historically low unemployment. 

I'm also going to remind that we've both been citing historical examples to make our arguments, so that contradicts your point about history not being essential to economics. You're proving yourself wrong.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Oct 10, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Lol, no, Austrian theories haven't been discredited at all. The Austrian business cycle theory was a theory that was attacked often during the 1900's, but which ended up proving itself true when post 2001 economic stimulus created the malinvestment in the housing sector exactly as Austrians predicted it will. And it continues to be proven right with all the malinvestment that's going on now.
> Also, mainstream economists reject Austrian economists because they think they have an aversion to use of mathematics and statistics in economics. They're wrong. Of course we do! Much of the fundamental foundations of Austrian economics is exactly the same as that of mainstream economics. That Mises article I posted relied entirely on statistics. The main difference is that Austrian economics, just as other sciences, have certain "laws" that if your data seems to contradict, you initially reject the data and figure out where it went wrong rather than just accept it (e.g. perpetual motion machine putting out data showing that it's creating more energy than taking in would be outright rejected). So if economic law says that a price floor creates shortages, and the statistical data shows it doesn't, you don't reject the thoroughly proven law, you figure out where the data went wrong. For mainstream economists, they either ignore the laws, sticking to just pure data, or WORSE, try to come up with some financial math to finagle it to fit anyway.


I mean, it has discredited and derided by mainstream economists, particularly prominent ones from varying backgrounds like Paul Krugman, Milton Friedman, and even someone like Gordon Tullock. 

I think the Austrian Business Cycle Theory is a major reason for the problems you're having here. 

To summarize, the Austrian Business Cycle Theory rests on two pillars; namely the differentiation between the natural interest rate, based on savings and consumption preferences, and the market interest rate, which can be affected by monetary issues.

The Austrian school believes the business cycle is due to the creation of the central bank (read the Federal Reserve) when it sets interest rates too low, this makes credit much easier to get.  This easy credit is confused for "real loanable funds" (ie. hard cash money).  In other words, the easy credit sends out "false signals" to banks and other creditors to go into a feeding frenzy and make loans to anyone and his dog.  This causes a bubble driven by inflation, not true economic growth, which is destined to burst. The Austrian school views recessions and depressions as consequences for getting drunk on easy credit. The Austrian school actually argues that recessions and depression are _desirable_ because they represent a market correction where "misallocated resources" are liquidated and thus free to be "reallocated" to more useful ends, which is nuts for obvious reasons.

There is some truth in the Austrian Business Cycle Theory since low-interest rates can induce risky lending and will be inflationary, which economists discovered independently of Mises, but there are some glaring flaws in ABCT, like the fact that business cycles existed _before_ the Federal Reserve. 

Or that the Austrians define inflation as an expansion of the base money supply, a consequence of which is rising prices, whereas inflation is defined as simply a rise in prices by mainstream economic theory. While the expansion of the money supply can lead to inflation, it does not necessarily do so.  Prices don't always track the expansion of the underlying monetary base.

Or that the ABCT also relies on a single "natural rate" of interest, ignoring that there is no _single_ natural rate of interest.

The proposal to revert back to the gold standard implied by ABCT utterly fails to explain how to deal with the effects of a fixed money supply when population and economic output have been _increasing _throughout American history.  ABCT is better at explaining why Austrian schoolers  are such ardent supporters of a reversion to the gold standard and why they whine about the Federal Reserve so much than it is at explaining actual business cycles.

Also, many mainstream economists warned about the circumstances that led to the Great Recession using Keynesian theory.

Even Goldman Sachs was shorting in preparation of it, so Peter Schiff is not exceptional and has wrong on many other economic issues.


Rassah said:


> Yep, I explained that multiple times. Those in power have an incentive to educate and then reward with financial incentives those who preach to keep giving them power.


This is borderline conspiracy theory territory because the reason Keynesian economics is mainstream is because it provides a proven explanation for economic concepts and most economists have subsequently agreed. The Austrian school is not some enlightened minority that somehow managed to achieve economic insights the majority of economist in the field haven't.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Oct 10, 2021)

Now for the Bitcoin stuff, quickly.

Though I want to point out that many of the fiat currencies that no longer exist were replaced by the Euro (which is not a sign of their failure, but move towards a unitary currency to facilitate trade in the EU better) or because the governments changed significantly. As the article you didn't read pointed out.



Rassah said:


> Did you just claim that "Bitcoin went from almost nothing to a total value of almost a trillion in just 10 years" makes it highly inflationary? Pretty sure you meant deflationary. As for bubbles, like I said, adoption waves. Everything goes through those.



Putting aside that all the bitcoins in the world are worth roughly $742 billion dollars, which is well short of a trillion, Bitcoin's real value derived from the amount of fiat currency placed in Bitcoin exchanges as that is the only way new value can enter the Bitcoin economy. Even vendors accepting Bitcoin for goods and services do so because Bitcoin because they believe Bitcoin is convertible into fiat currencies they can actually cover their business expenses in and take profits from. Bitcoin can only currently pay for a limited array of goods and services compared to fiat currencies. Speculation very much drives up the price of Bitcoin.



Rassah said:


> The drop of 80% is only if you take the highest peak of $20k that lasted less than two weeks, and compare it to the bottom flash crash of $3,500 that lasted all of two days, and happened in April of last year, not this past year (time flies). For most people the price was between the low teens ($10k to $15k) before declining to high thousands (it stayed around $6,500 to $8,500 for many months). It's a drop, but it's a much less and much slower drop over a few years. The people who held and used Bitcoin over that time knew that it would go back up eventually, within four years. I told you that it would go back up plenty of times just a few years ago. And told you that after the first major crash from $1,200 many years before that. And once Bitcoin reaches the peak of its current bubble and drops, I'll tell you that it will be up again within the next 3 years. And I'll still be right same as I was before. People who go from FOMO speculators to understanding what it is, think like me and just use it to buy stuff, as I do all the time. And it's not even just about the "the price will go up" part. It's just so much safer and more convenient to use than having to deal with a bank.



"The 2018 cryptocurrency crash (also known as the Bitcoin crash and the Great crypto crash) was the sell-off of most cryptocurrencies from January 2018. After an unprecedented boom in 2017, the price of Bitcoin fell by about 65 percent during the month from *6 January to 6 February 2018*."

It took more than two years to reach $20k again, implying a long-term shock to the market. 

Consider the other catastrophic bubbles that have occurred with Bitcoin as well too and the instability of the market compared to the US dollar. 

About the security of Bitcoin wallets and security, yeah, the cryptography behind Bitcoin is robust. But too many highly vocal internet libertarians think this is all that is needed, because they don't understand people, know very little about economics, and nothing of how reliable and secure financial computing infrastructures are built, which you should. 

Real banks use mainframes in highly redundant configurations, not AWS virtual servers without backups. Running a _Magic: The Gathering Online_ card exchange site is insufficient experience to securely run a currency exchange, which the Mt. Gox debacle proved. 

The $1200/BTC peak back in late 2013 was caused through market manipulation by painting the tape and Mt. Gox in particular suffered chronic tape-painting. The free market completely failed to deal with fraud in the Bitcoin market since all other exchanges were tracking Mt. Gox's blatantly skewed prices. 

It's been proven that the 2017 astronomical rise in price was also due to market manipulation, namely pump and dump, caused by a different cryptocurrency, "tether", whose company (also Tether) likely falsely claimed to have 1-to-1 US dollar reserves.

These problems extend past a few exchanges.

Keep in mind the 12 twelve exchanges were hacked in 2019 and over $290 million was stolen.



Rassah said:


> Yeah, and we can also keep going in circles about how those are small insignificant exchanges, and the one big one is comparable to the number of large banks who also had similar issues. Or how early industries (like the internet) are usually rife with problems that get fixed over time. Or more importantly how Bitcoin actually solves that whole "you HAVE to keep your money in the bank" problem that creates MASIVE wealth targets for thieves to attack, letting everyone hold their money themselves.
> But you won't listen. Bitcoin solves tons of problems, but you don't care to learn about them.



I mean, I am listening, but there are holes in what you are saying, especially when cryptocurrency wallet can be compromised via phishing, compromised SMS verification, malware, mobile applications, and unsafe security keys. The blockchain aspect of Bitcoin is very secure, but both the wallets and exchanges are exploitable. 



Rassah said:


> They have no reason to crash the value of their own wealth. Why aren't you concerned about Bezos or Zuckerberg dumping all their Amazon or Facebook stocks and destroying their own net worth abruptly?


Because Bezos and Zuckerberg only own majority interest their respective companies, have marked interest in not dumping their stock, and they don't own currency. Satoshi Nakamoto's motivations, or those of anyone in possession of his coins, are not known and both parties could very well be induced to dump their coin onthe market, particularly by entities looking to cause a massive disruption in the Bitcoin market.


Rassah said:


> What's different between Keynesian policy of printing money to enrich the upper classes while claiming it's to stimulate the economy with public works projects, and all those other old empires diluting coins or outright printing paper money to enrich the upper classes while spending tons on public works projects to stimulate the economy?
> Do you have the historical knowledge to address this question of what the actual difference is?


I mean, I've shown than the gold standard caused frequent depressions compared Keynesian policies which resulted in relatively milder recessions and quicker recoveries. 

I'd also disagree hard that Austrian school economics promotes growth for the middle class and poor.


----------



## ConorHyena (Oct 12, 2021)

Gold standard, Deflation and its effect on certain recessions is a well researched subject -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#Depression_and_World_War_II

I feel that bitcoin, being inherently deflationary, is not the _ideal _currency.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Oct 16, 2021)

https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...rlds-largest-bitcoin-mining-hub-report-finds/ China's control-freakery has caused the US to get the biggest share of bitcoin mining, that just might make the world a lot safer!


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Oct 16, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Now for the Bitcoin stuff, "quickly"


Holy shit, someone's on an extended lunch break


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Oct 16, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> Holy shit, someone's on an extended lunch break


I mean, I have a life and gainful employment, Frank. I'm not on here that much. 

Also, I did address that stuff just below the comment. 

There are easier ways to troll for attention and start drama. 


Frank Gulotta said:


> https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...rlds-largest-bitcoin-mining-hub-report-finds/ China's control-freakery has caused the US to get the biggest share of bitcoin mining, that just might make the world a lot safer!


I'm not really sure that us having the biggest share in less efficient financial system and its unstable currency is a good thing for the country, but I don't really have strong feelings about China's interest in cryptocurrency either. 

Though, we have pending regulation for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies here too.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Oct 16, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I mean, I have a life and gainful employment, Frank. I'm not on here that much


That's what I mean, how come every time I look there's a new giant text wall preceded by "I'll be quick because I'm on my lunch break"?


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Oct 16, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> That's what I mean, how come every time I look there's a new giant text wall preceded by "I'll be quick because I'm on my lunch break"?


I mean, probably because I have replied on my lunch break, though most of the time I reply after work.

As for the giant wall of text, a lot of about Bitcoin, other cryptocurrencies, and economics can't always be described in short sweet terms, though I generally type out responses pretty quickly.

But clearly you posted here for the drama and not because you are concerned about the US cornering the exciting market of Bitcoin.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Oct 16, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I mean, probably because I have replied on my lunch break, though most of the time I reply after work.
> 
> As for the giant wall of text, a lot of about Bitcoin, other cryptocurrencies, and economics can't always be described in short sweet terms, though I generally type out responses pretty quickly.


I was under the impression people tend to _eat _on their lunch break instead of mixing word salad, but I guess eating doesn't provide as many opportunities to mention that you have gainful employment


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Oct 16, 2021)

It's good to see you care about my eating habits, but I can multitask ... which is why I'm gainfully employed. 

Also, I haven't replied to this thread for most of this week and most last week, so it's weird you're fixating on me.

 But yeah, I don't see where this relates to what I said about Bitcoin.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 17, 2021)

Christine Vulpes said:


> Sure the book keeping infrastructure is minimal yes.
> 
> The mining is not. Bitcoin just passed .5% of all energy consumption in the world. This makes it 7 times larger than than Google. Since the pool is finite and the easier seeds are grabbed first it means it needs exponentially more power and compute time to unearth.


That's not at all how any of that works. You should actually study about what Bitcoin hashing is, or just trust me that the power requirement has nothing to do with how much time has passed or how big the network is.


Christine Vulpes said:


> It's getting close now to using more electricity than Norway, and no, not everyone is using green energy to power it, many large farms were using coal fired or gas fired power sources( especially in China)


China was mainly using hydro. Like the ghost cities they built that no one moved into, they built hydro dams expecting people to move to those areas and they never did either. So those hydro dams were generating lots of electricity no one used, and Bitcoin miners used it up. But, so what if it uses a lot of electricity? So do many other things. Just using electricity isn't a bad thing.




Christine Vulpes said:


> It's entire business model is speculation hoping it becomes something. Only there's no one to back it, and no requirement that anyone accept it.


It already has become something. It's backed by that massive mining network, which is much more trustworthy than some banker or some politician. And despite there being no requirement to accept it (except in El Salvador where there is a requirement), hundreds of millions of people around the world accepted it anyway. And that continues to grow. That only proves how useful and valuable it is.



Christine Vulpes said:


> big investors and dark horses can and do hold large parts of the pie. If they all sell off at once it would crash the market... They come out on top


If they crash the market, they don't come out on top. They crash the market and the value of what they hold has crashed. So they won't do that.



Christine Vulpes said:


> Replacing a fiat currency that's backed


Fiat currency isn't backed. That's the definition of a fiat currency. It's currency that's unbacked, that is only valuable by some government's decree. Bitcoin became valuable without any government decrees, because it's not fiat, it's an asset. Bitcoin is the thing that does the backing.



Christine Vulpes said:


> It's all much ado about nothing. It's a get rich quick on speculative investing scheme. Nothing more.



It's been nothing more as it went from just toy money, to being collectively worth as much as major corporations, to being worth as much as entire nation currencies, to being held by the billions of dollars worth by major banks and institutions, to being in the top twenty of global currencies by total value, to being adopted by a whole country as legal tender, to having other countries currently working to adopt it as such, to soon replacing the dollar as the currency foreign governments and corporations use to trade between each other. It's funny that despite all the growth I've seen it in for the last ten years, people still say it's nothing, it's just a speculative get rich quick scheme...


TyraWadman said:


> If they wanna work on Security/account recovery and making sure places like Canada can actually keep the whole socialism and assist citizens when they run into dire straights, I would be a little more on board.



There's no "they" in Bitcoin. No one is in charge. No one controls it or decides what goes into it. The "they" who decide how is used is every individual who uses it. If you want to use it for socialism to assist citizens, you can spend your own Bitcoin to do that. If you don't want to, you don't have to and no one else can force you either. That's the point of Bitcoin: it gives every individual total control over their own money. And that terrifies collectivists who wish to force others to spend their money how they think is best.

@Miles Marsalis Yes there's enough gold. Yes you can divide gold atoms. I can write a paper note that says this certificate is redeemable for a half of a gold atom, and if you collect enough of those certificates, you might even get enough gold for them to be visible. That's the benefit of paper backing and why it was used.

But as I said, gold failed because it needed suck backing, and Bitcoin solves that problem.

Yes, there was gold inflation. We found large quantities of gold at times. Again, Bitcoin solves that problem since it's limited to a specific quantity. Yes, there is price inflation even with fixed currencies, but that's not a problem either since it only happens when the market shrinks relative to the money supply, but that makes money cheaper, and encourages people to invest. Conversely, too high a growth bubble makes money more valuable and people less likely to invest. Fixed money supply helps naturally regulate the economy.


----------



## Outré (Oct 17, 2021)

I kind of know what it is… but it seems like it’s really just investing in an idea that hasn’t really been implemented in any significant way.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 17, 2021)

@Miles Marsalis You claim Great Recession was caused by Supply Side economics and repeal of Glass-Steagal. But Great Recession was preceded by massive money stimulus and other government stimulus that was supposed to get us out of the dot com bubble. The opposite of "supply side." And there was nothing in Glass-Steagal that would have prevented Great Recession. I hear that claim that it was caused by it, but I have yet to hear how. No one knows or can explain it, because it's just a trope that people say but don't understand.

You said I conttadicted myself by said history is not important to economics. I never said such a thing. On the contrary, I kept repeating over and over and over that Austrian economics is based on legally thousands of years of economic history, and Keynesianism seems to discard it for new ideas and experiments while pretending these ideas never existed before. Yes, I'll repeat again, history is very important to economics. And Keynesians ignore history, not me and not the Austrians.

Who cares if idiots like Krugman discredited Austrian economics? Economists discredit Krugman all the time too.

Your description of the business cycle is right. And the Great Recession was a perfect example of that, being caused by monetary expansionism and easy credit, which led to malinvestment.

That business cycles existed before the Federal reserve doesn't discredit the theory. The theory explains how it works, not that it only works with central banks. We have had lots of central banks and inflationary currencies before (Roman coins, Venetian coins etc), we had had discoveries of gold that inflated its money supply, and we have had just business cycles on their own from irrational exuberance. It's just that central banks tend to really inflate the problem of these business cycles.

Both "mainstream" economists and Austrian economists describe inflation as either monetary inflation or price inflation. There's no just one kind of inflation for "mainstream" ones.

ABTC easily explains how a fixed money supply would work with an increasing population and economic output. You let them happen. You don't try to centrally plan around them, because as has been proven, central planning doesn't work. As population and economic output grows, so will the value of money used to transact. As a result, prices will fall, savings and wages will rise, and personal wealth will increase with the economy.
That's pretty much the opposite of what we've seen with an inflationary currency, where despite economic output increasing, people have been getting poorer while only those who have access to the newly printed money have been getting richer.
I don't understand why people fight SO GODDAMN HARD to defend that system against the one Austrians propose.

Keynesian economics doesn't really provide proof of anything. It's guesses, followed by failures, followed by new theories tacked on to the old ones to try to explain why the old ones failed, with more and more and more complex crap used to try to cover up why it keeps failing, rather than scrapping the whole thing and admitting it was a dumb idea to begin with.
And no, the fact that those who get access to the newly printed money (central bankers, big banks, and big corps who get the stimulus money and bailouts) are the ones who got way richer from all that and continue to benefit immensely from keeping that system going isn't some sort of a conspiracy theory. It's blatantly obvious on its face and completely public to everyone.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 17, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Putting aside that all the bitcoins in the world are worth roughly $742 billion dollars, which is well short of a trillion,


Over $800 billion now. Close to a trillion. More than $10 million when I first mentioned it here. Point is, it's still growing. It won't stop.




Miles Marsalis said:


> Even vendors accepting Bitcoin for goods and services do so because Bitcoin because they believe Bitcoin is convertible into fiat currencies


Fiat, or other goods and supplies. Saying "Bitcoin is only valuable because you can convert it into dollars" is a dumb argument, because you're basically saying Bitcoin is valuable as money because it can store value and can be converted into some other value later, which is literally what the purpose of all money is. You're just defending Bitcoin here.




Miles Marsalis said:


> Bitcoin can only currently pay for a limited array of goods and services compared to fiat currencies.


Just another argument from the "for now" standpoint. Ten years ago I could only buy alpaca socks with it. Now I can buy anything I want in some countries. It's more accepted than even some national fiat currencies.


Miles Marsalis said:


> Speculation very much drives up the price of Bitcoin.


Speculation on its continued adoption, which it pretty much proved conclusively at this point.




Miles Marsalis said:


> It took more than two years to reach $20k again, implying a long-term shock to the market.


Uh, no, that was just the plain old halving cycle. Happens every time Bitcoin inflation is cut by half. Supply is cut, demand remains, price goes up increasing more demand, which increases adoption because people move from just speculating to realizing how it works and why it's good, then when the speculative bubble overheats it pops, which is followed by a slow decline as Bitcoin finds its adoption/market use floor and temporarily becomes fairly stable money. Until the next halving cycle about three years after that. We've had those a few times already. It's not a "shock," it's completely predictable, and it will keep happening as long as there are still people who don't get it who just speculate on it and dump it when they freak out. But that won't be happening for much longer, since we're running out of those people.




Miles Marsalis said:


> Consider the other catastrophic bubbles that have occurred with Bitcoin as well too and the instability of the market compared to the US dollar.


Not an issue. Look at the current instability. 30% increase in value. Oh no! Anyway. Like I said, it's not unusual at all. Just plain old adoption cycles that have been predictable decreasing in scale.




Miles Marsalis said:


> About the security of Bitcoin wallets and security, yeah, the cryptography behind Bitcoin is robust. But too many highly vocal internet libertarians think this is all that is needed, because they don't understand people, know very little about economics, and nothing of how reliable and secure financial computing infrastructures are built, which you should.


This is just fucking dumb. Large mega institutions holding literally billions of dollars of Bitcoin are holding them just fine. Tell them they know nothing about how secure financial infrastructure is built. I'd like to see them laugh in your face.





Miles Marsalis said:


> Real banks use mainframes in highly redundant configurations


There is literally nothing more redundant on the planet than Bitcoin.





Miles Marsalis said:


> The $1200/BTC peak back in late 2013 was caused through market manipulation by painting the tape and Mt. Gox in particular suffered chronic tape-painting. The free market completely failed to deal with fraud in the Bitcoin market


I don't see Mt.Gox around. Seems like the free market dealt with it just fine.





Miles Marsalis said:


> It's been proven that the 2017 astronomical rise in price was also due to market manipulation, namely pump and dump, caused by a different cryptocurrency, "tether", whose company (also Tether) likely falsely claimed to have 1-to-1 US dollar reserves.


That's one theory. It's not proof. Printing Tethers to buy Bitcoin doesn't actually increase the value of Bitcoin. Think about it, if I was printing fake Monopoly money and using it to buy dollars from you, would that make your dollars more valuable? No. Your dollar supply wouldn't change with relation to other goods. Other things would still cost the same in dollars. Only thing that would be different is that you, or whoever else is holding those Monopoly moneys, will have been scammed by fake currency.
2017 bubble was just a speculative adoption bubble caused by over speculation by retail investors, same as the 2014 bubble, and same as the current




Miles Marsalis said:


> These problems extend past a few exchanges.
> 
> Keep in mind the 12 twelve exchanges were hacked in 2019 and over $290 million was stolen



Oh no! Who cares. Bitcoin isn't for use on exchanges. Don't keep your money on exchanges. You don't keep your dollars on shady Forex sites, right? And, a whole $290 million? That's about the volume of a few hours today.




Miles Marsalis said:


> I mean, I am listening, but there are holes in what you are saying, especially when cryptocurrency wallet can be compromised via phishing, compromised SMS verification, malware, mobile applications, and unsafe security keys.


For most wallets (like Edge), no. For hardware wallets, completely no. There's no phone numbers associated with wallets, and malware can't steal private keys from your phone.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Because Bezos and Zuckerberg only own majority interest their respective companies, have marked interest in not dumping their stock, and they don't own currency. Satoshi Nakamoto's motivations, or those of anyone in possession of his coins, are not known and both parties could very well be induced to dump their coin onthe market, particularly by entities looking to cause a massive disruption in the Bitcoin market.


Satoshi's motivations are known. He wanted to build a decentralized cash system to replace the banking system. But say you're right and that he's playing a VERY long con, where he wanted to create a quirky crypto currency, hope that people adopt it, got lucky that it actually worked, how adopted, and wasn't banned or anything, and then he dumps his ENTIRE 5 million Bitcoin stash on the current market of 18 million.  Bitcoin will crash by a whole 30%. Maybe even 50%. And then... Things will just go on as before.



Miles Marsalis said:


> I mean, I've shown than the gold standard caused frequent depressions compared Keynesian policies


Depressions are unavoidable part of markets. Keynesian policies made depressions much worse, and, even worse than that, Keynesian policies allowed depressions to be papered over, deferred to a later time, and stacked together. The 2008 depression didn't result in bad actors and bad investments being liquidated and going away. They're still there. The next depression will be all the issues from the prior ones, plus the new one. My concern is that last big one, where literally trillions of value that was built up based on nothing and used to cover up massive corporations that aren't actually productive, all comes crashing down. You know, like the major empires through history who did the exact same Keynesian inflationary bullshit have done. That's gonna be horrible.
And I noticed you didn't answer my question: what's different between these policies we're doing now, and the exact same things that those big empires with their inflationary currencies did then? I'm sure they had smaller depressions when they could just borrow or print to cover them up too.



Miles Marsalis said:


> I'd also disagree hard that Austrian school economics promotes growth for the middle class and poor.



Everyone in the middle class and poor class who bought Bitcoin over the last 4 years has seen a lot of growth.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 17, 2021)

ConorHyena said:


> Gold standard, Deflation and its effect on certain recessions is a well researched subject -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#Depression_and_World_War_II



From the article,


> In the United States, adherence to the gold standard prevented the Federal Reserve from expanding the money supply to stimulate the economy



That was the same time period during which hobby pumped a ton of money to stimulate the economy, and then created massive government spending programs that built our highway system among other things. Worse, this was after the US ALREADY broke its gold standard promise after printing money to cover the WW1 war bonds debt, which was in part responsible for launching the Roaring 20's that led to the Depression when people realized stocks were in a bubble.
I don't get how serious economists can write that kind of shit with a straight face.


----------



## PLEASE DELETE ACCOUNT (Oct 17, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Your post here : deleted it from said quote because it counts against the word count of the post.


1. *That is exactly how bitcoin works,* its proof of work (Compute-Units) not Proof of stake (are you mining and for how long). As a finite resource, the last mined items are taking more and more computational power. Its just the nature of the game. 8 years ago you could mine on a laptop using CPU performance and unearth coins on your own. Now you need to be in a pool with others to split the coins, and have a pretty decent GPU, since CPU's don't have the parallels processing advantage. And its running extremely intensive compute cycles for nothing : its not folding at home, its not training AI or ML...its just reversing a sha256 encryption schema via brute force. Its entirely wasted effort for a currency you cannot really buy anything with unless you have a broker in something like 99% of the world._ The actual rate of coins mined is decreasing on a logarithmic regression curve, meaning its taking exponentially more compute power, or time, or both to mine each block. This in turn is well, more energy consumed for the same number of coin. The closer to the end of the line (21 million coins?) you get the more power it takes to obtain the next one._
1a. The larger the network of miners, the larger the power requirements grow. That's just the sheer facts, year over year the actual mining of the coins has increased power draws. The USA some power companies are selling off running natural gas or coal fired power plants entirely devoted to just fueling mining farms. *One in Pennsylvania even just made the news, because it was defunct, out dated, and unclean. Fired up long after its service life, and its not alone. Other mining ops are trying to follow suit.*
1b. The wallet management /blockchain is fine. No one contests this._ Its the mining we have issues with._

2. China was not using hydro for most of the illegal mining that was going on ( and its all illegal there, has been for 4 years) Those farms set up In hydro plants only ran _on hydro power in the rainy season on surplus power._ They rely on coal fire and gas fired plants for the dry season or any time the reservoir dropped below a critical threshold. As there were more and more crackdowns the mining farms moved west, and north, into regions where hydro power is essentially unviable (ie its brown on the map for a reason, and HVTL is only about 80-150 miles from the production source before your power losses to atmosphere render it not viable, you don't pipe hydro power to the high steppes). China IS only cleaner in bitcoin production when compared to its surrounding nations that are more reliant on hydrocarbon fuels... _Its cleaner, but it's not clean. And its a lot of waste energy. I do not care how "clean" it is - reducing the energy demand is always going to be cleaner. Generating 0 power will always have a lower footprint than generating power with our current tech. Relying on coal, natural gas, and such produces methane (80x co2), Nox (300x), and some CFC's (which can be thousands to ten thousands of times worse than c02) _

3. Its still nothing to most people. Again, the currency utility is minimal, and highly volatile. Its not an officially recognized method of payment in most of the world. As such it has little to no intrinsic value, other than to use as secondary barter, through a brokerage, into a more tangible asset.

4. Fiat government issued currencies are backed by their government. It DOES have assured worth, and is mandated to be accepted as legal tender. Which is better than a pure fiat with 0 centralized backing for MOST use cases. I can't buy a house with bitcoin unless I find a seller willing to accept it, I can't buy a car ( except in some rare cases where they accept it as a barter implement). Its utility past speculative investing is...marginal at best, and worthless at worse. Its a worse fiat currency, that's also insanely volatile and has net worth swings of 25% a week in some cases.* Its legal tender, but so is say... goats. I can trade goats for goods to anyone that wants goats... But people are not forced to accept my goats as payment. In this case goats, or bitcoins, offers less utility than other fiats. Its a worse fiat, backed by even less.*

5. its still nothing. Its just a speculation engine with no real world value. Its too volatile to use as a conventional currency. Its accepted almost no where. It does not combat inflation in any meaningful way.

6. _There is a they_ : they who control the most of the market can dictate its value in some capacity, including large sell offs to pump and dump. Which has happened on numerous occasions, to all of the crypto market. You say they wont deflate the value for their own benefit : _*but when you buy coin at say 10k, the market pumps it to 43k, and you sell it off to other investors you just pocketed 400% ROI, you Don't care if it devalues after.* _As long as you can ride that peak and let other suckers buy it up on the dead cat you made bank, and made sure others wont. Its literally the same as securities manipulation, because that's all it is. Legal securities fraud.  These are private investors mostly, but they are still big actors. There are single individuals with dozens of thousands of coins with net worths of billions in coin alone. Large mining ops, companies, and investments firms ( that now own 8+% of all BC alone).
----------------------
BC is not a currency of the people, nor is it going to be. Its just an engine to transfer more value up the chain to people that can afford to gamble on speculation only.

People are free to believe its going to be an economic engine for change that's fine, but so far its not proved to be as such. Its the same old, same old, with all of the same problems and more. It's a runaway-speculation bubble, but with no natural value, that is just increasing the already well to do's worth disproportionally more than the common person. Sure speculation happens on tenable goods like oil, fuels...but at the end of the day there is still something useful no matter how much or little profit (or losses) there are on that good. Bitcoin? no such luck.

_Can I heat a home with it? Can I use it to get me across the city? Can I live inside it? can I eat it? No, No I can't in any conventional sense. Its hard to even find someone that is willing to directly barter such goods for it. Without exchange to another currency like dollars, yen, euro, etc... It's practically worthless. So its at the end, its only as valuable as a state backed currency while being less liquid and with less utility. No I do not care about peoples random Pizza joint that accepts payments in BC, that's an exception, not a rule, and not reflective of the real world.

If you can get in cheap, make your investment, earn your ROI and get out its as good as any other Ponzi scheme. And yes, technically its not a Ponzi scheme, but it does function like one for the time being. Its always good for an early adopter, and good on you for seeing the opportunity. I'm not shaming anyone for making a good short term financial decision. But its just not proven to be a long term solution right now. Livestock and hard assets like grains, salts, and spices lasted as accepted currency for thousands of years or more (and are still accepted in large portions of the world). Gold and minted coinage, and paper currency have persisted for thousands of years. Stocks, bonds and such only for a few hundred years. Bitcoin is now at...11. We should probably wait it out a little before calling it replacement for issued currency...._


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Oct 17, 2021)

And the saga continues.

I'm going to make a point of quoting you this time since you're contradicting yourself repeatedly now.



Rassah said:


> @Miles Marsalis Yes there's enough gold. Yes you can divide gold atoms. I can write a paper note that says this certificate is redeemable for a half of a gold atom, and if you collect enough of those certificates, you might even get enough gold for them to be visible. That's the benefit of paper backing and why it was used.
> 
> But as I said, gold failed because it needed suck backing, and Bitcoin solves that problem.
> 
> Yes, there was gold inflation. We found large quantities of gold at times. Again, Bitcoin solves that problem since it's limited to a specific quantity. Yes, there is price inflation even with fixed currencies, but that's not a problem either since it only happens when the market shrinks relative to the money supply, but that makes money cheaper, and encourages people to invest. Conversely, too high a growth bubble makes money more valuable and people less likely to invest. Fixed money supply helps naturally regulate the economy.


There is a lot wrong with what you've said here and earlier about your idea for returning to gold standard that flies in the face economics and common sense. (I also want to point out that when we began talking about the gold standard earlier in this thread, _you were touting it as a viable economic policy of the Austrian school despite the fact that historically and in your own words, it wasn't a wise idea.) _In no particular order:

1. You are proposing to artificially raise the price of gold encompass the economic activity and wealth of a given economy ... which was has obvious problems that any economist who isn't a goldbug can spot. 

As you should know, the price of gold is determined by demand, supply, and investor behavior; gold fixing plays a role, but the market largely determines the price of gold. I didn't pull that figure of $1,700 per ounce for gold out of my ass; that is the actual market price of gold as March 2021. 

By artificially raising the price of gold to cover the wealth of the national or global economy as you are proposing, you would raise the price of gold catastrophically, a move that would cripple the jewelry industry and (more importantly) technology sector since both those industries rely heavily on gold for production purposes and relatively lower gold prices to bring their products to market. Considering you're in the Bitcoin industry, you should be able to connect the dots to see that a rise of the price of gold would be devastating for Bitcoin since much of the hardware Bitcoin infrastructure relies on components like chip that make extensive of gold. All that Bitcoin infrastructure would suddenly become much more difficult to build and maintain.

You don't want that.

2. Another problem with your proposal is problem not just of economics, but physics. (And really, this is assuming we are taking the suggestion of transactions backed individual seriously, which is laughable.) Atoms are base constituents of an element; you can split off subatomic particles, sure, but you can't split a gold atom to get two new gold atoms. This problematic for your proposal since there is a hard limit on how many transactions can be backed by gold; if someone wants their wealth in half an atom of physical gold, you've got a problem. 

You've also got to deal with the problem that you will have less gold as time goes on since manufacturing processes that utilize gold will cut into the gold supply. The limited gold supply will stifle the economy and lead to certain negative outcomes:

A.) A certain amount of inflation keeps the labor markets running more smoothly. When price levels fall because of this policy, paychecks will be cut and workers will be in a bind. Falling income also means that other workers will simply have to be fired, reducing total output and enhancing the economic contraction. (This is a good time to remind you that by maintaining a slow and steady rate of inflation, a central bank can keep unemployment down and ensure nominal wage growth even during a recession. Real wages might take a slight hit, but there is generally less labor unrest.)

B.) Hoarding cash is another downside of deflation. Deflationary spirals encourage hoarding of cash because if a dollar today will be worth more tomorrow if you just hold on to it, why bother investing it in productive activities?

So your proposal isn't any better than returning to a pure gold standard; it's just as disastrous.

3. As I've mentioned repeatedly, returning to the gold standard pin the money supply directly to the amount of gold, which has been historically problematic, eight depressions caused by the gold standard aside. You also seem to not understand that inflation can be problem even on the gold standard. 

Gold rushes such as the California Gold Rush expanded the money supply and, when not matched with a simultaneous increase in economic output, caused inflation. The Price Revolution of the 16th century was a case of dramatic long-run inflation. Western European nations had used a bimetallic standard, namely gold and silver. The Price Revolution was the result of a huge influx of silver from central European mines beginning during the late 15th century combined with a flood of new bullion from the Spanish treasure fleets and the demographic shift brought about by the Black Plague. 

This segues nicely into my next point that there are all sorts of other factors at play that affect inflation, but they aren't tied to the currency itself. For example, an oil shock is going to drive prices up if your economy relies on oil, which is inflationary whether your currency is backed by gold or nothing at all, due to cost-push inflation.

So gold standard isn't really a solution to inflation or deflation and causes more problems that it solves.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Oct 17, 2021)

Rassah said:


> @Miles Marsalis You claim Great Recession was caused by Supply Side economics and repeal of Glass-Steagal. But Great Recession was preceded by massive money stimulus and other government stimulus that was supposed to get us out of the dot com bubble. The opposite of "supply side." And there was nothing in Glass-Steagal that would have prevented Great Recession. I hear that claim that it was caused by it, but I have yet to hear how. No one knows or can explain it, because it's just a trope that people say but don't understand.


I don't want to get into the politics aspects of this, so I'm sticking to the legal framework of the Glass-Steagall Act and the causes of the Great Recession. 

Summarily put, I'd say the vast majority of economists know why the Great Recession happened, you excluded, and it certainly wasn't government stimulus primarily, but rather the banks being overleveraged and creating risky financial instruments. In fact, I'm going to quote Investopedia since provides the nice textbook answer and I want to show how mainstream that answer is, regardless of economic school or political affiliation:



> In the wake of the 2001 recession and the World Trade Center attacks of 9/11/2001, the U.S. Federal Reserve pushed interest rates to the lowest levels seen up to that time in the post-Bretton Woods era in an attempt to maintain economic stability. The Fed held low interest rates through mid-2004. Combined with federal policy to encourage home ownership, these low interest rates helped spark a steep boom in real estate and financial markets and a dramatic expansion of the volume of total mortgage debt.* Financial innovations such as new types of subprime and adjustable mortgages allowed borrowers, who otherwise might not have qualified otherwise, to obtain generous home loans based on expectations that interest rates would remain low and home prices would continue to rise indefinitely.*
> 
> However, from 2004 through 2006, the Federal Reserve steadily increased interest rates in an attempt to maintain stable rates of inflation in the economy. As market interest rates rose in response, the flow of new credit through traditional banking channels into real estate moderated. Perhaps more seriously, the rates on existing adjustable mortgages and even more exotic loans began to reset at much higher rates than many borrowers expected or were led to expect. The result was the bursting of what was later widely recognized to be a housing bubble.
> 
> ...



There was actually a bipartisan federal commission set up to determine the cause of the Great Recession:



> According to a 2011 report by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, the Great Recession was avoidable. The appointees, which included six Democrats and four Republicans, cited several key contributing factors that they claimed led to the downturn.
> 
> *First, the report identified failure on the part of the government to regulate the financial industry. This failure to regulate included the Fed’s inability to curb toxic mortgage lending.*



So basically, a lack of government regulation helped contribute to the Great Recession, rather than an excessive intervention. But furthermore:



> *Next, there were too many financial firms taking on too much risk. The shadow banking system, which included investment firms, grew to rival the depository banking system but was not under the same scrutiny or regulation. When the shadow banking system failed, the outcome affected the flow of credit to consumers and businesses.*
> 
> Other causes identified in the report included excessive borrowing by consumers and corporations and lawmakers who were not able to fully understand the collapsing financial system.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Oct 17, 2021)

Rassah said:


> You said I conttadicted myself by said history is not important to economics. I never said such a thing.



And yet.



Rassah said:


> *Ironically, history is NOT essential to mainstream economists*, because they seem to reject thousands of years of history for modern Keynesian gobbledygook that has been proven to be a failure throughout history already. Do you want to test modern economic theory of whether you can sustain an economy by continuously devaluing money so you can keep expanding national debt indefinitely and keep the lower classes "rich" and happy with tons of social programs? Great. Just study the collapse of ancient Rome. Or if you want to study the effects of switching from hard money (hard to make and expand) to easy money, just study the effects and collapses of the British empire, Venetian empire, and even the history of the Golden Horde led by Khans who swept across Asia and into Eastern Europe, only to fall after a few centuries after they instituted monetary inflation.
> But I'm sure if you ignore history and come up with fancy mathematics, you can handwave all that away.



You contradict yourself.



Rassah said:


> On the contrary, I kept repeating over and over and over that Austrian economics is based on legally thousands of years of economic history, and Keynesianism seems to discard it for new ideas and experiments while pretending these ideas never existed before. Yes, I'll repeat again, history is very important to economics. And Keynesians ignore history, not me and not the Austrians.



I mean, Keynesian economics takes that history account, as I've repeatedly brought up the eight depression caused by being on the gold standard, one of which (the Long Depression) you denied even happened then backtracked a bit so you could downplay it. You also said Keynes's policies were to blame for the Great Depression ... despite him not having developed yet and the Great Depression being the cause of him developing his landmark policies prevent such a crisis from recurring. 

Being able to expand the money supply in times of unemployment and recession is a critical tool for government. Before World War II, eight US recessions worsened into depressions (as happened in 1807, 1837, 1873, 1882, 1893, 1920, 1933, and 1937) since we were on the gold standard. Since World War II, under Keynesian monetary policies, there have been eleven (twelve if we're counting the current one, though we've be recovering) recessions (1945-46, 1949, 1954, 1956, 1960-61, 1970, 1973-75, 1980-83, 1990-92, 2001, 2007-08 ), and not one has turned into a depression. In fact, no nation in the world has suffered a depression under Keynesian policies.

That is definitive historical proof.



Rassah said:


> Who cares if idiots like Krugman discredited Austrian economics? Economists discredit Krugman all the time too.



I'd like proof of that happening all the time, since Paul Krugman is a Nobel laureate who has made significant contributions to the field. All because he doesn't subscribe to your fringe economics, along with most economists and financial experts, doesn't make him an idiot; it makes you mistaken.



Rassah said:


> *Your description of the business cycle is right*. And the Great Recession was a perfect example of that, being caused by monetary expansionism and easy credit, which led to malinvestment.
> 
> That business cycles existed before the Federal reserve doesn't discredit the theory. The theory explains how it works, not that it only works with central banks. We have had lots of central banks and inflationary currencies before (Roman coins, Venetian coins etc), we had had discoveries of gold that inflated its money supply, and we have had just business cycles on their own from irrational exuberance. It's just that central banks tend to really inflate the problem of these business cycles.
> 
> ...



I mean, if you agree with my description of ABCT, my criticisms still stand since:

1.) The Austrian School defines inflation as an expansion of the base money supply, a consequence of which is rising prices, whereas inflation is defined as simply a rise in prices by mainstream economic theory.  The expansion of the money supply _can _lead to inflation, but it doesn't necessarily do so.  Prices do not always track the expansion of the underlying monetary base.

2.) ABCT also relies on a single "natural rate" of interest, but there is no _single_ natural rate of interest in practice. 

3.) There are criticisms I've raised of the gold standard that the ABCT clearly supports which make the theory further problematic.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Oct 17, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Over $800 billion now. Close to a trillion. More than $10 million when I first mentioned it here. Point is, it's still growing. It won't stop.



There have been several bubbles already, though, and there significant questions about how increased regulation or banning of Bitcoin may fuel another crash in the short term, to say nothing of the long term. 



Rassah said:


> Fiat, or other goods and supplies. Saying "Bitcoin is only valuable because you can convert it into dollars" is a dumb argument, because you're basically saying Bitcoin is valuable as money because it can store value and can be converted into some other value later, which is literally what the purpose of all money is. You're just defending Bitcoin here.



The problem is Bitcoin doesn't store value that well, since the price of Bitcoin fluctuates wildly much of the time, especially compared the US dollar, which is a decent store of value. 

Furthermore, there is a very limited variety of things you can with Bitcoin since the vast majorities of businesses and services don't accept it as form of payment. That is a big elephant in the room when it come to Bitcoin becoming an alternate payment system; you can't buy as much as you can with fiat currencies.

However, let's talk about businesses that do accept Bitcoin as payment for goods and services. 

To allow payment with a high-volatility currency like Bitcoin, it is common for merchants to price their goods in whatever the local standard currency is, but receive payment via Bitcoin converted at current market rates. 

The stinger here is, receiving payments in Bitcoin can be a risk since the price of Bitcoin may plummet faster and further than your profit margin, forcing you to choose between taking a loss, or hoarding Bitcoins hoping the price will rise.

Bitcoin's biggest problem as an exchange medium is that it isn't widely accepted and that why Bitcoin trading is very thin.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Oct 17, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Speculation on its continued adoption, which it pretty much proved conclusively at this point.



I mean, there was a serious drop just this summer, so I would hardly say it is conclusive that Bitcoin will be widely adopted and a reasonable investment.



Rassah said:


> Uh, no, that was just the plain old halving cycle. Happens every time Bitcoin inflation is cut by half. Supply is cut, demand remains, price goes up increasing more demand, which increases adoption because people move from just speculating to realizing how it works and why it's good, then when the speculative bubble overheats it pops, which is followed by a slow decline as Bitcoin finds its adoption/market use floor and temporarily becomes fairly stable money. Until the next halving cycle about three years after that. We've had those a few times already. It's not a "shock," it's completely predictable, and it will keep happening as long as there are still people who don't get it who just speculate on it and dump it when they freak out. But that won't be happening for much longer, since we're running out of those people.



Bitcoin basically depends people HODLing or "Holding On for Dear Life" and there is an incentive for older Bitcoin holders to con the newer ones into staying in the market even during its regular catastrophic collapses. 

Which it should be noted that if your investment is having periodic drops in value and subject to deflation, maybe it isn't a wise investment. 



Rassah said:


> Not an issue. Look at the current instability. 30% increase in value. Oh no! Anyway. Like I said, it's not unusual at all. Just plain old adoption cycles that have been predictable decreasing in scale.



30% is pretty bad, but an 80% loss is even worse. 



Rassah said:


> This is just fucking dumb. Large mega institutions holding literally billions of dollars of Bitcoin are holding them just fine. Tell them they know nothing about how secure financial infrastructure is built. I'd like to see them laugh in your face.


Coming from a man who didn't know Binance was the largest Bitcoin exchange, this is comedy. 

Getting serious, you've probably forgotten about Mt. Gox, which was the principal exchange of its time, where there was rampant mismanagement, large-scale market manipulation, and a theft of Bitcoins valued at $450 million dollars. 



> Launched in July 2010, by 2013 and into 2014 it was handling over 70% of all bitcoin (BTC) transactions worldwide, as the largest bitcoin intermediary and the world's leading bitcoin exchange.[2][3][4][5]
> 
> In February 2014, Mt. Gox suspended trading, closed its website and exchange service, and filed for bankruptcy protection from creditors.[6][7] In April 2014, the company began liquidation proceedings.[8]
> 
> Mt. Gox announced that approximately 850,000 bitcoins belonging to customers and the company were missing and likely stolen, an amount valued at more than $450 million at the time.[9][10] Although 200,000 bitcoins have since been "found", the reasons for the disappearance—theft, fraud, mismanagement, or a combination of these—were initially unclear. New evidence presented in April 2015 by Tokyo security company WizSec led them to conclude that "most or all of the missing bitcoins were stolen straight out of the Mt. Gox hot cryptocurrency wallet over time, beginning in late 2011."[11][12]



I don't know what your definition of secure is, but most of financial industry didn't see that as a smashing success.

Combine that with the frequent breaches and collapses happening regularly with Bitcoin exchanges on a monthly basis. 

More currently, the largest Bitcoin exchange, Binance, is having its own problems at the moment:



> *Binance* is a cryptocurrency exchange which is currently the largest exchange in the world in terms of daily trading volume of cryptocurrencies.[2] It was founded in 2017 and is registered in the Cayman Islands.
> 
> Binance was founded by Changpeng Zhao, a developer who had previously created high frequency trading software. Binance was initially based in China, but later moved its headquarters out of China following the Chinese government's  increasing regulation of cryptocurrency.
> 
> Binance is currently under investigation by both the United States Department of Justice and Internal Revenue Service on allegations of money laundering and tax offenses.[3][4][5] The UK's Financial Conduct Authority ordered Binance to stop all regulated activity in the United Kingdom in June 2021.



Not exactly a wise institution to do business with.



Rassah said:


> I don't see Mt.Gox around. Seems like the free market dealt with it just fine.



The point is that doesn't bode well for the track record of the Bitcoin exchanges. 



Rassah said:


> Oh no! Who cares. Bitcoin isn't for use on exchanges. Don't keep your money on exchanges. You don't keep your dollars on shady Forex sites, right? And, a whole $290 million? That's about the volume of a few hours today.



I'm spelled this out for you, but the insecure exchanges could, at minimum, lead to serious security issues such as market manipulation, assuming we're _just _talking about exchanges. Several exchanges also had wallets they issued which were compromised as well.



Rassah said:


> Satoshi's motivations are known.



Those are a lot of assumptions for a man whose identity no one knows. 



Rassah said:


> Depressions are unavoidable part of markets. Keynesian policies made depressions much worse, and, even worse than that, Keynesian policies allowed depressions to be papered over, deferred to a later time, and stacked together.



This is easily disproven by the fact that we haven't had a depression since Keynesian policies were instituted, which I've mentioned repeatedly, again. Depressions are eminently avoidable with Keynesian policies and sound financial regulation. Part of the reason we're recovering rapidly right now from the current recession is because the Fed took necessary action and the banks were better capitalized and less overleveraged than they were during the Great Recession. 

The Austrian School merely says depression are inevitably to paper over their faulty theories and inability to present a solution or method of mitigation to the problem at hand.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 17, 2021)

Bitcoin mining has been used to heat people's own homes. Now a mine is trying to go industrial scale.









						How a Startup Is Supplying a Whole City With Heat From Bitcoin Mining
					

North Vancouver, British Columbia, will be the world’s first city to be heated by bitcoin mining.




					www.coindesk.com


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Oct 17, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Bitcoin mining has been used to heat people's own homes. Now a mine is trying to go industrial scale.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is this really going to offset the home energy costs and be cheaper than gas, electric, or solar heating systems? And how affordable will this be?


----------



## Rassah (Oct 17, 2021)

Christine Vulpes said:


> 1. *That is exactly how bitcoin works,* its proof of work (Compute-Units) not Proof of stake (are you mining and for how long). As a finite resource, the last mined items are taking more and more computational power.


No they don't. Mining doesn't know how many bitcoins are left. It's irrelevant. Only thing that determines how much power is used is how often each block is found. If blocks are found faster than one every 10 minutes, the network requires more power to find a block. It's called mining difficulty and difficulty adjustment. If blocks are found faster than one every 10 minutes, difficulty goes down. When China banned miners, a lot of miners shut down, blocks were taking longer to find, difficulty adjusted down by over 30%, and it has taken much less power to find blocks after. Note that once all Bitcoin are mined and there's no more that can be found, mining power won't go down to zero. It will just continue to work the same way, where difficulty of mining will keep being adjusted to make sure blocks are found once every 10 minutes.



Christine Vulpes said:


> 8 years ago you could mine on a laptop using CPU performance and unearth coins on your own. Now you need to be in a pool with others to split the coins,



That's not because there are too few coins left. It's because Bitcoin became globally adopted and a lot more people started mining it. With all the extra power being thrown into it, Bitcoin difficulty went up to make sure blocks are still only found once every 10 minutes. If 90% of the miners shut down, the difficulty would drop to the point where you can mine at home again, and Bitcoin will keep working the same.



Christine Vulpes said:


> and have a pretty decent GPU



You couldn't mine with a GPU since at least 2013. They're not efficient enough with the high mining difficulty. Have to use specialized CPUs called ASICs that don't do anything other than mine Bitcoin.




Christine Vulpes said:


> And its running extremely intensive compute cycles for nothing


It's not "for nothing," it's securing almost a trillion dollar currency and global transaction mechanism. The amount of power it uses to do what is essentially the equivalent of securing a currency of a small nation is pretty cheap actually.




Christine Vulpes said:


> Its entirely wasted effort for a currency you cannot really buy anything with unless you have a broker in something like 99% of the world.


Way less than 99% at this point, and it's dropping, and will continue to drop. In US you can buy almost anything with it through various services, or use a Bitcoin VISA debit card. El Salvador let's you buy anything directly, and a bunch of Latin American countries are following suit.




Christine Vulpes said:


> _The closer to the end of the line (21 million coins?) you get the more power it takes to obtain the next one._


Where did you get this info, because it's stupidly wrong.



Christine Vulpes said:


> 1a. The larger the network of miners, the larger the power requirements grow.



This contradicts the thing right before it. First you say the power requirements depend on how many coins are left, now you say they depend on the size of the network of miners...




Christine Vulpes said:


> The USA some power companies are selling off running natural gas or coal fired power plants entirely devoted to just fueling mining farms. *One in Pennsylvania even just made the news, because it was defunct, out dated, and unclean. Fired up long after its service life, and its not alone. Other mining ops are trying to follow suit.*


Awesome. Getting some use out of that wasted source of energy.




Christine Vulpes said:


> 2. China was not using hydro for most of the illegal mining that was going on ( and its all illegal there, has been for 4 years) Those farms set up In hydro plants only ran _on hydro power in the rainy season on surplus power._ They rely on coal fire and gas fired plants for the dry season or any time the reservoir dropped below a critical threshold.


I know the miners who mined there personally. A few had to rely on coal power, or simply shit down during dry season since it didn't cost anything to shut down and start back up. Majority ran on hydro year round. Mining itself wasn't illegal for 4 years. Paying power plants under the table was illegal. China started cracking down on that about 4 years ago, and that's why a lot of mining had already left China and went to Iceland< Norway, and Northwest USA already. Don't know if you have some source, or you're just copy/pasting something, but my direct sources contradict that.




Christine Vulpes said:


> _Its cleaner, but it's not clean. And its a lot of waste energy. I do not care how "clean" it is - reducing the energy demand is always going to be cleaner._


It's not wasting energy, it's securing the network. And the claim that reducing energy demand is always going to be cleaner is contradictory to economics. If you just reduce and keep production at low levels, you will continue to pollute at those levels since you have no incentive to be more efficient. If you allow demand to keep climbing, you will force the market to innovate to create more efficient production and use of energy. That's how it always worked with everything. It's already working with Bitcoin too, with Bitcoin miners investing into researching better means of using solar, wind, and other waste or "free" energy. As miners compete more and more for cheaper sources of power, they will be the ones leading the innovation to create cleaner energy that the rest of us can use too.




Christine Vulpes said:


> _ Generating 0 power will always have a lower footprint than generating power with our current tech._


Even that's not true. Generating 0 power means whatever you were maintaining is now going through entropy, decaying, polluting, and destroying its surrounding area. Give a group of people 0 energy and they will wreck their surroundings trying to scrounge up food and burn trees for heat.




Christine Vulpes said:


> 3. Its still nothing to most people.


Yep, most people will completely miss out and will only be forced to use it when they can't afford a whole coin anymore. It's unfortunate, but that's what happens, with innovators and "trailblazers" diving into new technologies and getting rich, and the rest of the scared risk averse types only being dragged into it later.





Christine Vulpes said:


> As such it has little to no intrinsic value


Nothing in the world has intrinsic value.



Christine Vulpes said:


> 4. Fiat government issued currencies are backed by their government. It DOES have assured worth,


No they're not, and no it doesn't. USA, the biggest government in the world with the strongest currency, seems to have failed to assure that the USD has enough worth that $20 can buy you a sheet of plywood, or that $10 can buy you a meal at a restaurant. The government failed to assure its worth, so now those and other things are going up in price, and will continue to do so for a while. Governments are not above basic economics. They can't say "this is worth X" and make it so, since all value is subjective to the person valuing it. And if economics says that increasing the supply of something will make its value decrease, then that's what happens, and government can't do a thing about it.



Christine Vulpes said:


> I can't buy a house with bitcoin unless I find a seller willing to accept it


You can't buy a house with dollars unless you find a seller willing to accept it. I'm my experience not a single seller was willing to take a case of cash. Everyone wanted a broker like a bank, wiring money or writing a cashier's check. Funny, since that means no one trusts the dollar to sell houses either.



Christine Vulpes said:


> Its utility past speculative investing is...marginal at best, and worthless at worse.


It seems to work as a store of value very well. Everyone who converted their money into it over the last 4 years is much wealthier. Everyone who converted their money into it from 8 years ago who didn't sell is now rich. And based on what's going on in El Salvador, its utility seems to be much better than that of a big company like Western Union, where people using Bitcoin's utility to send money back to their country are saving a few million already in just the first month of use.




Christine Vulpes said:


> *Its legal tender, but so is say... goats. I can trade goats for goods to anyone that wants goats..*


That's not what legal tender means. No one is forced to accept your goats. In El Salvador, others are forced to accept your Bitcoin. And in Panama and a few other countries that will be the case soon too. Within 20 years you'll be forced to accept Bitcoin just because no one else will want to deal with you if you don't.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 17, 2021)

Christine Vulpes said:


> 5. its still nothing. Its just a speculation engine with no real world value.


It's a store of value with a real world value of over $60,000. And it's a money transfer system. People use it to transfer remittances in a number of countries. It's also a great offshore tax shelter of sorts that people use to store and secure wealth out of the grabby hands of governments.



Christine Vulpes said:


> Its too volatile to use as a conventional currency.


I have no issues using it as a conventional currency and neither do most people.



Christine Vulpes said:


> It does not combat inflation in any meaningful way.


On the contrary, while your dollars have inflated 5% to 10%, where prices of everything have went up, my bitcoins are up 300% in the same time period, so prices for everything for me have dropped by ⅔. While you are others are lamenting prices and cost of living going up due to inflation, everything is cheaper for me now 



Christine Vulpes said:


> 6. _There is a they_ : they who control the most of the market can dictate its value in some capacity,


There's no one who controls the most of the market. And those who control the market have no control over its functionality. At best they can buy and sell it. That's it.



Christine Vulpes said:


> including large sell offs to pump and dump.


Pump and dumps are money losers long term. They only work while no one else knows you're doing it. Soon as you do it again when someone else figures you out, they just take all your money on the dump and you're out of cash.




Christine Vulpes said:


> Which has happened on numerous occasions, to all of the crypto market.


Just to individual altcoins. Once. Because, like I said, you can only do that until others figure out what's up. It doesn't happen in Bitcoin anymore, if it ever did.




Christine Vulpes said:


> _*but when you buy coin at say 10k, the market pumps it to 43k, and you sell it off to other investors you just pocketed 400% ROI, you Don't care if it devalues after.*_


You also just sold it, so you have nothing to dump, and the person who bought it just got a $43k value coin, so they haven't lost anything either.


Christine Vulpes said:


> There are single individuals with dozens of thousands of coins with net worths of billions in coin alone.


I know a number of them personally. Their goal is to destroy the global banking system. They don't need anymore money. And they're continuing to use their coin wealth to find whatever it takes to get Bitcoin developed and have it achieve their goals. It's one of the reasons I'm so confident in Bitcoin. It's not just nerds in basements trading fake tokens hoping for some "revolution," it's literally high level billionaires and even some politicians who are working at the top to achieve that goal.



Christine Vulpes said:


> BC is not a currency of the people, nor is it going to be.


It is if you're in El Salvador, Venezuela, Argentina, China, Russia, Nigeria, and a number of other countries. It already is, so it's past "not going to be." 



Christine Vulpes said:


> Its just an engine to transfer more value up the chain to people that can afford to gamble on speculation only.


No, that's the dollars. Those at the top can just print themselves more dollars, and use them to buy real assets to make themselves richer for nothing. Cantillon effect. Bitcoin gets rid of that. Those at the top have to actually work and provide a valuable service to make and keep their money, instead of just hit "Print." 




Christine Vulpes said:


> People are free to believe its going to be an economic engine for change that's fine, but so far its not proved to be as such.


It literally saved lives in Venezuela, Africa, and Middle East. It already proved to be as such.



Christine Vulpes said:


> Sure speculation happens on tenable goods like oil, fuels...but at the end of the day there is still something useful no matter how much or little profit (or losses) there are on that good. Bitcoin? no such luck.


If that was the case, it wouldn't have continued to grow, even after all the crashes, for over 10 years, to the point where its real value is over $60,000 and growing. You just don't know what the usefulness of it is.




Christine Vulpes said:


> _Can I heat a home with it? Can I use it to get me across the city? Can I live inside it? can I eat it? _


Yes. I pay my electric and rent with Bitcoin, I use Bitcoin to buy Uber credits, and I use Bitcoin to buy my food. Same as you do with your currency.




Christine Vulpes said:


> _If you can get in cheap, make your investment, earn your ROI and get out its as good as any other Ponzi scheme. _


If you get out, you'll just end up holding shitty currency that is losing 5% to 10% a year, and will be watching the guy you sold yours to have his continue to grow at 200% a year. Sucks to be you 




Christine Vulpes said:


> _And yes, technically its not a Ponzi scheme, but it does function like one for the time being_


It doesn't even function like one. In a Ponzi you give money to the ponzi and that money gets distributed to everyone else before you, while all you get is an IUO that promises to give you that money back and then some. In Bitcoin, when you give someone $1000 worth of money, you get $1000 worth of bitcoin. There's no one getting your money but the seller, and you're not given a promise, you get the actual asset that's already worth $1000.



Christine Vulpes said:


> _. Its always good for an early adopter, and good on you for seeing the opportunity._


Anyone buying today is still an early adopter. Like you said, barely anyone uses it.



Christine Vulpes said:


> _We should probably wait it out a little before calling it replacement for issued currency...._


That's fine too. Bitcoin will make everyone who converted their old money into it better off, and those who want to wait will just use it when it's universally adopted.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Oct 17, 2021)

Rassah said:


> You couldn't mine with a GPU since at least 2013. They're not efficient enough with the high mining difficulty. Have to use specialized CPUs called ASICs that don't do anything other than mine Bitcoin.


GPUs are still very much used by many Bitcoin operations; you should know they are chained together to increase performance cheaply. 

GPUs are designed to do better in performing similar and repetitive work than the performing of diversified multi-tasking functions, like those of the CPU, by the way.

Though that could be changing permanently soon.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Oct 17, 2021)

Rassah said:


> It doesn't even function like one. In a Ponzi you give money to the ponzi and that money gets distributed to everyone else before you, while all you get is an IUO that promises to give you that money back and then some. In Bitcoin, when you give someone $1000 worth of money, you get $1000 worth of bitcoin. There's no one getting your money but the seller, and you're not given a promise, you get the actual asset that's already worth $1000.



I'll say Bitcoin has the functional hallmarks of pump and scheme, more than a Ponzi scheme.

In order to prop up the initial system, Bitcoin mining bribed early users with exponentially better rewards than latecomers could get for the same amount of effort. In its current state, as predicted as part of its core design curve, it isn't feasible for a newcomer to Bitcoin to mine their own assets. The economies of scale are way too large and home PC equipment, as you've observed, is obsolete. So to join the network at all, new Bitcoin users must instead give ever-increasing amounts of wealth to previous bitcoiners who are basically sitting around doing nothing.

This functionally makes Bitcoin a pump and dump scheme where the early adopters, who have more bitcoins than anyone else ever will and did little or no work and assumed no real risk, hype it up so they can offload their bitcoins onto fools who believe they'll strike it rich as speculators. At the same time the speculators, who are providing all of the capital, which is the amount of money Bitcoin is actually worth is limited to the amount of fiat currency placed in Bitcoin exchanges as that is the only way new value can enter the ecosystem, and who are taking all of the risk of a crash, are chasing far lower percentage returns than initial the initial early adopters would receive.

This means the system runs on opportunism, especially among people who like the idea of decentralized cryptocurrencies, which is defended as an acceptable trade-off and a fair reward for propping up the system by its proponents.

I've really been wanting to clarify that.


----------



## PLEASE DELETE ACCOUNT (Oct 17, 2021)

You are analyzing it as a 2d problem when its much more complex. this is a trap people fall into because they look at the 1 coin every ~10 and think its a linear progression. 
BUT your input power of compute ( worker units) is growing and growing, and each one is earning smaller and smaller chunks. Which is consuming more and more energy. This problem gets worse as you have more persons trying to hop on the mining because its a finite resource, Forcing each node to earn smaller and smaller chunks.

Bitcoins Energy consumption ( and thus computational power (roughly in line with moores law) is going up.  It now takes 8 years worth of the average homes energy consumption to mine a single bit coin. This is absurd.  It consumes more power than Norway, or Finland. This is a ton of power. 

as miles points out, cluster nodes of GPUs are still effective. Beowulf style, brute force by numbers.

Asics are NOT CPUS, But a GPU IS an ASIC. ASICS are custom IC chips that are hardware tuned specifically to the task at hand. Its closer to pure gate arrays and not a GPP. And no, people mining on FPGA's are not running a GPP CPU either. 

there are 21Million coins, hard limited, this is built into the chain, and the creator has stated as such. It circles back to my first point that as we encroach on the limit of the coins, we have more and more people mining for that last bit which is exponentially using more power.

BC remaining availability roughly halves every 4 years. Computational power in the entire compute node of BC over those 4 year times spans increases more than that. From 2017 annual BC electricity use went from 11twh to 118tw in early 2021. *or a 10x increase.* This is not sustainable -> it is currently projected that assuming speculation continues at a similar rate to now, by the time the last coin is made available the global c02 equivalent tonnage of mining bitcoin will be the 5th largest producer in the world. IE bigger than Japan.

And this is just pure consumption at the mining stage, this it not talking about silicon fabs pumping out hardware, or the absolute rapid and growing ewaste issue 30,700 tones of ewaste. of last year, or 9.5 Oz of e-waste per transaction.

*I am not willing to destroy the planet for monopoly money.*


----------



## Rassah (Oct 19, 2021)

I'm see if I can keep this short...



Miles Marsalis said:


> I also want to point out that when we began talking about the gold standard earlier in this thread, _you were touting it as a viable economic policy _


I never touted it as such. Again, I only corrected you on your claim that there isn't enough gold to account for all the dollars. That's not my support for gold, as I've explained why it already failed as money. It was just my correcting a bad assumption on your part that ignores that the value of gold per ounce can increase to accommodate the entire dollar economy.




Miles Marsalis said:


> 1. You are proposing to artificially raise the price of gold encompass the economic activity and wealth of a given economy


It would not be artificial. It would rise in the market naturally as more of it encompasses economic activity. Same as the value of Bitcoin has been naturally rising to encompass more and more economic activity to the detriment of the dollar.



Miles Marsalis said:


> By artificially raising the price of gold to cover the wealth of the national or global economy as you are proposing


I hope we've settled that I haven't proposed artificially rising the price of gold, that I merely corrected you that the price of gold will rise to encompass the value of the economy on its own, but that I don't support we use gold for this, since, as I explained, gold already failed as money due to its divisibility and portability problem, which necessitated the highly problematic backing. And hopefully we can leave this gold thing behind. It's irrelevant.



Miles Marsalis said:


> This problematic for your proposal since there is a hard limit on how many transactions can be backed by gold; if someone wants their wealth in half an atom of physical gold, you've got a problem.


I thought I addressed this error of yours by explaining paper backing. In the same way that atoms are unusable, even dust specs of gold were unusable. But paper backing solved that issue because backing allows you to write any quantity of something in paper. Just as you can have a paper that is worth roughly $1, where it is backed by 1/2000th of a gram of gold, so too you can have a paper that is backed by a fraction of an atom. Either way the amount being backed is impractical to use, but it still grants you an amount of volume of gold and thus some value.



Miles Marsalis said:


> You've also got to deal with the problem that you will have less gold as time goes on since manufacturing processes that utilize gold will cut into the gold supply.


Unlikely. Every single commodity we use ended up expanding in supply because we ended up with more ways of extracting it. Gold is no different (space, sea, etc). Incidentally, that's another reason gold isn't as good as Bitcoin. Bitcoin is even more limited and will have to go up in value as the economy grows.




Miles Marsalis said:


> A.) A certain amount of inflation keeps the labor markets running more smoothly. When price levels fall because of this policy, paychecks will be cut and workers will be in a bind.


Inflation doesn't do anything other than make labor poorer over time. If the value of what you're earning goes up 3% a year and it's cut by 3%, you're not worse off. More likely there won't be cuts, the value of your income will just go up with deflation, same as you get a 3% raise with inflationary dollars. And that income should go up, since with experience you should be becoming more productive and valuable.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Falling income also means that other workers will simply have to be fired, reducing total output and enhancing the economic contraction.


There's no reason for falling income. Incomes are going up with deflation. No reason for an economic contraction either. If a worker is less productive than the pay he's getting, just cut his pay.



Miles Marsalis said:


> (This is a good time to remind you that by maintaining a slow and steady rate of inflation, a central bank can keep unemployment down and ensure nominal wage growth even during a recession.


That never worked, as every recession still ended up with huge unemployment. Worse, this forgets, or just ignores, the issue that during a recession wasteful activity needs to be stopped and resources reallocated. Instead what this policy does is basically create artificial economic activity, done for wasteful reasons, just to keep people employed. Environmentalists should be extremely against this.




Miles Marsalis said:


> B.) Hoarding cash is another downside of deflation.


Hoarding cash is called savings. Savings is never a downside. You want people to be wealthier? Then why do you propose a policy that makes them have less savings? So you want people well off or constantly working for lower and lower wages?



Miles Marsalis said:


> So your proposal isn't any better than returning to a pure gold standard; it's just as disastrous.


People having hoards of cash is disastrous. People not having enough of a cash hoard to afford a $400 emergency expense is a good thing then?
I don't get the cognitive dissonance that this crazy economic school teaches...



Miles Marsalis said:


> 3. As I've mentioned repeatedly, returning to the gold standard pin the money supply directly to the amount of gold, which has been historically problematic, eight depressions caused by the gold standard aside.


We've had five depressions (that I can think of) on the fiat currency already, so it hasn't helped. And all the destruction on top of that caused by inflation funded wars, massive expansion of government powers, massive pollution from projects that wasted billions and never gone anywhere, etc etc etc... God the destruction to our personal lives and environment caused entirely by inflationary policies is disgustingly depressing...



Miles Marsalis said:


> You also seem to not understand that inflation can be problem even on the gold standard.


I do. That's why I never proposed we go back on the gold standard and advocate Bitcoin as a better alternative.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 19, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Summarily put, I'd say the vast majority of economists know why the Great Recession happened, you excluded,


I know exactly why the Great Recession happened. It was converted in very deep depth at at least two of my Harvard master's econ classes. Government pushed banks to lend to more people because there was a push of "everyone has a right to a house." Government's low interest rates, which were lowered to stimulate the economy after the post 9/11 and dot com recession, made housing much easier too. Housing and property construction in general were much more lucrative due to those artificially low interest rates. Had there been no government meddling with those interest rates, mortgage rates would have remained near 4% to 6% and housing wouldn't have been as attractive (incidentally if you haven't looked into malinvestment, this was a perfect example of it). Government also pushed banks into giving more mortgages by being a direct competitor to banks in that regard. My last salaried job was for a government agency for the state of Maryland who's function or was to give home mortgages to low income people who couldn't afford them otherwise, creating competition to banks who endee up trying to do the same. So even if government wasn't the direct cause of it, it was certainly a big motivator for it. Without central banking, and also without our "Everyone should open a home" culture, this wouldn't have happened. And in fact, countries with a rental culture that doesn't give home ownership subsidies in the form of tax deductible mortgage interest and zero down payment loans were much less affected by it.
The actual cause of the failure was due to a miscalculation of risk of the mortgage backed securities. Mortgages were bundled together, resold, and insured against loss, which made them seem like risk free investments. But the insurance company that covered them underestimated the risk and charged too low of a premium to cover the losses. Also, even though banks used different insurance companies, they didn't realize that all these insurance companies were all using the same reinsurer. No one realized that. Once these investments started failing, the insurance pool of money ran out, and all these risk free assets suddenly became completely exposed, at risk, and quickly becoming worthless. This should have been clear to anyone when an investment that costs %4 of total costs (investment, insurance premium, etc) would give you a return of %6. There's no such thing as free money, but people though they figured out how to make it work. Had the insurance company correctly estimated the risk, they would have charged the correct premium, and the 6% investment return would have cost 6% or more to invest in.
Finance, risk, and wealth are much like physics in that sense: same as energy can't be created out of nothing, neither can wealth be, whether you're creating convoluted investment vehicles, or just printing it as money.
There's a lot more details in what happened, but that's the overall summary. Glass-Steagal had nothing to do with it and wouldn't have prevented it. Banks were not "over leveraged," since all their supposed leverage was completely insured against any losses. Or so they thought. 



Miles Marsalis said:


> In fact, I'm going to quote Investopedia since provides the nice textbook answer


Investopedia again shows to only cover laymen level (high school maybe?) explanation for things. It didn't seem to explain the stuff I know and just did. But, it does point to government as the one being at fault too. First by keeping interest rates artificially low, and then by raising them and triggering the first set of fallouts. This is also a good example of why central planning is always a terrible idea with terrible consequences. No one knew the Fed would start raising interest rates when they started giving out those mortgages. No one can predict the actions of planners. That makes long term investing difficult to impossible. If we were on a fixed market-controlled money supply, there wouldn't be these uncertainties.





Miles Marsalis said:


> There was actually a bipartisan federal commission set up to determine the cause of the Great Recession:
> 
> 
> > *the report identified failure on the part of the government to regulate the financial industry. *


I am shocked, absolutely shocked, that a buck of regulating bureaucrats would investigate the problem and find that the problem was a lack of regulations. That's their answer to everything though. And, it shows another problem: government only reacts, not acts proactively. My initial claim was that this didn't happen because of DEregulation. Deregulation, what little there was of it, didn't cause it because the regulations removed wouldn't have prevented it. So the "there wasn't enough regulation" is irrelevant. Government didn't and wouldn't have predicted it anyway. It never does, and it never will. The "more regulations" you propose have and will always come after the fact, after whatever they're supposed to regulate already failed, and after investors already learned their lessons and wouldn't invest in something like that anyway.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 19, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> > You said I conttadicted myself by said history is not important to economics. I never said such a thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No I do not. Read that again. There's a difference between economics and economists. History is important to economics, the science thereof. That's how we know what is likely to happen in the future. But history is not important to SPECIFICALLY MAINSTREAM (aka Keynesian) economISTS because they seem to ignore history and think that this time their inflationary policies will be different somehow.



Miles Marsalis said:


> I mean, Keynesian economics takes that history account, as I've repeatedly brought up the eight depression caused by being on the gold standard,... Before World War II, eight US recessions worsened into depressions (as happened in 1807, 1837, 1873, 1882, 1893, 1920, 1933, and 1937) ...



See, that's what I'm talking about. Keynesians focus on the last two centuries, and even distort what they see there, and that's it. They completely ignore the last two thousand years before that. I don't get it.



Miles Marsalis said:


> I'd like proof of that happening all the time, since Paul Krugman is a Nobel laureate who has made significant contributions to the field.


Look up Contra Krugman. If you want proof that he's an idiot, 
1) He predicted that the internet would have no more effect on business than the fax machine, at a time when plenty were seeing its potential
2) He STILL believes in the broken window fallacy, where if you break something, it will stimulate the economy because someone will have to spend money to fix it, creating jobs and increasing money velocity. He even jokingly suggested a mass version of that when he said an alien invasion would help stimulate the economy. Unfortunately this fallacy belief also drives support for wars too.
3) He thinks Bitcoin has no value and no use.

He's an idiot not because he doesn't subscribe to my economics, but because the claims he makes are logically flawed. He actually used to be my idol when I went into economics as an undergrad (Bachelor's degree). But by the end of my university education I started to realize that I'm actually smarter than him since I would realize things he didn't, and figured out things he's wrong about. This was at least 5 years before Bitcoin even existed. Krugman is a celebrity, for whom all the adoration went to his head and he stopped learning because of it, thinking he's already smart enough. Don't trust that guy for investment or economic advice.




Miles Marsalis said:


> I mean, if you agree with my description of ABCT, my criticisms still stand since:
> 
> 1.) The Austrian School defines inflation as an expansion of the base money supply, a consequence of which is rising prices, whereas inflation is defined as simply a rise in prices by mainstream economic theory


No, mainstream economic theory defines inflation as an expansion of the money supply, which may or may not drive price inflation. Trust me, I checked, again.




Miles Marsalis said:


> The expansion of the money supply _can _lead to inflation, but it doesn't necessarily do so.  Prices do not always track the expansion of the underlying monetary base.


That's true, but while "mainstream" economists look at that, go *shrug* at the reasons, and simply accept that as proof that printing money doesn't cause price inflation, master's level economists and Austrian economists DO look at the reason, and find that, at least over the last two decades, it's been because a number of countries dollarized, and a huge number of governments and individuals bought up dollars as a safe store of value, because their own currencies have been really shitty. Basically all that extra cash was absorbed. That doesn't mean printing money will never cause inflation and that we can keep doing it forever. It means that, while all of us could have been wealthier from economic growth with the value of the dollar growing, we even up poorer as the value of our money stagnated and lagged behind economic growth. It means that if we get to the point where not enough others want to keep using our dollars as a safe store of wealth, continuing to print more money will actually cause prices to go up (which is currently happening). And it means that should foreign governments and citizens decide to dump dollars because they no longer trust them as a safe store of value (which is also starting to happen), all those extra dollars will flood the market and cause even bigger inflation.




Miles Marsalis said:


> 2.) ABCT also relies on a single "natural rate" of interest, but there is no _single_ natural rate of interest in practice.


Too long to read, but just as there is a single natural price of gold, and a single natural rate of interest return in Bitcoin, there would be a single natural rate of interest return in... Bitcoin. One that you look at to compare investments and decide whether you should invest your Bitcoin into it, or just hold the Bitcoin. Obviously that rate would fluctuate with the market, as it already does.
Sorry, that article is way too long.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 19, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> There have been several bubbles already, though,


There have been three. Each coinciding with block reward halving (inflation rate suddenly being cut in half, causing a supply shock), which lead to rise in price, followed by speculative investing, over-exhuberance, and crash back down to a higher market-supported level. The block halving is a catalyst for this, but they would still have happened without it since that's just how adoption of new stuff happens. People see a new thing, invest in it, make the price go up, people who don't understand it but don't want to miss out on making money invest too, the price goes way higher than market supports, then the price crashes as the people who didn't get it pull out. Then they see that the thing is still existing, and come back to invest again. Remember the internet bubble? Same thing happened. Same happened in a number of other industries as well back in the earlier 1900's.



Miles Marsalis said:


> and there significant questions about how increased regulation or banning of Bitcoin may fuel another crash in the short term, to say nothing of the long term.


Hopefully the bans by Russia, China, Venezuela, and a number of other despotic states have helped answer that question. The price may be temporarily affected, but the technology keeps working, the people hurt are only the ones living in those countries, and even the people there still keep using it as a means to circumvent their repressive regimes. I'm surprised that most people don't know that Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube, and a number of other technologies that the rest of us take for granted are actually banned in China. Do we or do those technologies suffer for it? No, most people don't even know and don't care. It's the same with Bitcoin. If US or some European country bans it, it won't affect the El Salvadorean who is still using it.




Miles Marsalis said:


> The problem is Bitcoin doesn't store value that well, since the price of Bitcoin fluctuates wildly much of the time, especially compared the US dollar, which is a decent store of value.


Hmmm. One Big Mac meal worth of dollars ten years ago can't even buy me half of a Big Mac meal today. One Big Mac meal worth of Bitcoin from ten years ago can buy me 11,000 Big Mac meals today (it'd be worth about $109,000). Seems like a really great store of value.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Furthermore, there is a very limited variety of things you can with Bitcoin since the vast majorities of businesses and services don't accept it as form of payment.


You're just making the "as of yet" argument again. Yes, right now you can't buy as much. Right now you can buy MUCH MORE than you could a year ago. And more than you could a year before then. Your argument is constantly shrinking and will be dead soon.  Your "big elephant" isn't an argument any more than "The internet is worthless because almost no companies have websites" would have been an argument against the internet during the mid 90's. And you and Krugman would have had something in common then as you do now.



Miles Marsalis said:


> To allow payment with a high-volatility currency like Bitcoin, it is common for merchants to price their goods in whatever the local standard currency is, but receive payment via Bitcoin converted at current market rates.



That's just another "for now" argument. Obviously that's easier because of "currency immersion." You price things in local currency because everyone else uses it and has a feel for what it's worth, thus being able to judge the value of things on display. If I were to tell you my services are 100,000 Yen, you privacy wouldn't have any idea how valuable that is. Is that because Yen has no value or some inherent problem? No, it's just because you're immersed in dollars. Tell a Japanese guy that something is worth $100 dollars and he may take a while to figure it out too. But, as I said, that's a "for now" problem. Tell a Venezuelan that something costs 100 billion original Bolivans or a Russian that something costs 100 Soviet Rubles. Even though they used to have currency immersion in that currency, that money is dead now and the prices don't make sense either. New money comes in to replace the old, and prices switch over. That's starting to happen with Bitcoin as its price continues to predictably get more and more stable.



Miles Marsalis said:


> The stinger here is, receiving payments in Bitcoin can be a risk since the price of Bitcoin may plummet faster and further than your profit margin,


For now. Price stability is continuing to improve as market cap increases. Predictably, and as I've said and predicted many times, because that's how market caps work.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Bitcoin's biggest problem as an exchange medium is that it isn't widely accepted and that why Bitcoin trading is very thin.



Again, for now, and he'll no it isn't thin. Did you miss that time when Elon sold $100 million and didn't even affect the market, telling people he did that after the fact? I routinely buy hundreds of thousands of dollars worth for my customers, and the trades fill within seconds without moving the price by even a penny. In the last 24 hours, the "very thin" trading had a total volume of almost $40 BILLION USD worth. That's not thin.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 19, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I mean, there was a serious drop just this summer,


It really wasn't. It probably looked serious to a newbie. It went from $20k at the beginning of the year, through $40k to $60k, before retracting to $40k for a few months, before going back up to $60k today. That's not a serious drop, that's a serious rise with a temporary retraction. And that's with A WHOLE COUNTRY LIKE CHINA banning it!




Miles Marsalis said:


> Bitcoin basically depends people HODLing or "Holding On for Dear Life" and there is an incentive for older Bitcoin holders to con the newer ones into staying in the market even during its regular catastrophic collapses.



Yeah, the incentive is that we have been in it long enough to understand it, some of us even work to develop it, and because of that we know that it will continue to go up in value and eventually take over, making old fist currencies worthless. My incentive for getting people into Bitcoin is because I want them to make money and not miss out on possibly the biggest investment of the century if not millennium, and because I don't want people to end up holding bags of useless fiat, or even continuing to lose money by holding inflationary fiat right now. My incentive, as it always has been, is that I care about people and want to make them better off.




Miles Marsalis said:


> Which it should be noted that if your investment is having periodic drops in value and subject to deflation, maybe it isn't a wise investment.


All investments that are subject to deflation are good investments. Subject to deflation means the supply is not keeping up with demand, and the supply can't easily be increased, so the price necessarily has to go up. Why would you even make such a claim???


Miles Marsalis said:


> 30% is pretty bad, but an 80% loss is even worse.


Glad those don't happen anymore, and only happened to those unlucky few who bought during the day it was at the very very top. But, as predicted, if they had kept their money in Bitcoin, they would earn that back. Last top that we had an 80% loss from was $21k. Imagine if you had bought your Bitcoin at $21k four years ago. 300% return over 4 years, the worst case scenario, still beats the stock market, hah.




Miles Marsalis said:


> > This is just fucking dumb. Large mega institutions holding literally billions of dollars of Bitcoin are holding them just fine. Tell them they know nothing about how secure financial infrastructure is built. I'd like to see them laugh in your face.
> 
> 
> Coming from a man who didn't know Binance was the largest Bitcoin exchange, this is comedy.



Large mega institutions aren't Binance. And they don't use Binance. Businesses and large institutions, including myself, use exchanges like Kraken, Gemini, Coinbase, Bitstamp, and others that have a long established history. That's why I didn't know it was the largest. Serious users don't use it. Binance has been known to be problematic. If it's "the largest" it may even be just based on trading volume done by bots. And those large institutions like investment banks, pension funds, government institutional funds, etc are not holding their bitcoins on exchsnges, let alone on Binance. So, like I said, tell them they know nothing about how financial infrastructure is built when I know some of them have been working in it for over a century. They'll laugh in your face.




Miles Marsalis said:


> Getting serious, you've probably forgotten about Mt. Gox,


No, I just ignore it as irrelevant. Did you know the internet is currently broken because Prodigy internet service failed? Oh? It isn't broken and Prodigy is irrelevant? Same deal with Bitcoin then.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Combine that with the frequent breaches and collapses happening regularly with Bitcoin exchanges on a monthly basis.


Dollars get stolen on a daily basis too. Dollar is very broken and insecure then. That's the same argument you're making. Because some weird obscure exchanges and services get hacked, that makes Bitcoin itself insecure. Just like because some obscure businesses and third world banks storing dollars get robbed, that makes dollar itself insecure. It's a dumb argument. No offense, but there's no other way to call it.




Miles Marsalis said:


> More currently, the largest Bitcoin exchange, Binance, is having its own problems at the moment:


And Bitcoin isn't. Google how many banks are in trouble for money laundering, thefts, embezzlement, and other shenanigans every year. Then use that to make an argument that the dollar is broken or insecure. You'll be look at like a fool by people holding dollars in their hands and saying "Still seems to work fine for me" 



Miles Marsalis said:


> I'm spelled this out for you, but the insecure exchanges could, at minimum, lead to serious security issues such as market manipulation, assuming we're _just _talking about exchanges. Several exchanges also had wallets they issued which were compromised as well.


You realize this problem is MUCH MUCH MUCH worse for fiat, right? Not only do you have the same but BIGGER issue with banks that can just print money to create fraud, but you also have entire government central banks who can just print a ton all of a sudden, or do things to destabilize the entire currency and cause it to hyperinflate. You have Binance to prove that Bitcoin are risky? I have the entirely of 2008 crash and all those toxic assets that are still on the books and the banks that are currently even more leveraged than they were then as a counter argument.

And as I keep saying, DON'T KEEP YOUR BITCOIN ON EXCHANGES. There's zero reason to. None of the big investors, corps, and institutions do. You think Tesla cares about exchanges with the billion of Bitcoin they hold? No, they don't.




Miles Marsalis said:


> This is easily disproven by the fact that we haven't had a depression since Keynesian policies were instituted,



2008 was a depression which arguably lasted almost a decade. It was only called a recession for appearance reasons. Didn't want the populace to panic too much.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Part of the reason we're recovering rapidly right now


We're not, and you thinking that shows how much out of touch you are with the people at the bottom. People are getting more and more desperate. Historically, when food and basic necessities excluding housing became 40% of people's incomes, that is when mass unheaval and revolutions happened. Such as during the French revolution. We're just about reaching that 40% mark for a lot of people. And I'm seeing a lot of this in person with a lot of people I know and deal with getting desperate.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 19, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Is this really going to offset the home energy costs and be cheaper than gas, electric, or solar heating systems? And how affordable will this be?



Probably yes, because this is heat that is otherwise wasted. The Bitcoin mine already earns its money back from the mined Bitcoin. Selling heat is just extra on top.



Miles Marsalis said:


> GPUs are still very much used by many Bitcoin operations; you should know they are chained together to increase performance cheaply.


Zero GPUs are used for Bitcoin mining. The cost of energy that you will send into a GPU will not even be covered by the Bitcoin it is able to mine. For instance my 1080ti would spend about $50 a month in electricity if it was used 24/7 for mining, and I would earn maybe $0.01 in Bitcoin from that. Likely less.  A good GPU can mine at a rate of maybe 300 mega hashes (300 million hashes per second). An average ASIC can mine at 100 trillion hashes per second. A common ASIC is 100,000 to 300,000 times more efficient than a GPU. GPUs simply can't compete.
Other altcoins that are designed to use GPUs use GPUs for mining, but not bitcoin. And almost all of those coins are scams, so I'm fine with them disappearing so GPUs become more affordable again.



Miles Marsalis said:


> In order to prop up the initial system, Bitcoin mining bribed early users with exponentially better rewards than latecomers could get for the same amount of effort.


Not really. Those better rewards were mostly worthless still. Bitcoin that you mines wasn't worth anything at all at first, and only a few dollars when I got into it. And mining was never really the main reward either. I don't mine. I haven't mined since 2014. And I actually actively advise against it. It's not a good way to make money.



Miles Marsalis said:


> In its current state, as predicted as part of its core design curve, it isn't feasible for a newcomer to Bitcoin to mine their own assets.


And hasn't been since 2014. But that's not where Bitcoin's value comes from anyway.



Miles Marsalis said:


> So to join the network at all, new Bitcoin users must instead give ever-increasing amounts of wealth to previous bitcoiners who are basically sitting around doing nothing.


Not at all. You can give $100 once and that's it. Just sit on it and watch it grow. More people will convert their problematic dollars and other fiat into Bitcoin just to buy into the numerous benefits that it provides, whether to secure their wealth in it, to use it for its transfer mechanism, or to use it for its programmable money features, and as more people adopt it, your $100 will keep growing.



Miles Marsalis said:


> This functionally makes Bitcoin a pump and dump scheme


It's a pump and dump without the dump though.



Miles Marsalis said:


> where the early adopters, who have more bitcoins than anyone else ever will


That's not the case because Bitcoin is money. Easily adopters were spending it. Very few sat on it for all these years. Most of us were using it to invest in the infrastructure itself. All these bitcoin exchanges, wallets, business and services, and other software and hardware that helps people use it? It all came from early adopters spending their Bitcoin, hundreds of billions of dollars worth, to build up the Bitcoin economy and make Bitcoin worth what it is today. And we're continuing to do that. Satoshi built an incentive into Bitcoin, where early adopters are incentivized to spend their Bitcoin to develop the Bitcoin economy, because it will make their remaining Bitcoin worth more. That's what we did and that's what happened. I've invested and even given out literally hundreds of Bitcoins, yet what I have left is still worth more than what I started with.




Miles Marsalis said:


> and did little or no work and assumed no real risk,


See above. Actually this is a rather insulting statement considering all we went through...




Miles Marsalis said:


> hype it up so they can offload their bitcoins onto fools who believe they'll strike it rich as speculators.


Except you just said that we HODL. Let me say this for the hundredth time: those who invest into bitcoin and really understand it, consider Bitcoin a safer store of value than fiat, and since they can use Bitcoin to just buy things as they need them, they will never "offload" or "cash out" or dump their coins. The mere suggestion is ridiculous to them. To me. Why the hell would I put all my money at risk by transferring it to some bank that is barely insured, that will question me about every large financial transfer, that can freeze my money, and that would trap my money in this country and expose it to massive taxation?! That's a horribly bad idea!!!
No, to us the fools are those who still reject Bitcoin. We call them no-coiners and make fun of them.




Miles Marsalis said:


> At the same time the speculators, who are providing all of the capital, which is the amount of money Bitcoin is actually worth is limited to the amount of fiat currency placed in Bitcoin exchanges as that is the only way new value can enter the ecosystem,


Forgetting the large amount of trade happening directly. Lots of people get salaries paid in Bitcoin. Lots of businesses trade goods and services in Bitcoin.




Miles Marsalis said:


> and who are taking all of the risk of a crash, are chasing far lower percentage returns than initial the initial early adopters would receive.


That may be true, of only because there are fewer people remaining to abandon their fiat and move into Bitcoin, but the potential growth is still massive.



Miles Marsalis said:


> This means the system runs on opportunism, especially among people who like the idea of decentralized cryptocurrencies, which is defended as an acceptable trade-off and a fair reward for propping up the system by its proponents.


I guess. In the same way that the internet is a system that runs on opportunism, among people who like the idea of being able to send messages digitally instead of relying on telephones and paper mail. They saw a lot of opportunity in the technology, invested in it, built it up, and became rich, because they understood how that technology was superior to the ones it replaced. Bitcoin investors are opportunistic in exactly the same way.
Maybe your problem with getting the point of Bitcoin is that you don't see it as anything beyond just the tokens of value.


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 19, 2021)

I said months ago Bitcoin would eventually go back up again, and here we are. Probably should've used a trading network instead of buying some and holding it. Easily could've made like 10x the profit I currently have, but oh well. A 100% increase is still quite a bit.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 19, 2021)

Christine Vulpes said:


> You are analyzing it as a 2d problem when its much more complex. this is a trap people fall into because they look at the 1 coin every ~10...


It's not 1 coin every ten minutes, it's 6.25. used to be 12.5, and 25 before that. Started out with 50. It gets cut in half every four years. Regardless of the mining involved.



Christine Vulpes said:


> and think its a linear progression.
> BUT your input power of compute ( worker units) is growing and growing, and each one is earning smaller and smaller chunks.


That's only if more people decide to join in and mine. It's simple: every ten minutes 6.25 Bitcoin is mined. If only one person mines Bitcoin, he gets the entire 6.25. If two people mine Bitcoin, they get half each. If a thousand people mine Bitcoin, they each get 6.25/1000th of a Bitcoin. It has nothing to do with how much Bitcoin is left to mine. It only has to do with there always being only 6.35 Bitcoin available to mine every ten minutes NO MATTER WHAT (at least until that amount is halved again three years from now), and the more people mine, the smaller of a fraction of that each person gets. Again, *nothing* to do with how much Bitcoin is left to mine.



Christine Vulpes said:


> Which is consuming more and more energy.


It's only consuming more energy IF the value of Bitcoin grows enough to make mining more profitable. Note that there have frequently been times when fewer and fewer people were mining Bitcoin, because it wasn't profitable to mine for whatever reason. That actually happened this summer.



Christine Vulpes said:


> This problem gets worse as you have more persons trying to hop on the mining because its a finite resource,


It has nothing to do with how finite Bitcoin is. Regardless of how much Bitcoin is left to mine, the limiting factor is the 6.25 Bitcoin every ten minutes that everyone has to share. If too many people start mining, it would end up where the share of Bitcoin you end up with is worth less than the energy you spent mining it. You'll be losing money.




Christine Vulpes said:


> Forcing each node to earn smaller and smaller chunks.


Nodes don't mine and don't earn.



Christine Vulpes said:


> Bitcoins Energy consumption ( and thus computational power (roughly in line with moores law) is going up.



It's not going up with Moore's law. If anything, it's going up with the value of Bitcoin, while also going down with the efficiency of mining technology.



Christine Vulpes said:


> It now takes 8 years worth of the average homes energy consumption to mine a single bit coin. This is absurd.  It consumes more power than Norway, or Finland. This is a ton of power.


I'm assuming you got this information for something like Digiconomist, or from a source that used Digiconomist. I'll tell you that that source and everything that uses it is complete bullshit. Right now, Canada's hydro power alone produces more excess waste energy than all of Bitcoin mining combined.

That said, simply using a ton of power isn't an argument against anything.



Christine Vulpes said:


> as miles points out, cluster nodes of GPUs are still effective. Beowulf style, brute force by numbers.


Not for Bitcoin mining no. Shitcoin mining, sure.



Christine Vulpes said:


> Asics are NOT CPUS, But a GPU IS an ASIC.


An GPU is not an ASIC. That's why ASICs had to be created instead of just using GPUs. A GPU can calculate custom computer code. It can be programmed to calculate all sorts of functions, like a a CPU. That's how it can draw all kinds of beautiful graphics. An ASIC can't be programmed to calculate anything. It's a psychically "programmed" computer. Like a coin sorting machine where dropping different coins into results in those coins only falling into their designated slots. It's the same concept, where the calculation paths are physically etched into the hardware, so dropping a set of electrical charges that represent numbers into it will result in them "falling" out at preset outputs.



Christine Vulpes said:


> ASICS are custom IC chips that are hardware tuned specifically to the task at hand.



It's not just tuned, it's physically coded to do just one thing.



Christine Vulpes said:


> there are 21Million coins, hard limited, this is built into the chain, and the creator has stated as such. It circles back to my first point that as we encroach on the limit of the coins, we have more and more people mining for that last bit which is exponentially using more power.



We'll have more and more people mining that last bit not because it's more difficult to mine the last bit and thus will take more people to do it, but because by then Bitcoin will be much more valuable and thus it will be more profitable for people to do so. Maybe. If Bitcoin remains at its current price (unlikely), with every Bitcoin having it will become half as profitable to mine it, so the number of people will actually decrease.
Consider that when all Bitcoin is mined, Bitcoin mining will still continue same as it went on before. Figure out that and maybe you'll see why you're so off on this.



Christine Vulpes said:


> From 2017 annual BC electricity use went from 11twh to 118tw in early 2021. *or a 10x increase.* This is not sustainable -> it is currently projected that assuming speculation continues at a similar rate to now, by the time the last coin is made available the global c02 equivalent tonnage of mining bitcoin will be the 5th largest producer in the world. IE bigger than Japan.


If it's not sustainable, it will simply reach an equilibrium where it is sustainable. Actually it will reach an equilibrium where the cost of mining vs what you earn from mining is still profitable. Which is where it always has been. And sometimes that will result in a decrease, as it has happened a few times. If the cost of electricity goes up because Bitcoin uses too much of it up, profitability will decrease and so will mining.

This estimate also sounds like BS from Digiconomist btw. Fyi, based on those estimates,








						Bitcoin Could Use Up All of the World's Energy by 2020
					

Projections suggest bitcoin mining will require all of the world's current energy production within three years.




					www.newsweek.com
				




Obviously that's not the case. But again, who cares if it uses a lot of energy? All the world's refrigerators use more energy than all of Japan. Just using energy isn't an argument against anything. This also stupidly assumes that Bitcoin mining uses and will continue to use CO2 producing sources of energy. That's already not the case for majority of mining, and it's continuing to shrink.



Christine Vulpes said:


> And this is just pure consumption at the mining stage, this it not talking about silicon fabs pumping out hardware, or the absolute rapid and growing ewaste issue 30,700 tones of ewaste. of last year, or 9.5 Oz of e-waste per transaction.


Sounds like more Digiconomist bs, and the phone you're holding in your hand is an infinitely bigger problem for that.



Christine Vulpes said:


> I* am not willing to destroy the planet for monopoly money.*


Perhaps you can find some peace in accepting the fact that with regards to bitcoin, there's literally nothing that you or anyone else can do about it.

It's also sad that you have no issues with the massive energy and ewaste waste from smartphones, and that you support the global wars, destruction, and massive pollution from consumerist culture, created entirely through inflationary Monopoly money you call dollars. Bitcoins aren't used to fund wars or the military industrial complex. Bitcoin isn't used to fund cheap junk from China that is only profitable to produce because the -2% return on it stays ahead of -3% return on USD. Bitcoin doesn't come close to the literally trillions worth of resources and energy that governments waste every year that they can do so by printing more of their money. So I'm way more environmentally conservative using Bitcoin than the garbage USD.


----------



## PLEASE DELETE ACCOUNT (Oct 19, 2021)

Rassah said:


> That's only if more people decide to join in and mine.


*But they are, this is the problem.* People all want to make a buck quick. Dumping 12k in electricity to earn 40k is right now a great investment option if that's all you are concerned about. People with the ability are doing that route. This electricity is not ethereal and comes from somewhere. Its not being transferred from other aspects so much.


Rassah said:


> It gets cut in half every four years. Regardless of the mining involved.


This is true. HOWEVER, as more people are getting in for less and less remaining, its down stream effect is more energy consumption.


Rassah said:


> Again, *nothing* to do with how much Bitcoin is left to mine.





Rassah said:


> It has nothing to do with how finite Bitcoin is


*Yes it does. AS the perceived value per coin is increasing, and there is scarcity looming more people are trying to get in. Fomo on the hype. Its Directly related to being finite with a cap + current market trend and everyone speculating on its value. This comes back to you looking at this as a 2d most basic problem when its no where near that. You are grossly simplifying your outlook and I do not know why.*


Rassah said:


> Nodes don't mine and don't earn.


So my terminology is slightly off because BC decided to re-define common computing terms. _ Anything that runs any portion of a distributed work schema is a compute node._ It's a node in a computing sense. A single Core on a GPU is a node if its hashing. An SBC is a node if its hashing. Anything handling any work unit, is a node. Just washing over this is being purposefully obtuse and hiding actual knowledge or lack there of behind your specific jargon.


Rassah said:


> It's not going up with Moore's law.


It has since 2017. 1 Fold ~ every 18 months. Both in price and in compute power.


Rassah said:


> more excess waste energy


yes HVTL transmission is lossy, but until we move to distributed energy production you cant power modern life. we bleed off 15-20% of all transmitted power to heating up water molecules in their air, ground, and ocean surrounding the cables. The best way for now to combat that...is to just demand less at the end of the chain. this is your house, your electric car charger, your mining farm, your hob, this is factories, data centers, everything pulling power, big and small. Everything matters.


Rassah said:


> That said, simply using a ton of power isn't an argument against anything.


Yes, It very much is. When the bulk of all energy on earth is still produced in terrible methods and non-renewables its a problem. *Fossil Fuel is still accounting for 84% of global energy production.*_ Not every country is France running a lot of nuclear. Not every country is Iceland with 99% renewables for electrical._ Not every country is like china with large hydro infrastructure ( which is only 18% of their energy production, not capacity, production - Coal is still cheaper in large swaths of china, and according to their own published energy reports 57% of their generation is coal alone as of 2019)


Rassah said:


> An GPU is not an ASIC. That's why ASICs had to be created instead of just using GPUs.


a GPU is by definition an ASIC. ASICs were not created for bitcoin, Asics are 1960's IC technology. A GPU core Is an asic, specifically designed for running geometry calculations en mass. There are ASICs for SHA256, sure many computers had them as hardware backed encryption (so did mechanical hard drives) - Someone had the brilliant idea of scaling it up and applying it to BC and might have made a tweak here or there - but it was in no way invented for BC. There's are also Asics in your alarm clock (probably a 555 IC), that do nothing but count the sine wave from the wall. I have a ASIC counter in my car that converts the pulse rate from the speedometer cable to something the dash can use, its the size of a fingernail, and costs about 11 cents. Its a very broad term.


Rassah said:


> It's not just tuned, it's physically coded to do just one thing.


Its tuned for the one task it does via the physical set up of the logic gates. The problem is its wasteful as hell single purpose computing. Unlike an FPGA it cannot be repurposed later once it tasking is no longer relevant. Its faster and more power efficient while its useful, but well, short lived In this application Because they are rigid, they become outmoded quickly. Some of the older ant miners are not even viable now : they consume more costs in energy than they can even earn in BC even at the low rates of china ( 5c kw/hr). That's pure e-waste you can do nothing with. Sure you can get it to run another sha256 based workload, but what practical purpose does that serve beyond brute forcing passwords?


Rassah said:


> Sounds like more Digiconomist bs, and the phone you're holding in your hand is an infinitely bigger problem for that.


Its also BoA, Cambridge, the Crypto Climate Accord, Qatar University, rystad energy, and countless others : state actors like china & the usa, independent researchers and multi national organization including the Paris climate accords who have growing concerns. I will agree with the Digiconomist fellow as well = 'Its waste, by design" Almost everything is moving from as high energy state to a lower one and has outputs and waste. That does not mean we just ignore it, and keep piling it on.

I'm a big proponent of reduce, and reuse - recycle or toss is a method of absolute last resort. Its bold of you to assume peoples habits outside the narrow scope in which this whole topic is about the inefficiencies of mining and maintaining the BC network. *You just moved this into whataboutism and started to levy semi personal attacks on limited information and no base.* Two fallacious arguments in one. _Once it progresses to this point I see no value in continuing further, which leaves me out from here on. I'll Play your game on energy habits though._

FWIW - my current phone is from 2012 or 2013 and weighs roughly 4oz - 1.5 of that being the battery which is original. It should remain viable until 2030 when 4g Is supposed to be reaching EOL When it dies a good portion of it can be reclaimed - the aluminum frame, the majority of the main board, the display etc the only thing that cant be recovered is the fiberglass back panel and battery. My laptop is from 2008. My car is 40 years old, passes emissions, and does better than the US fleet average MPG ( I get 34, passenger car average of the states is ~25mpg), while also driving 2/3 less miles than the average American ( to be fair I am retired - defacto since february and now drive even less ~700 miles this year). My computer monitor is from 1996 . My TV which is admittedly not used much is from 1985 Both of these cannot be recycled cleanly, and thus its better to keep it and use it until its no longer viable. I use less water units than are included with the connection fee, and I use roughly 1/3 the energy of the average person of my state despite owning a home 25% larger than the average. My average time span for keeping Desktop electronics would about 7 years and over the last 3 upgrades I have roughly halved their peak power consumption and reduced their average energy state as well, after which point they tend to be given to institutions that can use them (ie shelters, individuals without goods etc).

I Think I am doing pretty good on being as green as is possible here but am always trying to do better. I am an American after all and know that on average we use double the energy of a Brit, while being much higher on the list of emissions than most Europeans as well. And while individuals may not be the bulk of this consumption, I can still do my own part. Part of that for now is not using two non-competing financial institutions.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Oct 19, 2021)

Rassah said:


> I never touted it as such. Again, I only corrected you on your claim that there isn't enough gold to account for all the dollars. That's not my support for gold, as I've explained why it already failed as money. It was just my correcting a bad assumption on your part that ignores that the value of gold per ounce can increase to accommodate the entire dollar economy.


You did, in the beginning, and one has ask why you'd go out of your way to dispute my criticism of the gold standard if you thought the gold standard was unworkable to begin with. 

More importantly, your proposal for returning to gold standard has a few flaws, starting with you would need to artificially increase the price of gold in the first place to make it even work since at gold's price per troy ounce currently wouldn't cover the economic activity of the US, much more the world. 


Rassah said:


> It would not be artificial. It would rise in the market naturally as more of it encompasses economic activity. Same as the value of Bitcoin has been naturally rising to encompass more and more economic activity to the detriment of the dollar.


By definition, if the price of per troy gold ounce is currently around $1,500, the total amount of gold mined in existence is 142,000 metric tons, and that equals currently about 7.2 trillion dollars in gold, which is well short of being able to cover all the circulating money and deposits in US since our GDP is 20.9 trillion (which provides a nice starting point for how you'd need to cover), then you either need to massively devalue dollar (which will cause the very crisis you claim to want to prevent) or fix the price of gold higher (which what you're effectively proposing, even if you don't realize it).

To spell out the consequences of this, this would be devastating for the world economy because the higher price of gold would disrupt and possibly destroy the technology industry since gold is a key component in computer circuitry. Component prices would be impossible to meet. To make this personal to you, this would definitely end the Bitcoin industry since it relies entirely on computing technology.


Rassah said:


> I hope we've settled that I haven't proposed artificially rising the price of gold, that I merely corrected you that the price of gold will rise to encompass the value of the economy on its own, but that I don't support we use gold for this, since, as I explained, gold already failed as money due to its divisibility and portability problem, which necessitated the highly problematic backing. And hopefully we can leave this gold thing behind. It's irrelevant.


I mean, if the government decides to go back to the gold standard, it will be the cause of the price of gold rising immediately. That isn't gold "rising to encompass the value of the economy on its own".

Furthermore, I've repeatedly, as have others here, pointed out issues of the lack of portability and divisbility to you, yet you've ignored those flaws in your nonsensical defense of the gold standard only realize this now. 


Rassah said:


> I thought I addressed this error of yours by explaining paper backing. In the same way that atoms are unusable, even dust specs of gold were unusable. But paper backing solved that issue because backing allows you to write any quantity of something in paper. Just as you can have a paper that is worth roughly $1, where it is backed by 1/2000th of a gram of gold, so too you can have a paper that is backed by a fraction of an atom. Either way the amount being backed is impractical to use, but it still grants you an amount of volume of gold and thus some value.


I didn't make an error and think you don't realize that by having monetary notes based on "subatomic" amounts of gold that are irretrievable and irredeemable, you've inadvertently reinvented ... a fiat currency. 

Which you loathe, allegedly.


Rassah said:


> Unlikely. Every single commodity we use ended up expanding in supply because we ended up with more ways of extracting it. Gold is no different (space, sea, etc). Incidentally, that's another reason gold isn't as good as Bitcoin. Bitcoin is even more limited and will have to go up in value as the economy grows.


Your knowledge of geology is on par with your understanding of economics. 

Gold is a finite resource and production has actually plateaued out in recent years.


> "Mine production has flat-lined, and is likely on a downward trajectory, but not dramatically so," adds Ross Norman of MetalsDaily.com.










> The volume of gold reserves can be calculated more accurately than resources, although this is still not an easy task.
> The below-ground stock of gold reserves is currently estimated to be around 50,000 tonnes, according to the US Geological Survey.
> To put that in perspective, around 190,000 tonnes of gold has been mined in total, although estimates do vary.
> Based on these rough figures, there is about 20% still to be mined. But this is a moving target.


So it is not a good idea to use our slowly dwindling supply to back our monetary systems.


Rassah said:


> Inflation doesn't do anything other than make labor poorer over time. If the value of what you're earning goes up 3% a year and it's cut by 3%, you're not worse off. More likely there won't be cuts, the value of your income will just go up with deflation, same as you get a 3% raise with inflationary dollars. And that income should go up, since with experience you should be becoming more productive and valuable.


Generally, the Fed targets an annual rate of inflation for the US since a slowly increasing price level keeps businesses profitable and prevents consumers from waiting for lower prices before making purchases. Some inflation in an economy is not a terrible thing.


Rassah said:


> That never worked, as every recession still ended up with huge unemployment. Worse, this forgets, or just ignores, the issue that during a recession wasteful activity needs to be stopped and resources reallocated. Instead what this policy does is basically create artificial economic activity, done for wasteful reasons, just to keep people employed. Environmentalists should be extremely against this.


Keynesian doesn't necessarily prevent recessions, but it does allow the Fed to help shorten the length of recessions and ensure they don't become protracted depressions. Note than when we were on the gold standard prior to World War II, major depressions were the norm and devastating. After Keynesian economics were embraced and adopted, we've had relatively mild recessions that we've recovered from fairly quickly. 

With Keynesian policy, we truncate the amount of time people are unemployed and ease their burden while they are, which is preferably to your approach of just letting depressions play out and allowing people to languish in poverty for years on end. Economic crises require some government intervention, partially because it is untenable to let people suffer like that.


Rassah said:


> There's no reason for falling income. Incomes are going up with deflation. No reason for an economic contraction either. If a worker is less productive than the pay he's getting, just cut his pay.


I mean, most workers aren't going to like having their pay cut due to deflation caused by the returning to the gold standard and I going to point out that workers having their paychecks cut is forming falling income since you seemed to missed that. I also mentioned before, which you conveniently left out:


Miles Marsalis said:


> *When price levels fall because of this policy, paychecks will be cut and workers will be in a bind.* Falling income also means that other workers will simply have to be fired, reducing total output and enhancing the economic contraction. (This is a good time to remind you that by maintaining a slow and steady rate of inflation, a central bank can keep unemployment down and ensure nominal wage growth even during a recession. Real wages might take a slight hit, but there is generally less labor unrest.)


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Oct 19, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Hoarding cash is called savings. Savings is never a downside. You want people to be wealthier? Then why do you propose a policy that makes them have less savings? So you want people well off or constantly working for lower and lower wages?


Stating the obvious, if people are excessively hoarding cash during an economic crisis, in this case a deflationary crisis since that is what we're talking about, then there will be a shortage of money circulating in the economy, which will worsen the crisis and prolong it.

That is a far cry from people accruing savings in the banking system within a stable economy.

So this little disingenuous gem ...


Rassah said:


> People having hoards of cash is disastrous. People not having enough of a cash hoard to afford a $400 emergency expense is a good thing then?
> I don't get the cognitive dissonance that this crazy economic school teaches...


... is a canard.


Rassah said:


> We've had five depressions (that I can think of) on the fiat currency already, so it hasn't helped.


When were these supposed depressions? List them out, because we haven't had a depression since the Great Depression and  we only adopted Keynesian policy after World War II (despite your claims).


Rassah said:


> I do. That's why I never proposed we go back on the gold standard and advocate Bitcoin as a better alternative.


Well ...


Rassah said:


> This is dumb and you with your econ degree should know better. You know that the value of everything is relative. If we went to the gold standard, the value of gold will simply rise to meet demand. I heard the claim that "Bitcoin can't replace the dollar because there are only 21 million bitcoins for everyone" too, but Bitcoin is very divisible, and so is gold.


And ...


Rassah said:


> Seriously, why are you not able to wrap your head around this? "Assuming a price of $50,000 per kilogram, corresponding to around $1550 per troy ounce," what will happen is that as dollars are bought up to back the new US dollar gold reserve currency, that $1550 per troy ounce will climb to $2000, $20,000, $200,000, and up, to whatever value an ounce of gold would have to be to cover the entire worth of all the dollars. If there were only 50 ounces of gold in the entire world, and all of the US dollars in circulation were worth $200 trillion, that would just mean that each ounce of gold would end up being worth $4 trillion. The price of gold isn't fixed, value is relative to something else. True, it wouldn't be possible to just take the current worthless paper and claim it's backed by gold. The treasury would have to release new paper that corresponds to a fixed amount of gold, likely a tiny fraction of an ounce. But as the treasury keeps buying up gold to issue more and more of these new gold backed dollars, the value of that gold will simply go up, to the point that it can encompass the value of the entire us dollar base, with the value of gold backed dollars going up as well. Which is fine, since we can just use dollars that represent ever smaller fractions of ounces of gold. Hell, you can run the entire world's economy on just a single ounce of gold if you just subdivide it enough.
> In short, yes, it would be logistically difficult, but the problem of "there's not enough gold" is non-existent in a world where all values are relative. And, thankfully, that's not even necessary anymore. People are voluntarily switching from unbacked inflationary fiat to hard money asset currency. One that WILL cause a massive devaluation of the dollar, but that at least doesn't have any secondary uses like industrial ones that can mess with its valuation.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 19, 2021)

Christine Vulpes said:


> *But they are, this is the problem.*


No it's not. The more people join in to mine, the more security is provided to the network. That's a good thing. 



Christine Vulpes said:


> People all want to make a buck quick.


You can't make a quick buck mining Bitcoin. Current return on investment is over a year, and mining margins are very tight.



Christine Vulpes said:


> This electricity is not ethereal and comes from somewhere. Its not being transferred from other aspects so much.


A lot of it is being transferred from sources that otherwise just discard it. Bitcoin mining competition forces miners to use waste electricity that no one else would, which power companies would otherwise get $0 for, and are willing to sell it to Bitcoin miners for as little as $0.03 or less. 



Christine Vulpes said:


> HOWEVER, as more people are getting in for less and less remaining, its down stream effect is more energy consumption.


It has nothing to do with "less and less remaining" though. Again, people aren't getting into mining because there's less Bitcoin left, but because the cost of mining right now is lower than the price of the bitcoin you mine right now.



Christine Vulpes said:


> *Yes it does. AS the perceived value per coin is increasing, and there is scarcity looming more people are trying to get in. Fomo on the hype. *



No, it does not. Scarcity of Bitcoin *left to mine* has nothing to do with it. It's actually *the opposite*. Since over time less and less Bitcoin is mined, there's less and less of it to go around for everyone who is mining, meaning mining profits are lower and lower. If Bitcoin price goes up, that would make mining whatever decreasing amount is left more profitable, but it's not going up because there's less and less of it left to mine. It's going up because there's a limited supply in total and more and more people are adopting it as money.
Remember, at some point all Bitcoin will be mined, but Bitcoin mining won't stop. It will still be profitable.



Christine Vulpes said:


> *You are grossly simplifying your outlook and I do not know why.*


Maybe I understand it very well, having actually worked in the field for over a decade, and you're explaining it badly?



Christine Vulpes said:


> So my terminology is slightly off because BC decided to re-define common computing terms.


They weren't redefined, the technology just changed. Nodes are things that store and relay information. It used to be that nodes stored and share a copy of the blockchain, worked as wallets, and did the mining. Now nodes only store and relay blockchain information. Miners do not. They just compute blocks, and submit their results to a single node they work for.



Christine Vulpes said:


> It has since 2017.


Moore's law is irrelevant for mining and price. If ASICs doubled in processing power, making it half as expensive to mine with, miners would just buy double the ASICs to bring the power cost back up to the equilibrium where adding more is no longer profitable again.



Christine Vulpes said:


> When the bulk of all energy on earth is still produced in terrible methods and non-renewables its a problem. *Fossil Fuel is still accounting for 84% of global energy production.*


Then the problem isn't the use of energy. The problem is *the source* of energy. In which case you should be cheering on Bitcoin mining, since it uses mostly renewable energy sources, and has a huge incentive to continue to develop renewable and "free" sources of energy like solar and wind. All while also displacing a much more wasteful service like fiat. 



Christine Vulpes said:


> _Not every country is France running a lot of nuclear. Not every country is Iceland with 99% renewables for electrical._ Not every country is like china with large hydro infrastructure


Yeah, but the cool thing is that bitcoin mining doesn't have to happen in every country either. It's on the internet, so you can have all your mines out in the middle of nowhere in Iceland, and it will still provide mining service to the entire world. 



Christine Vulpes said:


> a GPU is by definition an ASIC.


I didn't know that. I thought ASICs were hardware coded to do one task. They're not programmable. GPUs are obviously programmable, since they can do both SHA256 and graphics calculations. But if GPUs fit under the definition of ASIC, then I guess I stand corrected.



Christine Vulpes said:


> The problem is its wasteful as hell single purpose computing.


It's not wasteful though. If it was more wasteful than multipurpose computing, it would have cost more to manufacture and use, and miners would be using multipurpose instead. But it's less wasteful, because they don't last more than about 3 to 4 years of intensive mining anyway, so there's no reason to expend more resources to make them multicomputing when they'll only be used for one purpose and then thrown out. And the savings in energy for it being single purpose are MASSIVE compared to extra wasted electricity used if it was multicomputing. What we have now is the most efficient and least wasteful method of mining.



Christine Vulpes said:


> Its also BoA, Cambridge, the Crypto Climate Accord, Qatar University, rystad energy, and countless others : state actors like china & the usa, independent researchers and multi national organization including the Paris climate accords who have growing concerns.


Check THEIR sources. Most of them come right back to using Digiconomist as their source for their claims, making all of them complete bunk. If you're given an article about how wasteful Bitcoin is, I search it for Digiconomist or Alex DeVries (the author). If you don't find that, go through the list of sources they use, then search that source. You're very likely to find it. At which point you can dismiss the entire article and its claims, since the author has proven that they're unable to do actual investigative research and fell for the Digiconomist scam.
As for state actors, of course they're concerned about something that interferes with their system that allows them to enrich themselves and wage unlimited wars.



Christine Vulpes said:


> I will agree with the Digiconomist fellow as well = 'Its waste, by design"


Do you agree with him that Bitcoin will use all of the world's electricity by 2020? Because that's what his "research" predicted. He's a 20-something yo *kid*, with no experience in electric power grid, or Bitcoin, or Bitcoin mining. 


			https://defi.crescofin.ch/the-reports-of-bitcoin-environmental-damage-are-garbage/
		




Christine Vulpes said:


> I'm a big proponent of reduce, and reuse - recycle or toss is a method of absolute last resort.


As an economist, I understand that that's a terrible way to increase efficiency. Imagine we're back when our only source of energy was cutting down wood to use for a fire, and we decided to conserve energy. So, we decided that you're not allowed to burn a fire for more than 5 hours a day to stay warm or to cook. We'd save on trees, but there would be no incentive to use wood more efficiently, or to look for more efficient sources of heat.  You're still limited to 5 hours of burning whatever no matter what you do. Instead what happened is we wanted to burn more and more to get ever bigger fires for more uses for that energy. So we ended up looking for more efficient sources to burn, like coal, and oil. And then we had to find even more efficient methods of gathering energy, like electricity. And now we're using electricity in ever greater numbers, so we're forced to come up with more and more efficient means of generating and transmitting it. Basically, in a real world market, increasing the use of a thing leads to us being forced to find more efficient ways to use that thing, while forcing conservation of a thing just freezes innovation and gets us stuck with using it at the wasteful level we always have.



Christine Vulpes said:


> Its bold of you to assume peoples habits outside the narrow scope in which this whole topic is about the inefficiencies of mining and maintaining the BC network.


I'm not assuming. I know most people have smartphones, refrigerators, etc, and I know most people discard electronics at a yearly pace. That's public information. But for some reason no one who complains about Bitcoin mining seems to complain about the much bigger problem in their hands.



Christine Vulpes said:


> *You just moved this into whataboutism and started to levy semi personal attacks on limited information and no base.*


My information wasn't limited. You and others prefer government fiat, that's why you attack Bitcoin and Bitcoin mining. By supporting fiat you support all those other things fiat enables (war, waste, consumerism), whether you realize it or not. It's not a personal attack, it's a statement of fact. 



Christine Vulpes said:


> FWIW - my current phone is from 2012 or 2013 and weighs roughly 4oz - ...


Good for you, but you obviously know you're an extreme exception, not the norm, and you now know my take on conserving vs pushing innovation. I'm pretty sure a lot of the things I own use less energy than the things you use. Like that monitor for example.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 19, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> You did, in the beginning,


I didn't. You misunderstood.



Miles Marsalis said:


> and one has ask why you'd go out of your way to dispute my criticism of the gold standard if you thought the gold standard was unworkable to begin with.


Because you made a silly argument that was directly transferable to Bitcoin:

> There are $40 trillion dollars in the world and only 142,000 tons of gold worth $7.2 trillion. There's not enough gold to fit the USD into!
> There are $40 trillion dollars in the world and only 21 million bitcoins worth $1.3 trillion. There's not enough Bitcoin to fit the USD into!

It's the argument economically ignorant people have been making about Bitcoin having too few coins to go around for a decade. I was just surprised you would make the same ignorant argument about gold.



Miles Marsalis said:


> More importantly, your proposal for returning to gold standard has a few flaws, starting with you would need to artificially increase the price of gold in the first place


If gold rises in the market as you start issuing gold backed currency, that's not an artificial rise, is it. Again, the parallels to Bitcoin are direct. Bitcoin went from total market cap of $10 million to a market cap of $800,000 million as it encompassed more of the global economy. That wasn't artificial.



Miles Marsalis said:


> By definition, if the price of per troy gold ounce is currently around $1,500, the total amount of gold mined in existence is 142,000 metric tons, and that equals currently about 7.2 trillion dollars in gold, which is well short of being able to cover all the circulating money and deposits in US


Yes, just like because we only have 21 million total Bitcoins and at $64k that only adds up to $1.3 trillion, that is well short of being able to cover all the circulating money and deposits in US, so I guess that means Bitcoin can never take over the USD, and that's no point discussing it as a money alternative. /s
How do you not see how wrong this line of thinking is???



Miles Marsalis said:


> then you either need to massively devalue dollar (which will cause the very crisis you claim to want to prevent)


Wait, what? I never said I wanted to prevent devaluing the dollar. On the contrary, I'm saying you should buy Bitcoin and don't "cash out" because Bitcoin will absolutely devalue the dollar and cause a crisis for any fool still left holding the bags of dollars.

And, since we're talking about Bitcoin here, I don't care about any of the gold stuff. For the last time, I have never and will never advocate for the return to the gold standard. If you think I have, I hope I explained above why you completely misunderstood.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Furthermore, I've repeatedly, as have others here, pointed out issues of the lack of portability and divisbility to you


*I'm* the one who told you that gold failed because it isn't portable or divisible. Not you. Not others. *I DID*. And I said that Bitcoin fixes that issue. Don't preach back my own words at me or claim they're yours.



Miles Marsalis said:


> I didn't make an error and think you don't realize that by having monetary notes based on "subatomic" amounts of gold that are irretrievable and irredeemable, you've inadvertently reinvented ... a fiat currency.


They're not irredeemable. If you have two papers for half an atom, while you can't get half an atom, you can get a whole one. Collect enough of those irretrievable amounts and they'll add up to a retrievable one. Which makes them NOT fiat. They're still backed.

Incidentally, a Bitcoin is divisible to 0.00000001 units (smallest is called a satoshi), but even that small amount is divisible on the second layer Lightning Network. Much like atoms would be on paper. You can't redeem just the fractional amounts until they total at least one redeemable unit. Lucky there's little reason to redeem so little.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Your knowledge of geology is on par with your understanding of economics.


Impressive and deep? Thanks, but it's not actually that good. I just read a bunch of things about gold since they tend to pop up in financial articles. Stuff like experiments with extracting gold from sea water, plans to mine gold from asteroids, etc. So I don't consider gold a safe store of value. Too much risk of sudden increase in volume.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Gold is a finite resource and production has actually plateaued out in recent years


You need to learn a phrase that will help with your thinking. It's "For now." You've heard of often and it seems to be the biggest problem in your understanding of all things economy.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Generally, the Fed targets an annual rate of inflation for the US since a slowly increasing price level keeps businesses profitable


That's NOT a good thing. A business that burns 2% of energy and resources every year (depleting them) is still profitable when compared to a dollar that loses value at 3% a year (-2% – -3% = 1%). Remember the malinvestment and consumerism I mentioned? By making business that LOSE value seem profitable, we're contributing to a *WHOLE LOT* of waste. That's why I "loathe" fiat and support deflationary money like Bitcoin. With a money that grows in value, no one will invest in a business that doesn't at least grow too.

If you guys didn't understand why I kept saying USD is extremely polluting and harmful to the environment, hope that explains it.




Miles Marsalis said:


> and prevents consumers from waiting for lower prices before making purchases.


That's a myth. Doesn't happen. Economically ignorant assumption that both ignores consumer need to use something now (look at the electronics market), and ignores that there's always two sides to every transaction. Sellers aren't just going to lie and take that lack of sales because consumers are waiting. They will adjust their prices accordingly too.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Some inflation in an economy is not a terrible thing.


It is. War, waste, concentration of wealth, etc etc etc.
Why do people who say "a little bit of inflation is fine" never seem to care about someone at the top getting and using that inflationary cash to buy up assets and concentrate wealth unfairly, without actually producing anything of value???




Miles Marsalis said:


> Keynesian doesn't necessarily prevent recessions, but it does allow the Fed to help shorten the length of recessions and ensure they don't become protracted depressions.


2008 was a very prorated depression. And as I said, they don't actually fix recessions, they paper them over with money. Did the toxic real estate assets go away because the fed inflated? No. All that Keynesian recession fixing does is kick the can down the road. As it kicked 2000 to 2008, 2008 to now, etc. Just watch, I'll be proven right.



Miles Marsalis said:


> After Keynesian economics were embraced and adopted, we've had relatively mild recessions that we've recovered from fairly quickly.


I can't help but just laugh at this. And then cry, remembering how these mild recessions are just the can kicked down the road using a government credit card, where the debt will come due soon, people will realize that all the wealth they thought they had was just inflated with fake money, and the economy will crash so hard it will be in the history books for thousands of years... Like the fall of the Roman empire, but worse...




Miles Marsalis said:


> which is preferably to your approach of just letting depressions play out and allowing people to languish in poverty for years on end.


Yeah, but those people will have been hoarding a lot of cash, so they'll be okay 



Miles Marsalis said:


> Economic crises require some government intervention,


You're saying "economic activity requires central planning." Never does and it always leads to disastrous results. If you don't know why central planning fails, look it up.



Miles Marsalis said:


> partially because it is untenable to let people suffer like that.


It's even more untenable to let people suffer from the fallout caused by government intervention. USSR? Venezuela? Brazil and Argentina? India? Practically all poor third world countries are like that because of government intervention in economics. Oftentimes with good intentions. To me it is untenable to let people suffer like that. That's why I support Bitcoin. It makes government intervention much more difficult. But to you, and to other Keynesians, that suffering is something you don't even consider or care about, since if you had, you wouldn't be proposing the policies that will cause first world to end up like third world... Fuck it's depressing knowing how much pain and suffering you guys will cause to so many people, thinking you're doing good...


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Oct 19, 2021)

Rassah said:


> It really wasn't. It probably looked serious to a newbie. It went from $20k at the beginning of the year, through $40k to $60k, before retracting to $40k for a few months, before going back up to $60k today. That's not a serious drop, that's a serious rise with a temporary retraction. And that's with A WHOLE COUNTRY LIKE CHINA banning it!


I think losing a third of your investment in a short period like that is a serious concern, particular since the whole of your investment in Bitcoin took that hit. Also, your description illustrates that wild volatility of Bitcoin over just this year. I'd also remind that major markets like the EU, US, and India having pending regulations or bans forthcoming which will affect the Bitcoin market.


> Large mega institutions aren't Binance. And they don't use Binance. Businesses and large institutions, including myself, use exchanges like Kraken, Gemini, Coinbase, Bitstamp, and others that have a long established history. That's why I didn't know it was the largest. Serious users don't use it. Binance has been known to be problematic. If it's "the largest" it may even be just based on trading volume done by bots. And those large institutions like investment banks, pension funds, government institutional funds, etc are not holding their bitcoins on exchsnges, let alone on Binance. So, like I said, tell them they know nothing about how financial infrastructure is built when I know some of them have been working in it for over a century.


Financial institutions looking to trade in Bitcoin used Binance because they were a big exchange that could offer better protections that the smaller ones, so if Binance is having security problems, that does not bode well for the smaller exchanges. 

More interestingly, the four exchanges you mentioned have had serious legal concerns or service disruptions:

Kraken:


> In April 2018, The New York Attorney General's Office began a fact finding investigation regarding the measures taken by cryptocurrency exchanges to protect their customers and fight market manipulation and money laundering. The New York State attorney general warned that the Kraken cryptocurrency exchange might be breaking the law. "Customers should be aware that the platforms that refused to participate in the OAG's Initiative (Binance, Gate.io, Huobi, and Kraken) may not disclose all order types offered to certain traders, some of which could preference those traders at the expense of others, and that the trading performance of other customers on those venues could be negatively affected as a result."[61] Powell claimed that the investigation was hostile and bad for business, and refused to comply with the inquiry. He claimed that market manipulation "doesn't matter to most crypto traders," and stated that "scams are rampant" among cryptocurrency exchanges.[62]
> 
> In May 2018, Powell said that Kraken was considering registering as an alternative trading system (ATS), which would bring the company directly under US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) oversight.[63]
> 
> ...



Gemini:


> The site's primary challenge has been remaining online at times of excessively high volumes, a relatively common occurrence for any website receiving an unusual amount of traffic.[26][27]  On November 28, 2017, for example, both Gemini and Coinbase crashed for several hours. Gemini was showing a "504 gateway time-out" message, and the status page showed "Systems are currently experiencing degraded performance."[28] Subsequently, the Gemini Blog offered this comment. "This is not the first scaling challenge we’ve encountered, and it won’t be the last. We’re continuing to improve our performance and infrastructure monitoring so we can anticipate potential problems more quickly in the future."[29]



Coinbase:


> On February 16, 2018, Coinbase admitted that some customers were overcharged in error for credit and debit purchases of cryptocurrencies. The problem was initiated when banks and card issuers changed the merchant category code (MCC) for cryptocurrency purchases earlier that month. This meant that cryptocurrency payments would now be processed as "cash advances", meaning that banks and credit card issuers could begin charging customers cash-advance fees for cryptocurrency purchases. Any customers who purchased cryptocurrency on their exchange between January 22 and February 11, 2018 could have been affected. At first, Visa blamed Coinbase, telling the _Financial Times_ on February 16 that it had "not made any systems changes that would result in the duplicate transactions cardholders are reporting." However, the latest statement from Visa and Worldpay on the Coinbase blog clarifies: "This issue was not caused by Coinbase."[84]
> 
> In March 2018, _Quartz_ reported that the number of monthly customer complaints against Coinbase jumped more than 100% in January of that year, to 889, citing official Consumer Financial Protection Bureau data, with more than 400 of those categorized as "money was not available when promised".[85]
> 
> In September 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission reportedly threatened to sue Coinbase if the company decided to launch its cryptocurrency lending product. [86]



Bitstamp


> In February 2014, the company suspended withdrawals for several days in the face of a distributed denial-of-service.[7][8] _Bitcoin Magazine_ reported that people behind the attack sent a ransom demand of 75 bitcoins to Kodrič, who refused due to a company policy against negotiating with “terrorists”.[_citation needed_]
> 
> In January 2015, Bitstamp suspended its service after a hack during which less than 19,000 bitcoins were stolen,[9] reopening nearly a week later.[10]


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Oct 19, 2021)

> No, I just ignore it as irrelevant. Did you know the internet is currently broken because Prodigy internet service failed? Oh? It isn't broken and Prodigy is irrelevant? Same deal with Bitcoin then.


Many exchanges seem to not have learned lessons from Mt. Gox and are repeating the same mistakes of not having adequate security and redundancy built into their systems.


> Dollars get stolen on a daily basis too. Dollar is very broken and insecure then. That's the same argument you're making. Because some weird obscure exchanges and services get hacked, that makes Bitcoin itself insecure. Just like because some obscure businesses and third world banks storing dollars get robbed, that makes dollar itself insecure. It's a dumb argument. No offense, but there's no other way to call it.


The world financial system, which largely handles fiat currency, and the world economy, which is worth $93 trillion US dollars, dwarfs the Bitcoin economy, which is worth approximately $800 billion US dollars. The value of fiat currencies and their relative stability to Bitcoin means that criminal conduct committed within the system and the insecurity of certain institutions within the financial system is negligble compared to what the system has to offer. The financial crimes committed within the mainstream financial is tiny compared to the legitimate transactions that comprise the majority of the economy. The criminality that occurs in the Bitcoin economy is overwhelming larger by proportion and the Bitcoin economy itself is used to circumvent the regulations of the mainstream financial system. The fiat currency financial system also offers consumers protections against fraud and recourse to recover their funds, which most Bitcoin exchanges struggle to do. 


> You realize this problem is MUCH MUCH MUCH worse for fiat, right? Not only do you have the same but BIGGER issue with banks that can just print money to create fraud, but you also have entire government central banks who can just print a ton all of a sudden, or do things to destabilize the entire currency and cause it to hyperinflate. You have Binance to prove that Bitcoin are risky? I have the entirely of 2008 crash and all those toxic assets that are still on the books and the banks that are currently even more leveraged than they were then as a counter argument.


Part of the fallout from the Great Recession was the banks fell under greater regulatory scrutiny and had to meet stricter capital requirements. When this last recession hit, the banks were far less vulnerable and better capitalized than during Great Recession and were able to assist in the ongoing recovery without being liabilities, so I don't what books you're looking at. I'll also note the banks paid back the bailout money, which was $700 billion dollars in loans and paid back with 8.2% interest.


> And as I keep saying, DON'T KEEP YOUR BITCOIN ON EXCHANGES. There's zero reason to. None of the big investors, corps, and institutions do. You think Tesla cares about exchanges with the billion of Bitcoin they hold? No, they don't.


Bitcoins being stolen from exchanges is only part of the problem, since market manipulation from both internal and external sources relative to the exchanges has been a recurring problem.

I will say the COVID relief package is doing good towards cutting child poverty, in half to be exact.


> 2008 was a depression which arguably lasted almost a decade. It was only called a recession for appearance reasons. Didn't want the populace to panic too much.


The Great Recession lasted from December 2007 to June 2009 and the Obama years had record economic expansion and end with historically low unemployment, for those of us who care about facts. 


> We're not, and you thinking that shows how much out of touch you are with the people at the bottom. People are getting more and more desperate.


My family struggled financially for a significant part of my adolescence and I still visit and volunteer for services in my old neighborhoods, so I still connect with the community and the common need. There are solutions to these problems, which are partly political so I'm not getting into them, but Bitcoin is not among the private sector interventions that are going to make difference in most people's lives.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 19, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Stating the obvious, if people are excessively hoarding cash during an economic crisis, in this case a deflationary crisis since that is what we're talking about, then there will be a shortage of money circulating in the economy, which will worsen the crisis and prolong it.



No it wouldn't. You're just rehashing the deflationary spiral myth. If people have "excessive hoardings" aka a lot of saving, that means that in an economic crisis they won't be as affected by it. They have the money to survive while jobs and incomes might be tight. They still have means of paying for necessities. They still have money to circulate as you say. Having "excessive hoardings" is literally HOW you get through an economic crisis. Not having these excessive hoardings is why so many companies almost failed during 2008 and needed bailouts, and it's why, after learning their lessons, so many companies are hoarding cash now in preparation for the next crash.

I mean, seriously, on the face of it you're literally claiming "You shouldn't have savings, because without it it will be easier to deal with a recession." Do you not see how silly and illogical that is? This is why Austrians call Keynesian economics lunacy.



Miles Marsalis said:


> That is a far cry from people accruing savings in the banking system within a stable economy.
> 
> So this little disingenuous gem ...
> 
> ... is a canard.


Oh really? How is having a lot of savings in the banking system different from "excessive hoarding?" 



Miles Marsalis said:


> When were these supposed depressions? List them out, because we haven't had a depression since the Great Depression and  we only adopted Keynesian policy after World War II (despite your claims).


Inflationary and expansionary policy caused the Great Depression (even if the policy wasn't officially Keynesian, the reason was to inflate money to help pay off WW1 debt, in the same way that Keynesian policies are used to inflate to pay off more debts since). OPEC one in 73,  S&L crisis, Dot Com bubble, 2008 crisis. Despite them not being called "depressions," I think that's more for posterity. They were all pretty f'in bad. Interestingly, while looking up the years, I've found a number of sources that list all the recessions in the 1900's, and it seems that US has been in a recession for over 20% of the time, with minor recessions happening pretty frequently. So much for that Keynesian attempts I guess.








						A Complete Look At The History Of Recessions In America
					






					www.businessinsider.com
				











						Great Recession in USA from 1900 - 2013 timeline.
					






					www.timetoast.com
				





Finally, please learn the difference between "If we do X" and "We should do X"
Economics deals in a lot of hypotheticals. If you can't tell the difference between a hypothetical and a proposal, we won't get very far.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 19, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I think losing a third of your investment in a short period like that is a serious concern, particular since the whole of your investment in Bitcoin took that hit.


Cool. Then don't invest. Those who invested and understood that it will have a period of fluctuations with a long term return of 200% won't care. I actually had a client, who's a Bitcoin newbie, who bought a few $100k at $50k price. It went down to $40k, then $30k. Think it was a serious concern for him? Nope. Unlike you, *he actually did his research*, so he just bought a few $100k more. I'll remind you that it's $64k now, that I've told you it will go up before, I've told you that it will go back up when it was $6k, I've told you it will go up when it crashed from $20k four years ago, and I'm pretty sure I told you that it will go up and be a good investment when it was under $1000, back when this was the old forum. Funny how those with a lot of money, like my client, actually research into things they invest in, and those who don't just talk about it.



Miles Marsalis said:


> I'd also remind that major markets like the EU, US, and India having pending regulations or bans forthcoming which will affect the Bitcoin market.


And? India already banned it. China just banned it. If US and EU ban it, that will just leave the rest of the world to use it and thuse in US and EU will flock it for safe storage, knowing the only reason US is banning it is because it's a serious threat to the USD. But, US can't ban it. Not only because they're not that stupid, but because, you seem to have forgotten, there are a number of HUGE financial institutions, like banks, brokerages, investment funds, trusts, and pensions, that already hold billions of it on their books. These institutions individually hold hundreds of millions of dollars worth. If US tried to ban it, those investments would be at a major risk. If those investments aren't held by some politicians directly already, these institutions will certainly have a very stern discussion with those politicians. Banning Bitcoin is too late for US at this point.
For EU, interestingly a lot of countries there are actually more friendly to Bitcoin than even US is. In some countries using Bitcoin doesn't incur capital gains, and some countries like UK even regulate it as currency already, unlike US which will regulates it as an asset.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Financial institutions looking to trade in Bitcoin used Binance because they were a big exchange that could offer better protections that the smaller ones


Eh, they didn't. Biggest doesn't mean strongest for security, as you demonstrated. Most likely "biggest" in their case means most volume, with bots tossing the same coin back and forth. Binance doesn't have a good reputation. They're not based in US or a safe country either. I know what exchanges big businesses use. I listed them. Those do have a good reputation and they're not "small."  For big purchases, they use multiple ones as Tesla has, but I somehow doubt Tesla used Binance too.



Miles Marsalis said:


> More interestingly, the four exchanges you mentioned have had serious legal concerns or service disruptions:
> 
> Kraken:


Interestingly you don't even know what all that text actually means. You just found some overzealous NY regulator being concerned about them not listing some obscure stuff properly and went with it.

Oh, FYI, a lot of financial services dealing with Bitcoin block customers from Iran, Cuba, North Korea, and New York. Because all these areas have draconian regulatory issues to deal with. In NY's case it's the stupid Bitcoin regulations they passed.




Miles Marsalis said:


> Gemini:


Not enough capacity to handle unprecedented flood of new customers. Fixed now. So what.




Miles Marsalis said:


> Coinbase:


VISA fucked up, blamed it on Coinbase 


> However, the latest statement from Visa and Worldpay on the Coinbase blog clarifies: "This issue was not caused by Coinbase."



Also Coinbase it's touted as the easiest to use, so it has the most newbies. And so it's not surprising they would have the most complaints. They're also kind of the Comcast of Bitcoin exchanges when it comes to dealing with tech support. But if that's your argument, I'm sure I can find similar about Chase/Citi/BoA/etc XD



Miles Marsalis said:


> Bitstamp


Wow, 2014 and 2015 is like 50 years in Bitcoin years. Bitstamp was just a tiny startup back then.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Oct 19, 2021)

Rassah said:


> I didn't. You misunderstood.


I quoted you in one of my recent posts. 


Rassah said:


> Because you made a silly argument that was directly transferable to Bitcoin:
> 
> > There are $40 trillion dollars in the world and only 142,000 tons of gold worth $7.2 trillion. There's not enough gold to fit the USD into!
> > There are $40 trillion dollars in the world and only 21 million bitcoins worth $1.3 trillion. There's not enough Bitcoin to fit the USD into!
> ...


My criticism was specificallly directed at the gold standard, not Bitcoin. You can quote me if you think was conflating the two systems, but I think you're thinking of someone else. 


Rassah said:


> If gold rises in the market as you start issuing gold backed currency, that's not an artificial rise, is it. Again, the parallels to Bitcoin are direct. Bitcoin went from total market cap of $10 million to a market cap of $800,000 million as it encompassed more of the global economy. That wasn't artificial.


If the government passes legislation to issues a gold-backed currency the way you proposed, it is artificial because that rise wouldn't have happened absent that change in monetary policy. 

There isn't really a parallel to Bitcoin unless the government were to adopt Bitcoin as legal tender, which it won't.


Rassah said:


> Yes, just like because we only have 21 million total Bitcoins and at $64k that only adds up to $1.3 trillion, that is well short of being able to cover all the circulating money and deposits in US, so I guess that means Bitcoin can never take over the USD, and that's no point discussing it as a money alternative. /s
> How do you not see how wrong this line of thinking is???


You keep linking, falsely, my criticism of the gold criticism to an identical criticism Bitcoin you are trying to say I'm making. 


Rassah said:


> *I'm* the one who told you that gold failed because it isn't portable or divisible. Not you. Not others. *I DID*. And I said that Bitcoin fixes that issue. Don't preach back my own words at me or claim they're yours.


I've done that previously in this thread and another thread where you first were promoting the Austrian school. You replied to my argument, recently, acknowledging gold's lack divisibility when I brought it up, within the last two pages, I believe. 


Rassah said:


> Wait, what? I never said I wanted to prevent devaluing the dollar. On the contrary, I'm saying you should buy Bitcoin and don't "cash out" because Bitcoin will absolutely devalue the dollar and cause a crisis for any fool still left holding the bags of dollars.
> 
> And, since we're talking about Bitcoin here, I don't care about any of the gold stuff. For the last time, I have never and will never advocate for the return to the gold standard. If you think I have, I hope I explained above why you completely misunderstood.


My dude, you were arguing that the Austrian school wasn't wrong about the gold standard (and I'll point out that if you agree something is wrong with the gold standard, then the ABCT is fundamentally flawed since it relies on the gold standard as a solution for the problems it elides). You proceeded to argue that you could make the gold standard work if you just issued currency based on "subatomic" amounts of gold, vehemently. You did this despite the arguments regarding the effect on industries dependent on gold, the damage to the economy this would cause, and the issues of people actually being able to redeem their wealth in actual gold, which I did raise. 


Rassah said:


> Impressive and deep? Thanks, but it's not actually that good. I just read a bunch of things about gold since they tend to pop up in financial articles. Stuff like experiments with extracting gold from sea water, plans to mine gold from asteroids, etc. So I don't consider gold a safe store of value. Too much risk of sudden increase in volume.


You're a funny man, but I'll highlight that you are backtracking on the feasibility of the gold standard, which is a good thing. I'll also add that the cost of extracting gold from from sea water and certainly mining gold from asteroids put those strategies economically out of reach, which I'm assuming you read from the article I provided with.

I won't bring up the gold standard after this then, because maybe you realize the gold standard is a fundamentally bad idea and that is progress, but let's not mess about here.


Rassah said:


> You need to learn a phrase that will help with your thinking. It's "For now." You've heard of often and it seems to be the biggest problem in your understanding of all things economy.


I mean, as someone who's worked in finance, you should appreciate that a track record of proven success is worth more than a promise of future success. The Bitcoin market has a lot more growth to attain and obstacles to overcome before it becomes a long-term and feasible investment or payment system. 


Rassah said:


> That's NOT a good thing. A business that burns 2% of energy and resources every year (depleting them) is still profitable when compared to a dollar that loses value at 3% a year (-2% – -3% = 1%). Remember the malinvestment and consumerism I mentioned? By making business that LOSE value seem profitable, we're contributing to a *WHOLE LOT* of waste. That's why I "loathe" fiat and support deflationary money like Bitcoin. With a money that grows in value, no one will invest in a business that doesn't at least grow too.
> 
> If you guys didn't understand why I kept saying USD is extremely polluting and harmful to the environment, hope that explains it.


You are acting like that is the only thing keeping businesses afloat, rather than innovation and profitability.


Rassah said:


> 2008 was a very prorated depression. And as I said, they don't actually fix recessions, they paper them over with money. Did the toxic real estate assets go away because the fed inflated? No. All that Keynesian recession fixing does is kick the can down the road. As it kicked 2000 to 2008, 2008 to now, etc. Just watch, I'll be proven right.


The system has worked since World War II and we've have no depressions yet.


Rassah said:


> Yeah, but those people will have been hoarding a lot of cash, so they'll be okay


That is making the risky assumption the economy turns around. After all, anyone hoarding Bolivars right now might not come out on the top. Furthermore, hoarding may be a solution for the individual, but not the economy. The best way to get the economy back on track is ensure people are buying good and services to circulate money throughout the system. 


Rassah said:


> You're saying "economic activity requires central planning." Never does and it always leads to disastrous results. If you don't know why central planning fails, look it up.


Government intervention does necessarily equate to central planning and in fact the independence the Fed has prevents the kind of central planning you're talking about. It's politically independent and can make decisions within its charter without interference


Rassah said:


> It's even more untenable to let people suffer from the fallout caused by government intervention. USSR? Venezuela? Brazil and Argentina? India? Practically all poor third world countries are like that because of government intervention in economics. Oftentimes with good intentions. To me it is untenable to let people suffer like that. That's why I support Bitcoin. It makes government intervention much more difficult. But to you, and to other Keynesians, that suffering is something you don't even consider or care about, since if you had, you wouldn't be proposing the policies that will cause first world to end up like third world... Fuck it's depressing knowing how much pain and suffering you guys will cause to so many people, thinking you're doing good...


I think those are wildly divergent examples and in some of those cases, economic crises occurred under governments that did ... nothing. This is also ironic, becuase Milton Friedman once said: 

"The Austrian business-cycle theory has done the world a great deal of harm."
.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 19, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Many exchanges seem to not have learned lessons from Mt. Gox and are repeating the same mistakes of not having adequate security and redundancy built into their systems.


Your examples didn't provide any such examples. Nothing with regards to security anyway. Except for Bitstamp which got hacked early on, paid back that Bitcoin, and the time when that happened was during MtGox existence, so obviously it wouldn't have learned anything from an exchange that didn't fail yet.




Miles Marsalis said:


> The world financial system, which largely handles fiat currency, and the world economy, which is worth $93 trillion US dollars, dwarfs the Bitcoin economy, which is worth approximately $800 billion US dollars. The value of fiat currencies and their relative stability to Bitcoin means that criminal conduct committed within the system and the insecurity of certain institutions within the financial system is negligble compared to what the system has to offer. The financial crimes committed within the mainstream financial is tiny compared to the legitimate transactions that comprise the majority of the economy. The criminality that occurs in the Bitcoin economy is overwhelming larger by proportion and the Bitcoin economy itself is used to circumvent the regulations of the mainstream financial system. The fiat currency financial system also offers consumers protections against fraud and recourse to recover their funds, which most Bitcoin exchanges struggle to do.


Are we still talking about security, or criminality? Because if security, Bitcoin has never been hacked, and it is infinitely easier to secure than fiat is. You can even back it up. Can't do that with dollars. Yes, people will be robbed. But that's not a Bitcoin or dollar thing, that's a people thing. The sarcastic example you're replying to here is me making fun of your argument saying that "dollars are broken because banks and old ladies get robbed." Obviously dollars aren't broken despite that. That's just a theft that happens because people use poor security. It will continue to happen in dollars, Bitcoin, and everything else, just because some people will always be careless. But, as I said, Bitcoin is much easier to secure than dollars. Cold storage backups with multi key signature is just impossible to do with dollars or any other fiat, but it's trivially easy with Bitcoin, and gives you ABOVE banking level security.

And if you're talking about criminality, I think less than 0.3% of Bitcoin is used for criminal stuff? I don't know exactly but that's because I don't care. It's the same deal. Criminality isn't a function of a currency, it's the function of people. As more people dump fiat for Bitcoin, I'm sure more criminal activity will happen in Bitcoin too. With luck, all criminal activity will happen with Bitcoin because the USD will have completely failed.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Part of the fallout from the Great Recession was the banks fell under greater regulatory scrutiny and had to meet stricter capital requirements.


Yeah, that was hilarious. Harvard business class on that went into detail about how these stricter capital requirements posed unbearable costs on smaller banks, and forced them to merge with the big banks. We live in a world where our too big to fail are even bigger now, but people think we're safer.





Miles Marsalis said:


> When this last recession hit, the banks were far less vulnerable and better capitalized than during Great Recession


Yeah, that wasn't because of the regulations, it was because investors didn't want to lose their money again. That always happens: something unexpected fucks up, investors lose money, investors and businesses learn from their mistakes so that never happens again, regulators pass useless regulations, regulators strut around pretending they fixed something. From Great Depression through Savings & Loans through Dot Com through 2008, it's all the same. None of those mistakes that were made will be made again, not because of regulations, but because investors know not to do them again.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Bitcoins being stolen from exchanges is only part of the problem, since market manipulation from both internal and external sources relative to the exchanges has been a recurring problem.


Lost that argument so moving the goal posts? No, as the expert here, I can confidently tell you that market manipulation isn't a problem either.




Miles Marsalis said:


> I will say the COVID relief package is doing good towards cutting child poverty, in half to be exact.


I wish my tenant's kids knew that...

https://www.upworthy.com/when-joe-b...ld-cut-child-poverty-in-half-he-wasn-t-joking


Miles Marsalis said:


> The Great Recession lasted from December 2007 to June 2009 and the Obama years had record economic expansion and end with historically low unemployment, for those of us who care about facts.


Uh, no. Don't confuse government propaganda with facts. Does it not strike you as strange that we had "historically low unemployment" but the number of new jobs created between 2009 and 2017 didn't even keep up with population growth? I think we have discussed that before. And as someone involved in economics research and business at the time, yeah, the economic recovery was mostly on paper then too. It was a very very slow and sluggish recovery at best. Some places haven't 



Miles Marsalis said:


> My family struggled financially for a significant part of my adolescence and I still visit and volunteer for services in my old neighborhoods, so I still connect with the community and the common need.


So why are you so disconnected to think that people are getting better? Maybe you live in a more affluent part of the country and are isolated from larger cities?




Miles Marsalis said:


> but Bitcoin is not among the private sector interventions that are going to make difference in most people's lives.


And yet, it made a difference in EVERY person's life who bought even a little bit into it over the years. My parents, my grandmother, my coworkers, my friends. Five years ago I started sending a Bitcoin allowance to my friend's daughter back in Kiev. Their monthly income is $300/m (pretty average for the world). I was only sending her $10 a month. That's just $10 a month for 5 years. The daughter is just turning 16 next year. Her savings that she decided to keep instead of spend? $30,000. Not much to us, but for her that's 8 years of income, or the chance to go to a really good University.
Just $10/m... Frickin amazing. Imagine if someone you know was saving $10/m for five years...


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Oct 19, 2021)

Rassah said:


> No it wouldn't. You're just rehashing the deflationary spiral myth. If people have "excessive hoardings" aka a lot of saving, that means that in an economic crisis they won't be as affected by it. They have the money to survive while jobs and incomes might be tight. They still have means of paying for necessities. They still have money to circulate as you say. Having "excessive hoardings" is literally HOW you get through an economic crisis. Not having these excessive hoardings is why so many companies almost failed during 2008 and needed bailouts, and it's why, after learning their lessons, so many companies are hoarding cash now in preparation for the next crash.
> 
> I mean, seriously, on the face of it you're literally claiming "You shouldn't have savings, because without it it will be easier to deal with a recession." Do you not see how silly and illogical that is? This is why Austrians call Keynesian economics lunacy.


I think the key thing you missing is it is deflationary crisis and that if most people are hoarding money instead of spending enough of the jolt the economy back in action, everyone loses because the small and large businesses that power the economy are going to languish. That will slow the economy further and several basic good and services people need will become unavailable, compounding the economic crisis. Jobs will become increasingly unavailable as this lack of spending continues because the businesses that relied on this consumer spending are folding. 

Yeah, savings are important to have in preparation for a crisis, but consumer spending is important for the economy, particularly in times of crisis, as you know.


Rassah said:


> Inflationary and expansionary policy caused the Great Depression (even if the policy wasn't officially Keynesian, the reason was to inflate money to help pay off WW1 debt, in the same way that Keynesian policies are used to inflate to pay off more debts since). OPEC one in 73, S&L crisis, Dot Com bubble, 2008 crisis. Despite them not being called "depressions," I think that's more for posterity. They were all pretty f'in bad. Interestingly, while looking up the years, I've found a number of sources that list all the recessions in the 1900's, and it seems that US has been in a recession for over 20% of the time, with minor recessions happening pretty frequently. So much for that Keynesian attempts I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For the nth time, Keynesian policies didn't lead to the Great Depression because we were on the gold standard going into it, which was part of the reason the Great Depression happened in the first place, as Milton Friedman argued. You can't have Keynesian policies and be on the gold standard simultaneously. Admit you were wrong again about Keynesian policies being responsible for the Great Depression and move on. 

You also you are counting the depressions that happened before the adoption Keynesian policy to arrive at that 20% figure you copied from Business Insider, which is a little dishonest since 1945 would be a better starting point. 

If you need a visual aid, note the considerable pickup in GDP growth after 1945.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Oct 19, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Uh, no. Don't confuse government propaganda with facts. Does it not strike you as strange that we had "historically low unemployment" but the number of new jobs created between 2009 and 2017 didn't even keep up with population growth? I think we have discussed that before. And as someone involved in economics research and business at the time, yeah, the economic recovery was mostly on paper then too. It was a very very slow and sluggish recovery at best. Some places haven't


I mean ...


> The Great Recession of 2007-2009 was different in kind from all the recessions since the Great Depression, as it also involved a banking crisis and the de-leveraging (debt reduction) of highly indebted households. Research indicates recovery from financial crises can be protracted, with lengthy periods of high unemployment and substandard economic growth.[62] Economist Carmen Reinhart stated in August 2011: "Debt de-leveraging [reduction] takes about seven years ... And in the decade following severe financial crises, you tend to grow by 1 to 1.5 percentage points less than in the decade before, because the decade before was fueled by a boom in private borrowing, and not all of that growth was real. The unemployment figures in advanced economies after falls are also very dark. Unemployment remains anchored about five percentage points above what it was in the decade before."[63]
> 
> Several key economic variables (e.g., Job level, real GDP per capita, household net worth, and the federal budget deficit) hit their low point (trough) in 2009 or 2010, after which they began to turn upward, recovering to pre-recession (2007) levels between late 2012 and May 2014, which marked the recovery of all jobs lost during the recession.[64][65][66][67] Real median household income fell to a trough of $53,331 in 2012, but recovered to an all-time high of $59,039 by 2016.[68]
> 
> The Great Recession had a particularly severe effect on state and local tax receipts, causing many states and localities to reduce spending and employment to balance budgets as mandated by their constitutions or statutes. This government contraction subtracted from real GDP growth, creating an economic drag, rather than government adding to real GDP as is typical.[69] Obama noted this in June 2012, saying, "The private sector is doing fine. Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government -- oftentimes, cuts initiated by governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don’t have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in."[70]





Rassah said:


> Your examples didn't provide any such examples. Nothing with regards to security anyway. Except for Bitstamp which got hacked early on, paid back that Bitcoin, and the time when that happened was during MtGox existence, so obviously it wouldn't have learned anything from an exchange that didn't fail yet.



There was list I provide for you before, but this list has monetary damages tabulated nicely. 









						List of Crypto Exchange Hacks: Updated For 2023 | HedgewithCrypto
					

In this full list of cryptocurrency exchange hacks, we evaluated each hacked crypto exchange to find commonalities and lessons learned.




					www.hedgewithcrypto.com
				




And here is the original list, with articles detailing vulnerabilities.









						A Comprehensive List of Cryptocurrency Exchange Hacks
					

Hacks and data breaches happen on an almost daily basis. Cryptocurrency exchange hacks are particularly damaging because they typically affect thousands of users and involve the loss of funds. Here we provide an updated list of all major cryptocurrency exchange hacks.




					selfkey.org
				






Rassah said:


> Are we still talking about security, or criminality? Because if security, Bitcoin has never been hacked, and it is infinitely easier to secure than fiat is. You can even back it up. Can't do that with dollars. Yes, people will be robbed. But that's not a Bitcoin or dollar thing, that's a people thing. The sarcastic example you're replying to here is me making fun of your argument saying that "dollars are broken because banks and old ladies get robbed." Obviously dollars aren't broken despite that. That's just a theft that happens because people use poor security. It will continue to happen in dollars, Bitcoin, and everything else, just because some people will always be careless. But, as I said, Bitcoin is much easier to secure than dollars. Cold storage backups with multi key signature is just impossible to do with dollars or any other fiat, but it's trivially easy with Bitcoin, and gives you ABOVE banking level security.
> 
> And if you're talking about criminality, I think less than 0.3% of Bitcoin is used for criminal stuff? I don't know exactly but that's because I don't care. It's the same deal. Criminality isn't a function of a currency, it's the function of people. As more people dump fiat for Bitcoin, I'm sure more criminal activity will happen in Bitcoin too. With luck, all criminal activity will happen with Bitcoin because the USD will have completely failed.


Spelling this out for you, but the money laundering and tax evasion that occurs in Bitcoin exchanges will attract government regulation and already has, in the form of China's crackdown and India's impending restrictions. Most people will not use a cryptocurrency payment system that is illegal in their country or that they feel is exposed to potential regulatory risk. Futhermore, the international usage of Bitcoin incentivizes governments to come with international agreements to regulate and monitor Bitcoin to prevent transnational criminal activity and prevent capital flight. 

Arguably, besides taxation issues, criminal financial activity is one of the biggest concerns governments have about cryptocurrencies and is a major reason for regulation.


Rassah said:


> Yeah, that was hilarious. Harvard business class on that went into detail about how these stricter capital requirements posed unbearable costs on smaller banks, and forced them to merge with the big banks. We live in a world where our too big to fail are even bigger now, but people think we're safer.


I thought you went to Smith in Maryland for business school, but more importantly I agree that the focus of Dodd Frank could have been tailored more specifically to Wall Street as opposed to the community banks, but you didn't see the systemic collapse of Great Recession during this last recession either. 



Rassah said:


> Yeah, that wasn't because of the regulations, it was because investors didn't want to lose their money again. That always happens: something unexpected fucks up, investors lose money, investors and businesses learn from their mistakes so that never happens again, regulators pass useless regulations, regulators strut around pretending they fixed something. From Great Depression through Savings & Loans through Dot Com through 2008, it's all the same. None of those mistakes that were made will be made again, not because of regulations, but because investors know not to do them again.


I don't know where you have been, after the initial market when the pandemic hit here, it has been record profits if you've been investing in the stock market. Furthermore:



> *Adam Tooze* is a professor of history at Columbia University and author of “Shutdown: How Covid Shook the World’s Economy.” He says, in hindsight, to have prepared the economy for an event like the pandemic is an unrealistic expectation. “[A pandemic] wasn’t completely unanticipated,” he says. ”It’s not completely obvious what preparation for that kind of event would have looked like … That’s not a way that you can perpetually run the world economy.”
> 
> As much as the pandemic has devastated the world economy, Tooze says the Federal Reserve and global central banks prevented the worst possible effects. “It’s a huge act of stabilization they performed … How do you calm an ocean when it’s storming? That’s what they were trying to do,” he says.
> 
> Tooze says there are reasons to be hopeful that the world financial system is stronger than it was before the pandemic. “As gloomy as we tend to be, there are some good news stories here,” he says. ”One thing we didn’t have to deal with in 2020 was a big bank collapse… [and they] were forced to stabilize their balance sheets … We learned lessons.”





Rassah said:


> I wish my tenant's kids knew that...


I mean, you probably have enough money to help them out or you ease up on the rent possibly, if you deigned to do so.


----------



## perkele (Oct 21, 2021)

21 pages in, did you all solve Bitcoin yet?


----------



## KesTheWolf (Oct 23, 2021)

Bitcoin is an attempt to provide an economic system without a centralized bank, like the Federal Bank.  Everyone has a copy of transactions made and gain money by making transactions.  Who gets to make the transaction is determined pseudo-randomly via complex math calculations.  Basically, the more processing power you throw at the calculations, the greater chance you have of making more transactions, and earning money.

The unfortunate side effect of this is, that people will create server farms to generate as much processing power as possible doing calculations as fast and often as possible, which requires a huge amount of energy to maintain.  This is not good for the environment and is why you see people everywhere up in arms about how bad bitcoin is for the environment.

You can use computer GPUs in video cards to do bitcoin calculations, but the processing power in a video card is vastly inferior to a server farm... so you are not going to make nearly as many transactions, and not make nearly as much money.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 25, 2021)

Seems DeviantArt added support for Bitcoin. So, predictably, Twitter furs are up in arms about it:
"Welp! Guess IMMA DELETE MY OLD ASS DEVIANT ART ACCOUNT"

Which is funny and ironic since Twitter added support for Bitcoin and sending bitcoin tips through Twitter accounts last month (getting rolled out slowly though). And then Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter, also recently tweeted this:
Hyperinflation is going to change everything. It’s happening.

So I wonder when furs who hate Bitcoin will start leaving Twitter?

And then there's also this:

Walmart plans to eventually install 8,000 Bitcoin ATMs in the U.S. and has installed 200 in a pilot program.

If you're a broke fur who is mad he missed Bitcoin and now hates it because you wrongly think it's bad for the environment, now you can't shop in the cheapest place, and can't get your popufur social credit kicks from Twitter anymore. There's fewer and fewer places to escape to to avoid it every year XD

And oh look, a frickin pension fund, which people depend on for retirement, decided to diversity $25mil into Bitcoin (it's only 1% of their portfolio, but still). It's not too risky for a pension fund, but it is for some others.









						Houston Firefighters Pension Fund Makes Bitcoin, Ether Purchase
					

The fund has invested $25 million in crypto in what appears to be a first for a U.S. public pension plan.




					www.coindesk.com


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 25, 2021)

perkele said:


> 21 pages in, did you all solve Bitcoin yet?



Mostly just seems like a thread for people to be toxic and nasty to each other- but then again, maybe if it weren't this topic, it would just be some other excuse to shout abuse at strangers on the interwebs? Who knows.

For some relevant and more light-hearted posting to this thread, a hamster called 'Mr Gox', who trades crypto-currencies by playing on the wheel in his cage, is currently out-performing a majority of human investors:








						Mr Goxx, the crypto-trading hamster beating human investors
					

Can a hamster trading cryptocurrency beat human investors in the stock market? Mr Goxx can.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				



I'm mostly just re-posting this news-article because of this comment by Mr Gox's anonymous owners:

_'as with almost any topic discussed on the internet these day, it feels as though discussions can become heated and uncivil quite quickly'_


----------



## Rassah (Oct 25, 2021)

And more.
"Mastercard is preparing to announce that any of the thousands of banks and millions of merchants on its payments network can soon integrate #crypto into their products, CNBC has learned.

That includes #bitcoin wallets, credit and debit cards that earn rewards in crypto and enable digital assets to be spent, and loyalty programs where airline or hotel points can be converted into bitcoin."








						Mastercard says any bank or merchant on its vast network can soon offer crypto services
					

The announcement could lead to a significant expansion in the ways regular Americans earn and spend bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.




					www.cnbc.com


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Oct 26, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Seems DeviantArt added support for Bitcoin. So, predictably, Twitter furs are up in arms about it:
> "Welp! Guess IMMA DELETE MY OLD ASS DEVIANT ART ACCOUNT"
> 
> Which is funny and ironic since Twitter added support for Bitcoin and sending bitcoin tips through Twitter accounts last month (getting rolled out slowly though). And then Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter, also recently tweeted this:
> ...


It's kind of a dick move to assume that that Twitter user you probably don't know is broke, but okay.

I think is excessive for people to leave a social media platform just because it has a cryptocurrency payment option when they could make a statement by just not using the payment option. I'm suspecting that the cryptocurrency payment option isn't going to outpace regular payment system on DeviantArt (and believe Twitter, though I'm not on Twitter and only know the platform through quarterly reports).

We'll how the Bitcoin ATMs pan out, though I'm questioning that story somewhat in light of LiteCoin scandal.

As for the pension, 1% is not exactly a large vote of confidence in the cryptocurrency, though I'm glad the fund is exhibiting some restraint in investing in cryptocurrency.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 26, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> It's kind of a dick move to assume that that Twitter user you probably don't know is broke, but okay.


Oh, no, I assume most furs are broke cause it's a stereotype, and then that gets reinforced by claims furs make about Bitcoin. If you make dumb ignorant claims about an investment you don't understand, you're probably not the type of person to invest in the first place. Probably just someone with a j.o.b. (just over broke) who at most may have a retirement fund through work, mostly living paycheck to paycheck, increasing spending every time you get an increase in income. It's almost always a good guess XD




Miles Marsalis said:


> We'll how the Bitcoin ATMs pan out, though I'm questioning that story somewhat in light of LiteCoin scandal.


Litecoin scandal? Who cares about Litecoin?



Miles Marsalis said:


> As for the pension, 1% is not exactly a large vote of confidence in the cryptocurrency, though I'm glad the fund is exhibiting some restraint in investing in cryptocurrency.



True, it's not much. I'm privy to a few more in other countries that invested as much as $200 million in it though. But, it's all just a start. Ten years ago when I got into it and started telling people about it, the entire market cap was just $5mil.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Oct 27, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Oh, no, I assume most furs are broke cause it's a stereotype, and then that gets reinforced by claims furs make about Bitcoin. If you make dumb ignorant claims about an investment you don't understand, you're probably not the type of person to invest in the first place. Probably just someone with a j.o.b. (just over broke) who at most may have a retirement fund through work, mostly living paycheck to paycheck, increasing spending every time you get an increase in income. It's almost always a good guess XD


I mean, there are people associated with the fandom, myself included, who don't fit that category and maybe even aren't adamantly opposed to cryptocurrencies, but simply don't see it as the long-term gamechanger you do. 

Given the considerable and demonstrable holes in your knowledge about economics, you should be slow to show such disrespect.


Rassah said:


> Litecoin scandal? Who cares about Litecoin?


It was a scandal where Litecoin claimed Walmart was rolling out Litecoin ATMs, which turned out to be false.


Rassah said:


> True, it's not much. I'm privy to a few more in other countries that invested as much as $200 million in it though. But, it's all just a start. Ten years ago when I got into it and started telling people about it, the entire market cap was just $5mil.


I would love to know what pension funds these were.


----------



## MechaMegs (Oct 27, 2021)

Glad to see that conversation is still carrying about the volatile currency that can be tanked by a tweet from Elon Musk, much like other coins like Shibe coin tanking after he made a remark on them.

Hecking wild that this is allowed to be peddled to people, but if you believe that this will somehow overtake governments and the currency in place today I tell you what I got some swamp land in Florida to sell you.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 30, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I mean, there are people associated with the fandom, myself included, who don't fit that category



What will happen to you if you suddenly lost your job tomorrow and couldn't get one for 6 months? Will you lose your house? Default on bills? Get into major financial trouble or even go homeless? If yes, you're "just over broke" (job). I'm assuming you're still entirely dependent on your job, so you're still in that category for me.




Miles Marsalis said:


> and maybe even aren't adamantly opposed to cryptocurrencies, but simply don't see it as the long-term gamechanger you do.


Few people have the foresight that I do. That's why they're where they're at and I'm where I'm at. And before you start with "lucky" thing, again, I've been telling you about this thing for years and still am, and you still don't have any.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Given the considerable and demonstrable holes in your knowledge about economics,


I still demonstrably know and understand it considerably better than you do, and probably better than anyone else in this forum. That's why you don't get Bitcoin and think it has problems, and why I get it and understand those problems. It's also, again, why you're where you're at and I'm where I'm at.




Miles Marsalis said:


> It was a scandal where Litecoin claimed Walmart was rolling out Litecoin ATMs, which turned out to be false.


Oh. First, I seem to remember OneCoin ponzi making that claim, and second, again, who cares about Litecoin? Tell me how the internet is flawed and not going to go anywhere because AOL has sucky service.



Miles Marsalis said:


> I would love to know what pension funds these were.


Houston Firefighters Pension Fund is one. For the others, you'd have to ask Greyscale to release that information. I'm under NDA or Chatham House Rules for a lot of the information, unfortunately.

Speaking of Greyscale, if you're concerned about Bitcoin's energy use, and are confused about why I'm actually excited about it, this guy does a great job of explaining exactly what I was trying to






The whole video interview is great, but this highlights how Bitcoin will change the entire global energy infrastructure for the better too, not just the money and power.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Oct 30, 2021)

Rassah said:


> What will happen to you if you suddenly lost your job tomorrow and couldn't get one for 6 months? Will you lose your house? Default on bills? Get into major financial trouble or even go homeless? If yes, you're "just over broke" (job). I'm assuming you're still entirely dependent on your job, so you're still in that category for me.


I mean, I'm a management consultant and I've been working since graduating university for a decade, while working for my current firm for more than half that. If I lost my job, I have enough to make rent and other expenses for a year, maybe six months if a few emergencies crop up. That would eat through a lot my savings and I wouldn't be waiting six months to get another job, though, whatever the next would be. I was definitely dependent on my job as a research librarian, my first gig out of college ... I was just graduated and was also caregiver for my grandmother. 

That aside, most people are dependent on their jobs if they don't have significant savings, that sentiment is kind of silly. 


Rassah said:


> Few people have the foresight that I do. That's why they're where they're at and I'm where I'm at. And before you start with "lucky" thing, again, I've been telling you about this thing for years and still am, and you still don't have any.


I've known of you, I think, because you profiled were WIRED awhile back, if I'm remembering correctly, though maybe it was another person because guys living off Bitcoin was a thing in WIRED for the longest time. 

But I met you about year ago here, a year and half, max. So you haven't been telling me this for years.


Rassah said:


> Oh. First, I seem to remember OneCoin ponzi making that claim, and second, again, who cares about Litecoin? Tell me how the internet is flawed and not going to go anywhere because AOL has sucky service.


You could've look this up yourself, but here.



Rassah said:


> Houston Firefighters Pension Fund is one. For the others, you'd have to ask Greyscale to release that information. I'm under NDA or Chatham House Rules for a lot of the information, unfortunately.
> 
> Speaking of Greyscale, if you're concerned about Bitcoin's energy use, and are confused about why I'm actually excited about it, this guy does a great job of explaining exactly what I was trying to
> The whole video interview is great, but this highlights how Bitcoin will change the entire global energy infrastructure for the better too, not just the money and power.


That is literally the pension in the article and one at that, but I'll watch the video and see what's up.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 31, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> If I lost my job, I have enough to make rent and other expenses for a year, maybe six months if a few emergencies crop up.
> 
> That aside, most people are dependent on their jobs if they don't have significant savings, that sentiment is kind of silly.


Good thing I didn't say "one year" instead of "six months." You're doing better than most.
Yes, most people are broke, or "*j*ust *o*ver *b*roke," living paycheck to paycheck and being entirely dependent on their jobs whether that job pays them $10 an hour or $100 an hour. So it was perfectly fine of me to assume that that particular Twitter user was broke. 97% chance I'm right. 99% chance I'm right when it's people making stupid claims about Bitcoin like he did. In our current environment is safe to assume you're broke until proven otherwise, than to assume you're well off.




Miles Marsalis said:


> But I met you about year ago here, a year and half, max. So you haven't been telling me this for years.


I was pretty sure you were around since the old forum, back when FAF died, went to Phoenix Forum, and then was resurrected. I remember talking to Fallow, you, and many others here for many years. If you joined in only 2018 about four years ago, then sorry, my mistake. Sucks you didn't listen because you decided to side with the financially ignorant idiots who have been arguing with me against it for many years prior.


Miles Marsalis said:


> You could've look this up yourself, but here.


Paywall, and you seem to be missing or ignoring my point: *Who cares about Litecoin?*
Who cares about any of the other shitty "me too" altcoins that any economist familiar with fundamentals of money knows are worthless and will disappear eventually? Walmart IS actually adding Bitcoin ATMs though. Already added 200 of them. Walmart also takes Bitcoin directly in El Salvador, which means it now has a system it can roll out around the world if it wanted to. And thanks to Square, VISA, and Mastercard development, soon Walmart will be able to take Bitcoin by just continuing to accept credit cards.
While you guys keep claiming it's worthless, risky, problematic, etc, the world continues to steamroll on over all those complaints.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 31, 2021)

You shall be insulted until you invest in the cryptocurrencies I tell you to. 

*flips table*


----------



## TurbidCyno (Nov 1, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> You shall be insulted until you invest in the cryptocurrencies I tell you to.
> 
> *flips table*


Let's start a furry coin. Floofcoin!


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Nov 1, 2021)

Happy Halloween to you too, @Rassah .

First off, nice dodge with that six months quip, because you definitely made some assumptions about me then backtracked when you realized you were wrong. Yeah, I'm fortunate than others right now, but I don't go around referring to the average working person as "just over broke" and disparage them since it's incredibly disrespectful. 

There is such a thing as the dignity of work and it takes all types to keep the economy running.

I joined FA and FAF in 2018, so either you're misremembering, crazy, or both. I haven't been on Pheonixed Forums either since I also didn't hear about until 2018. My join date is listed too, which you clearly saw, so you also know this. 

Personal stuff out of the way, Bitcoin only really started overperforming outside of the 2018 peak-and-crash in 2020, so let's not toast to it being a new new asset class just yet. 

There are more than 4,700 Walmarts in the US and 11,000 worldwide, but just 200 Bitcoin ATMs. That isn't exactly a groundswell change or heavy investment in Bitcoin infrastructure on Walmart's part. 

Speaking of Bitcoin infrastructure, El Salvador only accepted Bitcoin as legal tender because of heavy government investment in Bitcoin infrastructure in the country and even then there are still significant technical and economic issues with the system. Expanding the system in other countries, assuming they don't ban it outright, will require system buy-in from governments and businesses.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 2, 2021)

Ultimately it's difficult to see what advantages cryptocurrencies currently offer that would incentivise businesses to buy into them anyway @Miles Marsalis .
The huge swings in value, that an investor can take advantage of to turn a profit, aren't really compatible with the needs of having a stable value that most businesses require- hence why companies like Tesla reserve the right that, if you request a refund, they can return the money either in dollars or bitcoins based on the hour in which you made your transaction...whichever is *lower*.

El Salvador's specific case for using cryptocurrency is based on its economy being heavily reliant on remittances, so for a Western country that already has its own strong currency, there's not the same reason to buy-in. 
For day-to-day Western consumers, as well, the prospect of having significant capital stored in a currency that is basically completely unregulated, and which doesn't have the same strict security and government guarantees as an established bank, is pretty iffy. 

It kind of leaves me wondering what cryptocurrencies are actually for. Traditionally their decentralised nature is advertised as an advantage, but it's actually their greatest weakness, because it means if the exchange you use is hacked, or hosts a scam investment, that it's unlikely you will get any of your money back or that the exchange can be held to account in any meaningful way to prevent it from happening again.

The only thing they *do* have going for them is their 'tulipmania' style swings in value.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Nov 2, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> Ultimately it's difficult to see what advantages cryptocurrencies currently offer that would incentivise businesses to buy into them anyway @Miles Marsalis .
> The huge swings in value, that an investor can take advantage of to turn a profit, aren't really compatible with the needs of having a stable value that most businesses require- hence why companies like Tesla reserve the right that, if you request a refund, they can return the money either in dollars or bitcoins based on the hour in which you made your transaction...whichever is *lower*.
> 
> El Salvador's specific case for using cryptocurrency is based on its economy being heavily reliant on remittances, so for a Western country that already has its own strong currency, there's not the same reason to buy-in.
> ...


You put it succinctly and I don't disagree with anything you've said here, though I'd add that stronger traditional currencies have benefit of being backed by their governments and are far more stable than cryptocurrencies. I'd also stress the relatively trusted and redundant nature of the current payment systems used in the developed world which obviates the need for Bitcoin's payment system, assuming you can find a business selling what you want that accepts Bitcoin.


----------



## Rassah (Nov 5, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Yeah, I'm fortunate than others right now, but I don't go around referring to the average working person as "just over broke" and disparage them since it's incredibly disrespectful.
> 
> There is such a thing as the dignity of work and it takes all types to keep the economy running.


You missed the point. Just Over Broke isn't even my idea, and the issue isn't "you have a job, how droll" it's "you're entirely dependent on your job, where if you lose your job you're fucked, how terrible." I and my friends also have jobs or work all day, but the difference is we're not "just over broke." We saved and invested to the point that we're not financially dependent on jobs. The point is that majority of people have no financial education, don't know how to invest, or how to manage money, and thus are in a situation where they're trapped and dependent. Of course I would disparage that. That's a terrible situation to be in. And it's one you can get out of if you get some financial education and do things like properly manage money and invest.



Miles Marsalis said:


> I joined FA and FAF in 2018, so either you're misremembering, crazy, or both.


I misremembered and lumped you with the likes of Fallow and others who have been on this forum for years and make the same claims on a number of different topics besides Bitcoin. My mistake.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Personal stuff out of the way, Bitcoin only really started overperforming outside of the 2018 peak-and-crash in 2020, so let's not toast to it being a new new asset class just yet.


Also 2011, 2013, and 2017, with regards to performance. As I said, long term return on Bitcoin is 200% a year. I'm not the one claiming it's a new asset class, the world's biggest banks are.



Miles Marsalis said:


> There are more than 4,700 Walmarts in the US and 11,000 worldwide, but just 200 Bitcoin ATMs.


There are actually a few thousand Bitcoin ATMs around US. Check out coinatmradar.com. They're all over the place (I own one too). The 200 are just the Walmart ones. Specifically, it's Coinstar adding Bitcoin ATM support to their machines. And you're making the SAME MISTAKE AGAIN, saying "it's only 200, not exactly a groundswell," when THE WHOLE POINT IS GROWTH, and these 200 are just the beginning before they expand support to the other 11,000.

Look at the trends. Look at where things are going. That's how you invest and position yourself to do well in any economy. I'm genuinely curious, how do you function like that? Do you never make plans for tomorrow or the rest of the year, because you just assume things will be the same as they are now? Or is your lack of noticing trends only extend to Bitcoin, business, and investments? This meme reminded me of you








Miles Marsalis said:


> Speaking of Bitcoin infrastructure, El Salvador only accepted Bitcoin as legal tender because of heavy government investment in Bitcoin infrastructure in the country


There was zero Bitcoin infrastructure in the country and zero government investment in Bitcoin infrastructure. El Salvador had an area where the locals adopted Bitcoin to save money and hassle on payments and to invest it in, but it wasn't related to government. The reason El Salvador adopted Bitcoin was because Nayib Bukele is a free market libertarian, believes Bitcoin will continue to go up in value so if everyone in El Salvador adopts it or even has some of it, everyone will become richer, and because El Salvador, like other Latin American and Caribbean countries, don't want to be tied to and restricted by the US dollar. I know because I'm working with El Salvador.



Miles Marsalis said:


> and even then there are still significant technical and economic issues with the system.


Yeah, their system was very ambitious and didn't scale in time because Bitcoin became WAY too popular WAY fast. Do you think technical problems like this can be fixed? Or does your weird quirk of not being able to see trends make you think that this system will have these same problems forever?



Miles Marsalis said:


> Expanding the system in other countries, assuming they don't ban it outright, will require system buy-in from governments and businesses.



Governments, no. Businesses, somewhat. The main requirement is for people themselves to have buy-in. If people continue to adopt it, even in countries where it's banned, businesses will be forced to adopt it to keep customers. Governments are irrelevant. Look at US, where it's not officially recognized, yet it's a place where tens of millions of people already own it, and where it's the easiest place to use and spend (after El Salvador). The reason people adopt it is pretty simple:



P.S. Fallow is just repeating the same old crap he has been for years, which you obviously agree with, and that's why I thought you were part of the same old group. Value of USD in relation to turkey dropped 50% in just a year. Banks freeze accounts, and are now told to spy on everyone's financial activity if they have more than $600. So much for that government backing, and bye financial privacy. Incidentally all that spying isn't free. We will be forced to pay for it with higher fees. We, those educated about money, know 100% that dollars will continue to fall and that they're very unstable right now, and will be even less stable in the future. And we know 99.7% that bitcoin will continue to go up over the next 5 years. So, after you also take the time to learn the basics of how to hold and secure your own coins so you don't have to store them on exchanges, the choice is pretty simple.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Nov 6, 2021)

Rassah said:


> You missed the point. Just Over Broke isn't even my idea, and the issue isn't "you have a job, how droll" it's "you're entirely dependent on your job, where if you lose your job you're fucked, how terrible." I and my friends also have jobs or work all day, but the difference is we're not "just over broke." We saved and invested to the point that we're not financially dependent on jobs. The point is that majority of people have no financial education, don't know how to invest, or how to manage money, and thus are in a situation where they're trapped and dependent. Of course I would disparage that. That's a terrible situation to be in. And it's one you can get out of if you get some financial education and do things like properly manage money and invest.


We both know you didn't make the remarks you did from a place of educating.

That said, I do agree that many people aren't as up on personal finance as much as they should be and this can lead them to make poor financial decisions. That isn't up for dispute. 

However, there are many people who do live paycheck to paycheck ... which means they can't really save or invest too much. There are also people who just enter the workforce and can't have significant savings ... because they just started working. 

I figure you're well-off, in terms of real currency, but you're also, I'm assuming, at retirement age and at least have decades of working behind you. It makes sense you would have reserves in case of an emergency or if you needed stop working all together.

Just pointing that out. 



Rassah said:


> I misremembered and lumped you with the likes of Fallow and others who have been on this forum for years and make the same claims on a number of different topics besides Bitcoin. My mistake.


This could've been easily avoided, but thank you, though I do feel you are mischaracterizing Fallow at least.



Rassah said:


> Also 2011, 2013, and 2017, with regards to performance. As I said, long term return on Bitcoin is 200% a year. I'm not the one claiming it's a new asset class, the world's biggest banks are.


You forget crashes that happened after those increases.

Strictly speaking, most of the big banks do not consider cryptocurrencies an asset; some dabble in it, but the general consensus is cryptocurrencies haven't meet key benchmarks to be categorized as stable, suitable investments of that nature.









						Goldman Sachs lists 5 reasons why bitcoin is 'not an asset class', nor 'a suitable investment'
					

Goldman said "a security whose appreciation is primarily dependent on whether someone else is willing to pay a higher price for it is not a suitable investment..."




					markets.businessinsider.com
				






Rassah said:


> There are actually a few thousand Bitcoin ATMs around US. Check out coinatmradar.com. They're all over the place (I own one too). The 200 are just the Walmart ones. Specifically, it's Coinstar adding Bitcoin ATM support to their machines. And you're making the SAME MISTAKE AGAIN, saying "it's only 200, not exactly a groundswell," when THE WHOLE POINT IS GROWTH, and these 200 are just the beginning before they expand support to the other 11,000.
> 
> Look at the trends. Look at where things are going. That's how you invest and position yourself to do well in any economy. I'm genuinely curious, how do you function like that? Do you never make plans for tomorrow or the rest of the year, because you just assume things will be the same as they are now? Or is your lack of noticing trends only extend to Bitcoin, business, and investments? This meme reminded me of you


I'd like to see more growth than that before saying Bitcoin is anywhere near the trend you say it is. 

I do plan and save for the future, but I like investments with good track records, not just good promise. I bought a few shares of Amazon and Maersk at the beginning of last year and Telsa after the market fell in the spring, but those companies were reasonable investments given the context of global economy entering the pandemic and their performance, though I sold Telsa admittedly shortly before the stock split. 

With Bitcoin's volatility and inherent problems, I don't see it outperforming the stock markets in the long term.



Rassah said:


> There was zero Bitcoin infrastructure in the country and zero government investment in Bitcoin infrastructure. El Salvador had an area where the locals adopted Bitcoin to save money and hassle on payments and to invest it in, but it wasn't related to government. The reason El Salvador adopted Bitcoin was because Nayib Bukele is a free market libertarian, believes Bitcoin will continue to go up in value so if everyone in El Salvador adopts it or even has some of it, everyone will become richer, and because El Salvador, like other Latin American and Caribbean countries, don't want to be tied to and restricted by the US dollar. I know because I'm working with El Salvador.


That is incorrect since the government bought 400 Bitcoins (totaling $21million at the time), it invested money in infrastructure related to Chivo, and it purchased an addition 150 Bitcoin (totaling about $7 million at the time) to stabilize the price of it on the day Bitcoin became legal tender there. All of which were substantial investments for the government, which is currently in heavy debt, so the government has been fairly hands on there, despite what you are saying. 









						El Salvador's world-first adoption of bitcoin endures bumpy first day
					

El Salvador's historic adoption of bitcoin as legal tender on Tuesday was beset by teething problems, as an angry protest by mistrustful citizens, technological glitches and a dip in the cryptocurrency clouded the rollout.




					www.reuters.com
				












						Bitcoin Law - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				






Rassah said:


> Yeah, their system was very ambitious and didn't scale in time because Bitcoin became WAY too popular WAY fast. Do you think technical problems like this can be fixed? Or does your weird quirk of not being able to see trends make you think that this system will have these same problems forever?



I mean, it helped that the government incentivized Bitcoin wallet usage by offering $30 to each holder of Chivo. However, the jury is out on how popular Bitcoin is in El Salvador since only 12 percent of Salvadoran consumers have used the cryptocurrency, but 93 percent of companies surveyed reported receiving no payments in bitcoin during the first month of the rollout. 



Rassah said:


> Governments, no. Businesses, somewhat. The main requirement is for people themselves to have buy-in. If people continue to adopt it, even in countries where it's banned, businesses will be forced to adopt it to keep customers. Governments are irrelevant. Look at US, where it's not officially recognized, yet it's a place where tens of millions of people already own it, and where it's the easiest place to use and spend (after El Salvador). The reason people adopt it is pretty simple:


If governments outright ban cryptocurrencies, their usage will be illegal, so individuals and businesses alike won't be using cryptocurrencies in that scenario.  Government buy-in to cryptocurrencies is essential. 

Businesses don't necessarily need to accept cryptocurrencies because since fiat currencies are fairly strong and stable while Bitcoin is very volatile, it makes more sense to forego Bitcoin in favor of accepting payments in traditional currencies. Businesses are particularly concerned that the frequent dips in the cryptocurrency markets could eat into their profits if they take and hold revenue in Bitcoin.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 6, 2021)

Relevant news to this thread, the incoming mayor of new york requested 3 months of his salary in cryptocrurrency.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Nov 6, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> Relevant news to this thread, the incoming mayor of new york requested 3 months of his salary in cryptocrurrency.


I heard. It's not even clear the city would be able to legally do that, given the price fluctuations of Bitcoin, laws regarding legal tender and wages, and the current scrutiny that unregistered cryprocurrency companies are under in the city.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 7, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I heard. It's not even clear the city would be able to legally do that, given the price fluctuations of Bitcoin, laws regarding legal tender and wages, and the current scrutiny that unregistered cryprocurrency companies are under in the city.



Since he could just convert it himself after being paid, he must be asking in order to make a point of it.


----------



## shortwiw (Nov 9, 2021)

Bitcoin is nothing new to most people. Even if they have not invested in this cryptocurrency, they have definitely heard that it is very expensive. I am one of those people who invests in bitcoin and understand how this system works. I'm comfortable with it because I have the right amount of knowledge. It is one of my primary weapons. I understand well what viral currency is made up of and therefore use reliable transaction paths. I am now talking about mycryptomixer.com, which helps me with this.


----------



## Rassah (Nov 15, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> However, there are many people who do live paycheck to paycheck ... which means they can't really save or invest too much. There are also people who just enter the workforce and can't have significant savings ... because they just started working.



Yep. Sucks for them, their only source of any wealth is just whatever they can manage to earn and hold onto before they must spend it. I don't get why people like you are fighting so hard to make even that little bit much more difficult for them, with falling value of wages and rising costs of living. But it doesn't matter, my side with our deflationary currency are winning, and there's nothing that can stop us.

FYI, I went from competent broke and almost homeless at 20 to retired at 34, and I'm just barely 40. So no, not that old, and didn't spend as much time getting there as you thought. Just took a lot of learning about money and investing.



> Rassah said:
> 
> 
> > Also 2011, 2013, and 2017, with regards to performance. As I said, long term return on Bitcoin is 200% a year. I'm not the one claiming it's a new asset class, the world's biggest banks are.
> ...



No, that's with the crashes. With all the crashes and instability, long term return was and is 200% a year. Without crashes it would've been something like 500%.

Regarding your stock purchases, I thought I shared the Crack-up Boom video here. You really should watch it for your own benefit.

Government of El Salvador bought 400+ Bitcoin this September. El Salvador was using Bitcoin at Tunco Beach (aka Bitcoin Beach) for a year now. So, what I'm saying is fact, Bitcoin was adopted there way before any government infrastructure, and was used pretty regularly (Bitcoin lightning network wallets, instant transactions with almost zero fees). El Salvador government only hired to have obturator developed for the rest of the country recently, and for the reasons I said: to improve the lives of their citizens.
It didn't buy 150 Bitcoin to stabilize the price. That tiny amount doesn't affect the price at all. Remember, Elon Musk sold around 2,500 Bitcoin ($100mil) this Summer and no one ever knew. Hibbett bought that Bitcoin as an investment to keep in reserves, knowing it will go up and help it become richer too. It more than doubled that money by now.

If governments ban Bitcoin... actually they already did. Like I said before, Venezuela and a number of other countries banned Bitcoin. It didn't stop their use. Streisand effect meant people who didn't know about it looked into it and into why their oppressive government regimes are so afraid of it, and use actually went up. Banning Bitcoin, and actually enforcing that ban, are two different things. Sharing copyrighted files is banned too. When was the last time someone got busted and arrested for it?

Bitcoin still settles payments in 10 minutes. Less on Lightning Network. And that settlement costs pennies or less. Fiat settlement takes days or weeks. For credit cards it's months. And those cost a lot. For international business that's even worse. I needed to send $2k to Spain, and that required waiting to schedule an in person meet at my bank, 1.5 hours with phone calls so they can figure out what the exchange rate between $ and € is, signing a few docs, and a $75 fee. And dollar inflation is 6.5% or more now. Everyone is losing about 1% of their dollars every week, and it's getting worse.
Pretty soon I'll be laughing my ass off at all those who kept claiming inflationary currency that gets printed in massive numbers on a whim is the "stable" one compared to my immutable 21mil fixed currency.


----------



## rekcerW (Nov 16, 2021)

This is the perfect example of shallow people simply remaining shallow, no matter what. I couldn't live with myself being like that.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Nov 17, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Yep. Sucks for them, their only source of any wealth is just whatever they can manage to earn and hold onto before they must spend it. I don't get why people like you are fighting so hard to make even that little bit much more difficult for them, with falling value of wages and rising costs of living. But it doesn't matter, my side with our deflationary currency are winning, and there's nothing that can stop us.


I mean, except the banning of Bitcoin, a stricter regulatory regime that the Bitcoin industry and market can't cope with, a lack of governmental and corporate buy-in, or the bubble nature of Bitcoin, among other things.



Rassah said:


> No, that's with the crashes. With all the crashes and instability, long term return was and is 200% a year. Without crashes it would've been something like 500%.


You're missing, or glossing over, the glaring fact that the crashes and instability of Bitcoin are major deterrents and detriments to it.



Rassah said:


> Government of El Salvador bought 400+ Bitcoin this September. El Salvador was using Bitcoin at Tunco Beach (aka Bitcoin Beach) for a year now. So, what I'm saying is fact, Bitcoin was adopted there way before any government infrastructure, and was used pretty regularly (Bitcoin lightning network wallets, instant transactions with almost zero fees). El Salvador government only hired to have obturator developed for the rest of the country recently, and for the reasons I said: to improve the lives of their citizens.
> It didn't buy 150 Bitcoin to stabilize the price.


Actually the government did buy Bitcoin with the hopes of stabilizing the price ... and releasing press statements saying so along with the President tweeting himself that his government was doing so for that reason. 

I'm thinking they know the reasoning behind their actions better than you. 

More interestingly, there was supposed to be a summit lasting a couple days that Bukele convened to address the stability issues that Bitcoin still is plagued by as well. 



Rassah said:


> If governments ban Bitcoin... actually they already did. Like I said before, Venezuela and a number of other countries banned Bitcoin. It didn't stop their use. Streisand effect meant people who didn't know about it looked into it and into why their oppressive government regimes are so afraid of it, and use actually went up. Banning Bitcoin, and actually enforcing that ban, are two different things. Sharing copyrighted files is banned too. When was the last time someone got busted and arrested for it?


If governments banned Bitcoin, it'd be very hard to operate any kind of Bitcoin economy given that governments would undoubtedly have serious enforcement of the ban and seize any Bitcoin mining facilities and exchanges. Furthermore, for governments tracking Bitcoin mining and even transactions would be trivial given the power consumption of mining and addresses being traceable through blockchain technology.



Rassah said:


> Bitcoin still settles payments in 10 minutes. Less on Lightning Network. And that settlement costs pennies or less. Fiat settlement takes days or weeks. For credit cards it's months. And those cost a lot. For international business that's even worse. I needed to send $2k to Spain, and that required waiting to schedule an in person meet at my bank, 1.5 hours with phone calls so they can figure out what the exchange rate between $ and € is, signing a few docs, and a $75 fee. And dollar inflation is 6.5% or more now. Everyone is losing about 1% of their dollars every week, and it's getting worse.
> Pretty soon I'll be laughing my ass off at all those who kept claiming inflationary currency that gets printed in massive numbers on a whim is the "stable" one compared to my immutable 21mil fixed currency.


This is nuts, because most transactions in fiat currency are settled immediately given the sheer capacity of the global financial systems and most transactions post instantaneously at least, with them being settled within days. Credit card transactions take, at most, five days to be settled and provided you pay the bill on time, fees are minimal. International transactions are a mixed bag for large denominations, but usually take days at most to resolve, but are also reversible much of the time in cases of fraud. Even checks clear within days, accounting for mailing.

You should know all of above since you worked in finance, but you are obviously exaggerating the fees and time fiat currency transactions take to advance Bitcoin, which has far longer latency and far bigger fees per transaction. I'll also point out that 10 minutes is the average it takes to resolve a transaction, since a Bitcoin transaction can take much longer to be settled. 

Compare this to the instant transaction resolution for debit and credit cards. 

Also, the average fee for Bitcoin transactions is $59 dollars, compared to the lack of fees on most debit and credit accounts for transactions. 









						How Long Does a Bitcoin Transaction Take? | CoinMarketCap
					

On the Bitcoin network, the average confirmation time for a BTC payment is about 10 minutes. However, transaction times can vary wildly — and here, we're going to explain why.




					coinmarketcap.com


----------



## TyraWadman (Nov 20, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> .
> Also, the average fee for Bitcoin transactions is $59 dollars, compared to the lack of fees on most debit and credit accounts for transactions.
> 
> 
> ...


What?!?


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Nov 20, 2021)

TyraWadman said:


> What?!?


In fairness, the average fee does fluctuate with usage and processing time. In April of this year, the average transaction fee was $59.









						Bitcoin Transactions Are More Expensive Than Ever
					

The all-time high in fees coincides with a perfect storm of all-time highs in difficulty and block demand.




					www.coindesk.com
				




Now it is currently $7, which is still kind of nuts when consider that for most transactions with debit and credit accounts there are no transaction fees.









						Average Bitcoin Transaction Fee Hits Lowest Level Since January As Market Cools Down - Decrypt
					

Thanks to new restrictions on Bitcoin mining in China, fewer computers are competing for blocks.




					decrypt.co
				




But apparently this is the future of payment.


----------



## Rassah (Nov 21, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I mean, except the banning of Bitcoin, a stricter regulatory regime that the Bitcoin industry and market can't cope with, a lack of governmental and corporate buy-in, or the bubble nature of Bitcoin, among other things.


May have been a concern in the past, but now that those government and corporate buy-in are there is no longer an issue. Let some government ban it. It won't affect it outside of that government.



Miles Marsalis said:


> You're missing, or glossing over, the glaring fact that the crashes and instability of Bitcoin are major deterrents and detriments to it.


Apparently they're not, since it just continued to grow in adoption and price.




Miles Marsalis said:


> Actually the government did buy Bitcoin with the hopes of stabilizing the price ...


That's your unfounded opinion. Your article doesn't support that claim. And since I was there and am continuing to work there, with very highly connected people, I as an authority on the matter am telling you that the government didn't buy it to stabilize the price, it bought it knowing that the price will go up later, "buying the dip" as it's called.

Moreover, that wasn't the point I was addressing. It was your thinking that Bitcoin started there because of government, but in fact it was used in Tunco Beach for almost a year before government got involved.

https://www.reuters.com/business/fi...yptocurrency-bitcoin-legal-tender-2021-09-07/


Miles Marsalis said:


> I'm thinking they know the reasoning behind their actions better than you.


See above. Also keep in mind that buying a measly $20 mil of Bitcoin won't even cause a blip on the market.



Miles Marsalis said:


> More interestingly, there was supposed to be a summit lasting a couple days


Latin American Bitcoin Conference? Happening now. Bukele just announced they're going to make a Bitcoin City with everything running on Bitcoin and no taxes other than 10% sales tax. I think he's being a bit overly ambitious...




Miles Marsalis said:


> If governments banned Bitcoin, it'd be very hard to operate any kind of Bitcoin economy...



Governments banned Facebook and Google. Do you find either hard to operate? Governments banned P2P file sharing of copyrighted materials. I don't find those particularly hard to operate either. You're greatly overestimating the power governments have over distributed internet technologies. You're also greatly underestimating people's desire to be free and not be exploited by governments and dictatorships. As I've said many times, governments that banned Bitcoin and Bitcoin exchanges only saw an increase in Bitcoin adoption and trade in their countries.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Furthermore, for governments tracking Bitcoin mining and even transactions would be trivial given the power consumption of mining and addresses being traceable through blockchain technology.


Bitcoin mining power doesn't have to be connected to anything. You can set up a hydro plant in the middle of nowhere in the Amazon, or capture and burn vented gas from oil fields in Siberia, where no infrastructure or civilization exists, and no one would know.

And no, addresses aren't exactly traceable through blockchain technology. It's difficult at least since every transaction creates new addresses. And with the Taproot upgrade that just came out, and Lightning Network that is already running, tracing addresses will be nearly impossible. Which is exactly what people actually want. People DON'T WANT the government tracking every transaction they make and monitoring all their money and wealth. Plus Taproot will increase efficiency and decrease transaction fees even more.



Miles Marsalis said:


> This is nuts, because most transactions in fiat currency are settled immediately



No, they're NOT. The ONLY fiat transaction that is settled immediately is you handing someone paper cash. Every other transaction that you believe is settled is actually the bank giving you a short term loan while they wait for the other bank to transfer that money to them. Typically that happens when banks settle among themselves every week or month. In some cases longer. For international transfers it's even worse.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Credit card transactions take, at most, five days to be settled


It's actually up to six months, not five days. Again, the bank can give you the loan and you can use that money after a few days, but for up to six months the money isn't actually yours, and credit cards can and have yanked that money back.




Miles Marsalis said:


> You should know all of above since you worked in finance,


Not just in finance but in banking. And I do know. And that's why I'm explaining how it works to you. It's also why I see Bitcoin as a vastly technologically superior system, like comparing the internet to the telegram.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Bitcoin, which has far longer latency and far bigger fees per transaction.



0 cents to 10 cents isn't bigger than bank fees, no.



Miles Marsalis said:


> I'll also point out that 10 minutes is the average it takes to resolve a transaction


Unless it's on Lightning Network, in which case it's instant.

This is another one of those "But this is a problem with Bitcoin and why it will never work" that was actually fixed, because open source technologies evolve and improve, and you should never assume that just because something isn't working now that it never will.




Miles Marsalis said:


> Also, the average fee for Bitcoin transactions is $59 dollars,



Where the hell did you get that number from? You can literally just look at the live feed of the Bitcoin network and blocks right here, and see that the fee is $0.08 (and that's on chain, since on Lightning it's maybe 1/10th of that)








						The Mempool Open Source Project™
					

Explore the full Bitcoin ecosystem with mempool.space™




					mempool.space
				




And yeah, I was there actually using Bitcoin to pay for things in April too. The highest fee I paid then was $7. That's not the average, that's the highest. On Lightning Network it was still a penny or less. Your numbers and sources don't reflect reality, sorry. In your defense, they may have just included the highest fees that some large banks and exchanges paid to get their transactions approved RIGHT NOW, rather than the fees the average user would pay. It's no different from claiming that your average bank transfer fee is $50,000, because a few banks paid $250,000 transaction fees to move billions of dollars internationally.


----------



## Rassah (Nov 21, 2021)

But, let's bring some, let's say "social causes and intents" into this. This copy/pasta of my post elsewhere is exactly why I'm fighting for Bitcoin, and think of those who support centrally printed inflationary fiat as evil:

You've probably been told that a little inflation is necessary. That deflation is terrible, causes people to hoard money knowing they can get cheaper prices tomorrow, and lack of inflation is what caused The Great Depression. You may even have been told that we need inflation to pay for all those nice government social programs.

And if you're on the left of the political spectrum, you are probably also very concerned about wealth inequality and how the rich seem to keep getting richer while the poor are no longer able to afford housing and food, now demanding a $15 or even a $25 min wage. But if asked why that's happening, you'll only answer "low taxes on the rich? Capitalism? "

It's actually a pretty simple process, called the Cantillon Effect.
1. New money gets printed.
2. That money is given to the well connected rich and corporations.
3. Those who receive it immediately use it to buy real assets (stocks, commodities, property).
4. The rich got richer, and the wealth got more concentrated.

Since more money was created, inflation causes the value of your money to drop and prices to go up. Since assets, commodities, and property was bought up, its supply on the market has decreased, causing their prices to go up even more. The state-connected rich get richer and everyone else gets double screwed. That's it. That's the whole "mystery" to why you're getting screwed.

And that's precisely what Bitcoin aims to fix by being a money that can't be printed and just be given to someone. All Bitcoin that got created had to be worked for (Bitcoin mining). So if you hate the concept of wealth inequality and hate that the rich are getting richer, you should be supporting Bitcoin. Not continuing to support the inflationary policies that, while providing social benefits to a few, just end up screwing everyone. Everyone who isn't the richest of the rich.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Nov 21, 2021)

Rassah said:


> That's your unfounded opinion. Your article doesn't support that claim. And since I was there and am continuing to work there, with very highly connected people, I as an authority on the matter am telling you that the government didn't buy it to stabilize the price, it bought it knowing that the price will go up later, "buying the dip" as it's called.
> 
> Moreover, that wasn't the point I was addressing. It was your thinking that Bitcoin started there because of government, but in fact it was used in Tunco Beach for almost a year before government got involved.


The government released an official statement saying they were doing so and the Bukele himself tweeted about it ... and both the article's author and I are sourcing them.

If you are over there working with government, you should know of the notice.

Furthermore, I was aware of Bitcoin Beach, which is hardly a scalable experiment for the whole country; the mass adoption of Bitcoin across the country as legal tender is definitely due to the government, as I've said.



Rassah said:


> Apparently they're not, since it just continued to grow in adoption and price.


I mean, the recent high growth Bitcoin has experienced doesn't wipe the previous bubbles and market crashes. 



Rassah said:


> See above. Also keep in mind that buying a measly $20 mil of Bitcoin won't even cause a blip on the market.


The initial buy and the public announcement could drive a rally and convince skittish Bitcoin speculators to keep or reinvest their money in Bitcoin, which was the intent.



Rassah said:


> Latin American Bitcoin Conference? Happening now. Bukele just announced they're going to make a Bitcoin City with everything running on Bitcoin and no taxes other than 10% sales tax. I think he's being a bit overly ambitious...


I do too and it shows that maybe Bukele didn't think through the ramifications of adopting Bitcoin as legal tender and that he is the wrong person to be making unilateral economic policy of such magnitude. I don't see how a country so far in debt is going to supporting having a cryptocurrency as an alternative form of legal tender AND simultaneously subsidize entire city supporting Bitcoin infrastructure with no income tax, no corporate tax, and a 10% sales tax. Assuming that is true.



Rassah said:


> Bitcoin mining power doesn't have to be connected to anything. You can set up a hydro plant in the middle of nowhere in the Amazon, or capture and burn vented gas from oil fields in Siberia, where no infrastructure or civilization exists, and no one would know.


No one except the government officials you need to get building and licensing permits from in any country to build a energy production facilities in a remote locale, particularly on protected land like the Amazon rainforest or extremely scrutinized territory like Siberia. Or the construction firms and personnel you'd need to build said facilities in the first place. Or the employees running your super secret energy production facility for Bitcoin mining. Or their families. Or the various environment and intelligence agencies that regularly track the construction and operation of energy production facilities with little thing like satellite photography. 

Yeah, though. No one will ever know.



Rassah said:


> Governments banned Facebook and Google. Do you find either hard to operate? Governments banned P2P file sharing of copyrighted materials. I don't find those particularly hard to operate either. You're greatly overestimating the power governments have over distributed internet technologies. You're also greatly underestimating people's desire to be free and not be exploited by governments and dictatorships. As I've said many times, governments that banned Bitcoin and Bitcoin exchanges only saw an increase in Bitcoin adoption and trade in their countries.


With P2P, there were small holdout countries where pirates were able to based their anti-copyright operations and it wasn't in every one of the major governments' interest to devote the resources to stop the copyright theft, particularly in China. 

With cryptocurrencies, different economics come into play, because cryptocurrencies obviously undermine the tax base of a country and enable all manners of criminal activity to flourish through alternative financing. 

That makes politicians sit up, along with the corporate and wealthy interests that don't want to shoulder a higher tax burden due cryptocurrencies siphoning money in the short term out of the tax base. There are also the social ills posed by cryptocurrencies, which economists have been warning about, particularly the bubble nature of the cryptocurrency markets. 

Also, Bitcoin usage has dropped precipitously in China following the crackdown. 



Rassah said:


> And no, addresses aren't exactly traceable through blockchain technology. It's difficult at least since every transaction creates new addresses. And with the Taproot upgrade that just came out, and Lightning Network that is already running, tracing addresses will be nearly impossible. Which is exactly what people actually want. People DON'T WANT the government tracking every transaction they make and monitoring all their money and wealth. Plus Taproot will increase efficiency and decrease transaction fees even more.


The FBI easily and regularly traces Bitcoin transaction involved in criminal activity; most of the difficultly they'd have would be in obtaining warrants rather anything technical. Other members of the intelligence community have greater capabilities than the FBI to such transactions should the need arise and can perform brute-force methods to trace transactions by location and using other elements of the blockchain.



Rassah said:


> No, they're NOT. The ONLY fiat transaction that is settled immediately is you handing someone paper cash. Every other transaction that you believe is settled is actually the bank giving you a short term loan while they wait for the other bank to transfer that money to them. Typically that happens when banks settle among themselves every week or month. In some cases longer. For international transfers it's even worse.


2-6 days is maybe the standard wait time for transactions to be settled by all parties these days and debit transactions are nearly instantaneous since the funds are extant. Some credit card transaction clear on the creditor/bank side at the end of the month, but that is for fraud protection reasons, as you should know. Some banks also extend overdraft protection, which still gets settle well within 72 hours. 

For the consumer. however, the transaction is settled immediately if they have the funds and there is no wait time. 

International wire transfers are a different story, but still don't take much time to settle. 



Rassah said:


> It's actually up to six months, not five days. Again, the bank can give you the loan and you can use that money after a few days, but for up to six months the money isn't actually yours, and credit cards can and have yanked that money back.


For large cash transfers to your account, you may have to wait two days at most for the bank to verify the transaction, but the money is yours it clears. For credit card companies, they only decline the transaction if you can't pay the bill and they feel you will be unable to pay. 



Rassah said:


> Unless it's on Lightning Network, in which case it's instant.
> 
> This is another one of those "But this is a problem with Bitcoin and why it will never work" that was actually fixed, because open source technologies evolve and improve, and you should never assume that just because something isn't working now that it never will.


The average transaction time on Lightning Network is 10 minutes, but who's counting.



Rassah said:


> Where the hell did you get that number from? You can literally just look at the live feed of the Bitcoin network and blocks right here, and see that the fee is $0.08 (and that's on chain, since on Lightning it's maybe 1/10th of that)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's the average fee, Rassah. Individual fees could be lower or higher than the average, but on the average, the fee was $59 at the time. It's in the name.


----------



## MechaMegs (Nov 23, 2021)




----------



## Raever (Nov 24, 2021)

I desperately wish to understand what the fuck I'm reading in this thread but the more links that are provided the more overwhelmed I'm becoming...you guys wouldn't happen to have a nice 5 minute break down video I could watch on a work break would ya? Just for the basics? Based on the polarizing opinions I'm a little disheartened when it comes to looking for a source on my own as it seems it's a very touchy subject for some folks.


----------



## Mambi (Nov 24, 2021)

Raever said:


> I desperately wish to understand what the fuck I'm reading in this thread but the more links that are provided the more overwhelmed I'm becoming...you guys wouldn't happen to have a nice 5 minute break down video I could watch on a work break would ya? Just for the basics? Based on the polarizing opinions I'm a little disheartened when it comes to looking for a source on my own as it seems it's a very touchy subject for some folks.



I can summarize for you in a few sentences and a metaphor, and while I have no doubt others will disagree on the finer points, the broad strokes are valid:

All money just represents something, that's what gives it value. The gouvernments decide that <unit of money> = <value assigned> and they themselves stand by it, so the term "legal tender" means something useful. If someone tries to refuse your "dollars/yen/whatever" as invalid payment, they cannot. The gouvernment also stands behind the money to give it REAL value, and as long as they are in power that value is enforced, often at gunpoint or legal threats (try telling a cop your dollar bill is worth 100 when paying bail and you'll see just how seriously they take that statement!). That way the average person doesn't have to carry around pigs and plants to trade with people...if you have "money" you can trade it with someone else to get what you need, and they trade it with someone else to get what THEY need. It also makes it so retailers don't have to compute the worth of a chicken or a grapefruit when deciding what to charge everyone for things. This is standard commerce.

Bitcoin tries to get away from the gouvernment's controlling the money by deciding that a random thingie (the imaginary bitcoin, exists only virtually) is worth <x> and then keeping a public tracker to control the transactions so THEY control it instead (or at least semi-public control like open source). Notice though that it has NO PROTECTION AT ALL for the value, as the loss of a simple hard drive or the death of a person can throw the entire ledger into chaos, and the value becomes instantly worthless and irretrievable by anyone. Also you can only use it with people who ALSO decided to accept it...which I assure you most stores and services do not. but for those that want to try and sneak around money and gouvernment tracking it can be useful I guess, just like the diamond trade for drugs.

Basically metaphorically, they took Pokemon cards, arbitrarily decided they will never make any more, locked the value of the cards a a set rate, got 3 people to keep track of the trades on a website, then tried to get everyone to agree that Pokemon cards are better than money and you should accept them INSTEAD of money for things. Somehow they think this is better and safer and more secure. They are wrong.

Does this help any?


----------



## Raever (Nov 24, 2021)

Mambi said:


> I can summarize for you in a few sentences and a metaphor, and while I have no doubt others will disagree on the finer points, the broad strokes are valid:
> 
> All money just represents something, that's what gives it value. The gouvernments decide that <unit of money> = <value assigned> and they themselves stand by it, so the term "legal tender" means something useful. If someone tries to refuse your "dollars/yen/whatever" as invalid payment, they cannot. The gouvernment also stands behind the money to give it REAL value, and as long as they are in power that value is enforced, often at gunpoint or legal threats (try telling a cop your dollar bill is worth 100 when paying bail and you'll see just how seriously they take that statement!). That way the average person doesn't have to carry around pigs and plants to trade with people...if you have "money" you can trade it with someone else to get what you need, and they trade it with someone else to get what THEY need. It also makes it so retailers don't have to compute the worth of a chicken or a grapefruit when deciding what to charge everyone for things. This is standard commerce.
> 
> ...



Whilst I'm sure the finer points can be researched on my own time, the metaphor and general explanation helped GREATLY so thank you.


----------



## Doddy Guy (Nov 25, 2021)

Mambi said:


> I can summarize for you in a few sentences and a metaphor, and while I have no doubt others will disagree on the finer points, the broad strokes are valid:
> 
> All money just represents something, that's what gives it value. The gouvernments decide that <unit of money> = <value assigned> and they themselves stand by it, so the term "legal tender" means something useful. If someone tries to refuse your "dollars/yen/whatever" as invalid payment, they cannot. The gouvernment also stands behind the money to give it REAL value, and as long as they are in power that value is enforced, often at gunpoint or legal threats (try telling a cop your dollar bill is worth 100 when paying bail and you'll see just how seriously they take that statement!). That way the average person doesn't have to carry around pigs and plants to trade with people...if you have "money" you can trade it with someone else to get what you need, and they trade it with someone else to get what THEY need. It also makes it so retailers don't have to compute the worth of a chicken or a grapefruit when deciding what to charge everyone for things. This is standard commerce.
> 
> ...


Nice post. Thanks for sharing! But I don't agree with _"as the loss of a simple hard drive or the death of a person can throw the entire ledger into chaos, and the value becomes instantly worthless and irretrievable by anyone." _because BTC isn't in SSD or HDD. BTC is in the seed phrase you have when creating the wallet. If you know (say, by heart) these 12 or 24 words then you have your money. And no one can take them from you in a legal way. No one can block your transaction. That is why BTC is the money of the future, my opinion. You can transfer 1 bl dollars in BTC and it will take several minutes and only 1 (one) dollar fee.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 25, 2021)

Tangential to this thread, there's a story in the News at the moment about a collective effort to raise Etherium cryptocurrency to purchase a privately-held copy of the US constitution. 

The bid failed, so the collective decided to refund money to its supporters...

...but the block-chain processing fees to claim Etherium refunds are larger than most of the donors' contributions. The fees are currently running into hundreds of dollars.




Doddy Guy said:


> Nice post. Thanks for sharing! But I don't agree with _"as the loss of a simple hard drive or the death of a person can throw the entire ledger into chaos, and the value becomes instantly worthless and irretrievable by anyone." _because BTC isn't in SSD or HDD. BTC is in the seed phrase you have when creating the wallet. If you know (say, by heart) these 12 or 24 words then you have your money. And no one can take them from you in a legal way. No one can block your transaction. That is why BTC is the money of the future, my opinion. You can transfer 1 bl dollars in BTC and it will take several minutes and only 1 (one) dollar fee.




There have been numerous stories in the news of people losing purported millions in bitcoins, because their access codes were stored on servers that were lost or accidentally thrown away. 

James Howells lost 7500 bitcoins when he threw away a laptop hard-drive:








						Bitcoin: Newport man's plea to find £210m hard drive in tip
					

James Howells threw away a hard drive containing bitcoin - now worth £210m - by mistake in 2013.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				




Stefan Thomas lost access to 7002 bitcoins when he forgot his passwords.








						Man has two guesses to unlock bitcoin worth $240m
					

A programmer is trying to remember the password to unlock a digital wallet set up a decade ago.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Mambi (Nov 25, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> There have been numerous stories in the news of people losing purported millions in bitcoins, because their access codes were stored on servers that were lost or accidentally thrown away.
> 
> James Howells lost 7500 bitcoins when he threw away a laptop hard-drive:
> 
> ...



Thank you, I was about to post those in response to @Doddy Guy but you beat me to it. _<grin> _

Meanwhile, I lost the password (PIN) to my account at the bank once. I just brought gouvernment ID and they gave me a new one. Because of that backing in the system, I had access to my money in ~10 minutes. WHO do you complain to if your bitcoin transaction malfunctions that can do anything? Big difference there...


----------



## Doddy Guy (Nov 25, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> There have been numerous stories in the news of people losing purported millions in bitcoins, because their access codes were stored on servers that were lost or accidentally thrown away.


That is the point. These people didn't possess their private keys (didn't know the seed phrase). In fact they didn't have the money because you only have money if you (and only you) have access to the seed phrase. 
UPD: the other day I read some note on trust wallet forum in which the developers of this wallet recommended to keep the seed in password manager with zero knowledge policy.


----------



## Mambi (Nov 25, 2021)

Doddy Guy said:


> That is why BTC is the money of the future, my opinion. You can transfer 1 bl dollars in BTC and it will take several minutes and only 1 (one) dollar fee.



Of course, if I have a *billion *dollars and I'm concerned about the cost of a simple transaction fee, then I've lost touch with reality and value totally! <_laugh>_

Also I have to ask...aside from a hostage situation, what scenario would anyone need millions of dollars moved and *not* be willing to wait a day or 2 for security?


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 26, 2021)

Mambi said:


> Of course, if I have a *billion *dollars and I'm concerned about the cost of a simple transaction fee, then I've lost touch with reality and value totally! <_laugh>_
> 
> Also I have to ask...aside from a hostage situation, what scenario would anyone need millions of dollars moved and *not* be willing to wait a day or 2 for security?



Discreetly buying all the furry smut on the interwebs.


----------



## Rassah (Dec 4, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> The government released an official statement saying they were doing so and the Bukele himself tweeted about it ... and both the article's author and I are sourcing them.



I gotcha. You missed where I said a few times that the adoption happened in a small town a year ago. The government released that info that they're doing what they did in September of 2021 earlier in the Summer of 2021. The "Bitcoin Beach" movement in Tunco started in summer of 2019, two years before the government made its decision. Like l was saying, but you 



Miles Marsalis said:


> Furthermore, I was aware of Bitcoin Beach, which is hardly a scalable experiment for the whole country;


1) Doubt that so much I'm going to go out and call you a liar. Especially because of the misunderstanding above.
2) They started to use Lightning Network at Bitcoin Beach. There's nothing preventing that from scaling other than time. Especially in a country where few people have credit/debit cards because banks are all kinds of cumbersome, and credit card fees for merchants are 7% per transaction. Government just helped speed it 




Miles Marsalis said:


> I mean, the recent high growth Bitcoin has experienced doesn't wipe the previous bubbles and market crashes.


Why would they matter? They were completely expected. Adoption isn't instant, it comes in waves.



Miles Marsalis said:


> I do too and it shows that maybe Bukele didn't think through the ramifications of adopting Bitcoin as legal tender


Oh, no, that was a great idea. The country doubled their investment, and will continue to double it every year or so for at least the next 5 years. A country that is so far I'm debt can't make a better decision than invest in something that will give them such a huge return and help them pay off the debts in no time. Especially if by investing in Bitcoin they help trigger a speculative attack against the dollar that will wipe out their dollar denominated debt.




Miles Marsalis said:


> No one except the government officials you need to get building and licensing permits from


Those are very easy to pay off. Anonymously in Bitcoin. And some of the energy generators are quite portable. The ones that mine using vented gas from oil wells look like truck trailers. Roll them up, hook them up, burn the gas inside to peer generators, when the gas is gone, pack up and move to another one. But, there's plenty of ways to use electricity without anyone knowing what you're using it for and you know it.





Miles Marsalis said:


> With P2P, there were small holdout countries where pirates were able to based their anti-copyright operations and it wasn't in every one of the major governments' interest to devote the resources to stop the copyright theft, particularly in China.
> 
> With cryptocurrencies, different economics come into play, because cryptocurrencies obviously undermine the tax base of a country and enable all manners of criminal activity to flourish through alternative financing.


Kinda sorta but not really. In both cases the biggest problem is that the resources to track down and stop the "crime" GREATLY outweigh the benefits, and securing from more attacks once you learn how the last one was done is much cheaper. There's also the economics that the politicians in charge also own Bitcoin and invest in Bitcoin holding and supporting companies, so even if they publicly say one thing, they'll privately support another...




Miles Marsalis said:


> Along with the corporate and wealthy interests that don't want to shoulder a higher tax burden due cryptocurrencies siphoning money in the short term out of the tax base.


That's irrelevant at this point. All the corps and billionaires combined can't shoulder the tax burden of the current government. Spending is way beyond anything they can handle. And government seems to have decided that it's fine to just print more money if it needs it. So no one cares. Besides, corporate and wealthy interests are the ones using cryptocurrencies to syphon money or of the tax base...



Miles Marsalis said:


> There are also the social ills posed by cryptocurrencies, which economists have been warning about, particularly the bubble nature of the cryptocurrency markets.


Fuck those "economists" and their moralizing lies with a rusty nail dildo. They're "old man yelling at clouds" 


Miles Marsalis said:


> The FBI easily and regularly traces Bitcoin transaction involved in criminal activity


GOD I wish you would stop meaning shit up and saying it with authority as if it's something you know and didn't just pull out of your ass. Have you heard of Chainslysis? They're the top company that traces Bitcoin transactions for government agencies around the world, including the FBI. They're the guys who outed the two FBI agents in the Silk Road case and proved that the agents who were investigating Silk Road also stole a lot of money from it, sending both of them to jail. Well, I used to work for, and eventually run, a little company named Mycelium (one of the oldest and at time the top wallets). We had a back-end that processed the Bitcoin blockchain and provided easy results to the wallet on your phone. My friend and colleague Jan Møller was the one who wrote that backend. Then he quit the company, took a copy of his blockchain processing code, and started his own company. I bet you can guess the name. Yeah, the founder and CTO of the company that all the world's top government agencies use to trace Bitcoin transactions is a good friend of mine.
So, believe me when I tell you, the FBI has a VERY difficult time tracing Bitcoin transactions. Especially if the people using it are aware of some basic techniques to stay anonymous. FBI spent years to try to find Silk Road, and still never managed to find it through tracing bitcoin. They only found it because the web server leaked the IP by accident. So, I know how EXACTLY how Bitcoin transaction tracing works, EXACTLY what makes it difficult, and EXACTLY what technologies exist and are coming out to make it impossible. If you're curious, ask. Otherwise don't lie to people as if you know, because you obviously don't. Saying this "perform brute-force methods to trace transactions" is as dumb as " two people using the same keyboard to defend against a hacker attack." This is the equivalent of your describing how Bitcoin tracing works





Stop that.



Miles Marsalis said:


> 2-6 days is maybe the standard wait time for transactions to be settled by all parties these days and debit transactions are nearly instantaneous since the funds are extant.


I'm sorry, what part of "banks give each other short term loans to make things instant, and take a week to a month or more to settle" did you not understand? And no, having the possibility of your money pulled out of your bank 5 months later for "fraud protection" doesn't mean it's settled.



Miles Marsalis said:


> For the consumer. however, the transaction is settled immediately if they have the funds and there is no wait time.


It's not either. For the consumer they can also pull the money back for a few days (months in some cases). Settled means settles. Not "we make it look like it's settled." For the consumer a Bitcoin transaction using modern tech actually IS settled almost immediately (few seconds).




Miles Marsalis said:


> The average transaction time on Lightning Network is 10 minutes, but who's counting.


Jesus Christ, do you even read your own research?
First of all, it's LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a Lightning Network transaction to take 10 minutes. It will simply fail if it can't find a route to settle through within the first 20 secinds or so. You obviously don't understand the tech, yet insist on talking like you do.
And second, this is FROM YOUR OWN ARTICLE


> Desiree Dickerson, Lightning Labs’ vice president of operations, touts the power of the lightning network stating that it currently has a *maximum throughput of 25 million transactions per second* and it expects that to increase as the network grows; Desiree also mentions that the *Lightning Network settlement is instant*, instead of taking 10 to 60 minutes on-chain.



Seriously, just sit down and shut up at this point.


----------



## Rassah (Dec 4, 2021)

Raever said:


> I desperately wish to understand what the fuck I'm reading in this thread but the more links that are provided the more overwhelmed I'm becoming...you guys wouldn't happen to have a nice 5 minute break down video I could watch on a work break would ya?


This is the best and simplest explanation I could come up with over the years

__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ka962


----------



## Rassah (Dec 4, 2021)

Mambi said:


> Thank you, I was about to post those in response to @Doddy Guy but you beat me to it. _<grin> _
> 
> Meanwhile, I lost the password (PIN) to my account at the bank once. I just brought gouvernment ID and they gave me a new one. Because of that backing in the system, I had access to my money in ~10 minutes. WHO do you complain to if your bitcoin transaction malfunctions that can do anything? Big difference there...



If you lose your Bitcoin that's stored at an insured regulated institution like Coinbase, Kraken, or Unchained Capital, you complain to them and they reset your password and restore access to your coins. They're even insured, so if they get robbed they can still restore your Bitcoin.
WHO do you complain to if you lost your wallet full of $20 bills? Bitcoin itself is like cash. I guess people forgot what cash is. (And if you lost it due to a badly formed transaction, first, stop making those by hand and use a wallet app, and second, you can complain to the mining pool that processed it. They tend to return them.)

By the way, your description read like a pretty funny parody XD Your explanation of how dollars have value and how government protects that value is pretty creative



Mambi said:


> Also I have to ask...aside from a hostage situation, what scenario would anyone need millions of dollars moved and *not* be willing to wait a day or 2 for security?



You're bidding on a contract against someone, the deal is only available today, and it's Friday at 4:30 PM. Oh, and you have much higher security doing it through Bitcoin. Remember, banks only insure your cash balance up to $250,000, and don't insure your wire transfers at all (every time they make me sign a ton of documents that I understand that once they send it it's gone and that I have verified that information).


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Dec 7, 2021)

Rassah said:


> I gotcha. You missed where I said a few times that the adoption happened in a small town a year ago. The government released that info that they're doing what they did in September of 2021 earlier in the Summer of 2021. The "Bitcoin Beach" movement in Tunco started in summer of 2019, two years before the government made its decision. Like l was saying, but you
> 
> 1) Doubt that so much I'm going to go out and call you a liar. Especially because of the misunderstanding above.
> 2) They started to use Lightning Network at Bitcoin Beach. There's nothing preventing that from scaling other than time. Especially in a country where few people have credit/debit cards because banks are all kinds of cumbersome, and credit card fees for merchants are 7% per transaction. Government just helped speed it


I mean, earlier in the thread we were discussing Bitcoin Beach and you've mentioned it in another thread previously; you can check this easily before getting hysterical, especially you've been the one pushing misinformation here and denying basic facts you've later acknowledged. Bitcoin Beach also wasn't a secret; it's been loudly and widely publicized.

Furthermore, putting aside the infrastructure and logistical concerns of integrating Bitcoin into El Salvador's economy, there is a elephant in the room that Bitcoin is wildly unstable and volatile, which is problematic for a currency that is legal tender. Bitcoin literally has lost 21% of its value since the beginning of the month and 10% just over the weekend.

This does not bode well for El Salvador and is in line with most economist's analysis about the fallout from the Bitcoin Law. Bitcoin is at best a risk asset, not material for legal tender.


Rassah said:


> Why would they matter? They were completely expected. Adoption isn't instant, it comes in waves.


A market crash wiping out 80% of value by definition the result of an unexpected outcome.


Rassah said:


> Oh, no, that was a great idea. The country doubled their investment, and will continue to double it every year or so for at least the next 5 years. A country that is so far I'm debt can't make a better decision than invest in something that will give them such a huge return and help them pay off the debts in no time. Especially if by investing in Bitcoin they help trigger a speculative attack against the dollar that will wipe out their dollar denominated debt.


I feel the events of the weekend have changed the math on how good an idea that was.


Rassah said:


> GOD I wish you would stop meaning shit up and saying it with authority as if it's something you know and didn't just pull out of your ass. Have you heard of Chainslysis? They're the top company that traces Bitcoin transactions for government agencies around the world, including the FBI. They're the guys who outed the two FBI agents in the Silk Road case and proved that the agents who were investigating Silk Road also stole a lot of money from it, sending both of them to jail. Well, I used to work for, and eventually run, a little company named Mycelium (one of the oldest and at time the top wallets). We had a back-end that processed the Bitcoin blockchain and provided easy results to the wallet on your phone. My friend and colleague Jan Møller was the one who wrote that backend. Then he quit the company, took a copy of his blockchain processing code, and started his own company. I bet you can guess the name. Yeah, the founder and CTO of the company that all the world's top government agencies use to trace Bitcoin transactions is a good friend of mine.
> So, believe me when I tell you, the FBI has a VERY difficult time tracing Bitcoin transactions. Especially if the people using it are aware of some basic techniques to stay anonymous. FBI spent years to try to find Silk Road, and still never managed to find it through tracing bitcoin. They only found it because the web server leaked the IP by accident. So, I know how EXACTLY how Bitcoin transaction tracing works, EXACTLY what makes it difficult, and EXACTLY what technologies exist and are coming out to make it impossible. If you're curious, ask. Otherwise don't lie to people as if you know, because you obviously don't. Saying this "perform brute-force methods to trace transactions" is as dumb as " two people using the same keyboard to defend against a hacker attack." This is the equivalent of your describing how Bitcoin tracing works
> 
> Stop that.


All due respect to Jan Moller and, to lesser extent, you, but law enforcement has largely kept up with with tracing cryptocurrencies and is past the point of using third parties track transactions, recent recoveries like the Colonial Pipeline ransomware situation and others. Arguably, in some respects, Bitcoin is easier to trace regular currencies because of the blockchain and the relative lack of a need for warrants to trace the transactions.

Unlike you, I talk about what I know.


Rassah said:


> I'm sorry, what part of "banks give each other short term loans to make things instant, and take a week to a month or more to settle" did you not understand? And no, having the possibility of your money pulled out of your bank 5 months later for "fraud protection" doesn't mean it's settled.


The key phrase here is fraud protection for your concerns about commercial banking; as long as you're above board, you've got nothing to fear and the money is yours. That is how fraud protection works.

It also sounds like you're crude describing the overnight market, which is mainly for bank and financial institutions.


Rassah said:


> Jesus Christ, do you even read your own research?
> First of all, it's LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a Lightning Network transaction to take 10 minutes. It will simply fail if it can't find a route to settle through within the first 20 secinds or so. You obviously don't understand the tech, yet insist on talking like you do.


The Lightning Network has several problems it needs to address and I'll reiterate that a large portion Bitcoin users don't use the Lightning Network currently. And the average transaction for Bitcoin is 10 minutes, your hyperbole notwithstanding. I'll apologize for the typo about Lightning Network; given the glaring mistakes you made yourself, you'll give me that.

Consider that Lightning Network doesn't totally solve the problem of Bitcoin's fluctuating transaction fees since network congestion is only one factor that influences the transaction fees. There are also concerns about opening and closing costs as well as routing fees that Lightning Network will have contend with going forward.

On the security side of things, keeping the nodes of the Lightning Network online at all times to send and receive payments makes them susceptible, allowing Bitcoins to be stolen if the computer storing their private keys is compromised. Going offline has its own drawbacks, since one of the two parties on a payment channel could close the channel and steal the funds while the other party is away. I think this is called fraudulent channel closing, if I'm not mistaken.

A serious systemic risk to the platform that Lightning Network needs to address is that a malicious actor could create numerous channels and force them to expire, which would broadcast to the blockchain and cause congestion that overwhelms the block. That actor could use the congestion to steal the funds of parties unable to withdraw their funds because of the congestion. I know Lighting Network developers and have admitted as much.

So Lightning Network has a ways to go still.


----------



## Rassah (Dec 11, 2021)

This is an interview that is being deleted from YouTube and every other major digital media platform. Don't know why, but eh. Either way, if you listen to it, it may be the most important info you'll hear in your life, or you'll dismiss it and then wonder what happened.








						Michael Saylor Talks Bitcoin To Tucker Carlson | Tucker Carlson Today
					

This is the best advertisement to own Bitcoin you will ever see. Watch as Michael Saylor provides multiple concrete examples why Bitcoin is the preferred cryptocurrency asset to own.  #Bitcoin




					www.bitchute.com


----------



## Mambi (Dec 11, 2021)

Rassah said:


> This is an interview that is being deleted from YouTube and every other major digital media platform. Don't know why, but eh. Either way, if you listen to it, it may be the most important info you'll hear in your life, or you'll dismiss it and then wonder what happened.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry, but can't. You totally lost me at "Tucker Carlson". I'd rather watch kittens be skinned alive than have to put up with anything from that twat.


----------



## Rassah (Dec 11, 2021)

Mambi said:


> Sorry, but can't. You totally lost me at "Tucker Carlson". I'd rather watch kittens be skinned alive than have to put up with anything from that twat.


That's good. Tucker doesn't actually say or really comment on anything, with the video just being Michael Saylor explaining what's going on with the financial system, our economy, our global prospects for people and businesses around the world, and what Bitcoin is doing to address those huge problems, but it's cool to see people self selecting themselves for failure because big corporate giants told them to. Broke desperate and ignorant people are easier to control after all.


----------



## Mambi (Dec 11, 2021)

Rassah said:


> That's good. Tucker doesn't actually say or really comment on anything, with the video just being Michael Saylor explaining what's going on with the financial system, our economy, our global prospects for people and businesses around the world, and what Bitcoin is doing to address those huge problems, but it's cool to see people self selecting themselves for failure because big corporate giants told them to. Broke desperate and ignorant people are easier to control after all.



Yeah that's good, but the mere fact he has him on the show means that he's supporting it...which means it's probably bad and a lie by default. Now if you told me that Tucker is arguing with him then I might..._might..._consider tolerating it, but it's not so it's an endorsement of the message by default.

Plus I'd have to look at his face, and I've gone through enough television screens in rage having tried to do that for more than a few minutes. 
He's just too punchable an idiot, like evangelical Christmas tunes sung by Gilford Godfrey in face form. I can't stand him for more than a few seconds at a time.


----------



## Rassah (Dec 11, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Bitcoin Beach also wasn't a secret; it's been loudly and widely publicized.


So then why, when I said that Bitcoin Beach was a grassroots Bitcoin adoption that the government then was later inspired by, did you "correct" me by lying that Bitcoin Beach came after the government did their thing?




Miles Marsalis said:


> Bitcoin literally has lost 21% of its value since the beginning of the month and 10% just over the weekend.


Hahahaha! You should see that video so you get a better idea of what's happening with the crap you're using. You're spending your life working and amassing wealth, only to have 20% of your wealth go backwards, wondering why most people are getting poorer and poorer, and then are complaining about a 20% temporary drop that is still a 160% rise over the year XD Ugh, you guys deserve exactly what you're fighting for.



Miles Marsalis said:


> in line with most economist's analysis about the fallout from the Bitcoin Law.


Most economists don't understand Bitcoin either, and Bitcoin has been *hilariously* proving economists wrong for over a decade. These are the same economists who said it's a bubble and that it will never reach $100.



Miles Marsalis said:


> A market crash wiping out 80% of value by definition the result of an unexpected outcome.


That never happened in Bitcoin. There was a slow decline, but that's was somewhat expected. Same as a "crash" wiping out 99% of the value of the USD was completely expected.


Miles Marsalis said:


> I feel the events of the weekend have changed the math on how good an idea that was.


You're obviously not an economists, and as I've said many times, your biggest problem is that you always focus on the now, seemingly being incapable of predicting the future. The weekend wiped out leveraged positions, making the base price stronger.




Miles Marsalis said:


> All due respect to Jan Moller and, to lesser extent, you, but law enforcement has largely kept up with with tracing cryptocurrencies and is past the point of using third parties track transactions, recent recoveries like the Colonial Pipeline ransomware situation and others. ... Unlike you, I talk about what I know.





Do you have any proof of that claim that they're "past the point of using third parties to track?" Because Chainslysis is still getting business from FBI, CIA, and other global agencies, and their demands are growing really really fast. Do you even know HOW they found the guy in the Colonial Pipeline ransomware? I have a pretty good guess, but I'm curious if you know, or are again just making shit up. You claim you talk about what you know, so back that up and tell me how the ransomware worked and how they busted him.
And nah, you're wrong about it being easier to track Bitcoin transactions, but I'm not wasting time on you with that.



Miles Marsalis said:


> The key phrase here is fraud protection for your concerns about commercial banking; as long as you're above board, you've got nothing to fear and the money is yours. That is how fraud protection works.


You can call it fraud protection, but that's still not settlement. Fraud protection is part of the reason banks have the biggest buildings in every city and are to rich they're too big to fail. Bitcoin doesn't need fraud protection to *STIMULATE* settlement.



Miles Marsalis said:


> It also sounds like you're crude describing the overnight market, which is mainly for bank and financial institutions.


That's lending and to a point settlement. But yes, in settlement case, that's when the money you send to someone via a bank transfer ACTUALLY gets there. And it's never the next night.



Miles Marsalis said:


> The Lightning Network has several problems it needs to address and I'll reiterate that a large portion Bitcoin users don't use the Lightning Network currently.


And I'll reiterate that you have an actual mental defect that prevents you from seeing trends and making predictions. Large portion of people don't use a lot of technology, until they do. That's not an argument against anything.


Miles Marsalis said:


> And the average transaction for Bitcoin is 10 minutes,


Instant if on lightning network.




Miles Marsalis said:


> Consider that Lightning Network doesn't totally solve the problem of Bitcoin's fluctuating transaction fees since network congestion is only one factor that influences the transaction fees.


Lightning Network fees have no relation to on chain network congestion. There's no congestion on Lightning, because there are no limits on Lightning.



Miles Marsalis said:


> There are also concerns about opening and closing costs


Taproot, a recent upgrade, addresses a lot of that, and there are other ways to bypass that problem.


Miles Marsalis said:


> On the security side of things, keeping the nodes of the Lightning Network online at all times to send and receive payments makes them susceptible, allowing Bitcoins to be stolen if the computer storing their private keys is compromised.


That's true, but at the very worst, that's a problem every single bank has already, since banks are also just nodes connected to the internet at all times. So these Lightning nodes already use bank level security to protect themselves, and it's only getting better too. And if you're an end user, you don't actually have to keep your keys online, since like with plain Bitcoin, they're only needed to send payments.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Going offline has its own drawbacks, since one of the two parties on a payment channel could close the channel and steal the funds while the other party is away. I think this is called fraudulent channel closing, if I'm not mistaken.


Yes. There are methods for dealing with that as well, called watch towers, that monitor for fraudulent close and alert you. They're still in development though. You can also just run your own small node for $100 worth of hardware if you have a lot of money to worry about. Less than what you'll pay through credit cards, especially if merchants start passing the fees on to you and giving you discounts for using Bitcoin.




Miles Marsalis said:


> A serious systemic risk to the platform that Lightning Network needs to address is that a malicious actor could create numerous channels and force them to expire, which would broadcast to the blockchain and cause congestion that overwhelms the block. That actor could use the congestion to steal the funds of parties unable to withdraw their funds because of the congestion. I know Lighting Network developers and have admitted as much.


That's a risk, because if the ones he's stealing from by closing a prior channel state broadcast a correct transaction and get it to confirm, ALL the money on the channels, including his, will go to them. So if I stand to lose $500 due to theft, and gain $1000 (including his $500) from defending myself, I'd be willing to pay up to $500 transaction fee or more to screw him and get my money back. Oh, and I'll have something like a week to do it in. It would cost him a lot of money to keep the network congested for that long too.



Mambi said:


> Yeah that's good, but the mere fact he has him on the show means that he's supporting it...which means it's probably bad and a lie by default.


Tucker didn't know anything about Bitcoin and just brought an expert in to talk about it and listen. Like I said, Tucker almost never even says anything. And I never watch his show myself, but the interview was pretty informative even to myself. But whatever excuse you want to tell yourself to keep your head in the sand is fine.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Dec 11, 2021)

@Rassah , you're dancing around the glaringly obviously issue marking Bitcoin as poor investment currently and that is the cryptocurrency is extremely volatile, along the fact that Bitcoin has lost 23% of its value over the last month in a sustained trend. That is a serious loss for any real investor whether we're talking about an individual or an institution. Bitcoin seems to be behaving more like risk asset rather than an inflation hedge right now.  Now, this current decline isn't as bad as when Bitcoin lost 80% of its value around November of 2018, which actually did happen despite your insistence it didn't, but it does speak to serious doubts about whether the Bitcoin economy will be stable and sustainable going forward. Bitcoin's past and present performance very much called in question whether this cryptocurrency is the economic gamechange you try to portray it as.

You try to disparage as not being an economist, but I'm following my education and training acknowledging that Bitcoin has a credible history of extreme volatility and relatively rapidly losing a majority of its value in fairly short period of time. No professional economist is going recommend it as a safe investment facing no real existential risk as some of Bitcoins proponents have tried to portray it. 

Furthermore, you've demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of uncontestable facts regarding economics, like the inherent feasibility of the gold standard, that the fact Keynes's economic theories couldn't been responsible for the Great Depression because he didn't develop them yet, that the Long Depression did actually happen, that the Austrian school is a fringe school of economics, and that Keynes was definitely not a communist. You admitted previously you were wrong on these previous points. You should also know these points because you've been working in economics longer and directly than I have, yet seemed not to.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Dec 11, 2021)

I'm not going to further speak the Lightning Network because I'll admit you're probably more familiar with it, but I'll note concerns I raised with also acknowledged by the developers of the network as well too. I also view the Lightning Network a small step towards Bitcoin actually becoming something approaching a payment system with reasonable transaction times. Though as time goes on, Lightning Network probably will institute fees. 

I'm aware than Chainalysis was awarded a sole contract by the FBI something like 5 years ago, which is public knowledge because the FBI lists its contractors, but a lot has changed at the bureau these days and reliance on outside contractors has been scaled back over the years. Chainalysis may still hold that contract, but there haven't been other major contractors brought on board specializing in what Chainalysis does. 

Now, I'm pretty certain of one of two things. Either Chainalysis doesn't have a CIA contract or you're not privy to that, because posting that information here, you would have voided that contract, which I don't think you're stupid enough to do. Furthermore, for financial forensics contractors, if they do business with international parties, then that disqualifies them from being contractors to the CIA. The CIA also probably won't be the agency to contract with Chainalysis in the American Intelligence Community outside the FBI. You can check the laws regarding contractors for those services if you disbelieve me; they're very explicit.


----------



## Rassah (Dec 11, 2021)

Bitcoin lost 23% of it's value last month. Oh no! That means everyone who bought it a year ago is only up 160%. And everyone who bought it 2 years ago is only up 610%. And everyone who didn't buy it but stuck with dollars is down 30%. It's great you keep focusing on small short term falls so you can keep ignoring the 150% to 200% long term term returns. Even better that you're just focusing on the price so you can ignore all the stuff it's actually doing where the price doesn't matter.
Do you have a better option for people around the globe to escape the extremely harmful, environmentally destructive, and poverty inducing inflation?


----------



## Rassah (Dec 11, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Now, this current decline isn't as bad as when Bitcoin lost 80% of its value around November of 2018, which actually did happen despite your insistence it didn't,



Here's the price chart from October 2018 to December 2018












						Bitcoin price, BTC chart, and market cap | CoinGecko
					

View Bitcoin crypto price and chart live, BTC market cap, 24-hour trading volume, circulating supply, latest news and more.




					www.coingecko.com
				




Now can you PLEASE just STOP FUCKING LYING! It's not even funny anymore.

As for Chainslysis, you doged the question. How did FBI find the hackers in that ransomware attack, and how did the ransomware even happen?
Actually, forget I asked. You'll lie about that too.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Dec 12, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Here's the price chart from October 2018 to December 2018
> View attachment 124144
> 
> 
> ...











						Bitcoin Continues Steep Fall as Cryptocurrency Collapse Worsens
					

Bitcoin slumped 10%, continuing a steep slide and bucking a modest rebound in stocks and oil.




					www.wsj.com
				








__





						Cryptocurrency bubble - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				






> The *2018 cryptocurrency crash*[15][34][35][36][37] (also known as the _Bitcoin crash_[38] and the _Great crypto crash_[16]) was the sell-off of most cryptocurrencies from January 2018. After an unprecedented boom in 2017, the price of Bitcoin fell by about 65 percent during the month from 6 January to 6 February 2018. Subsequently, nearly all other cryptocurrencies which had also peaked from December 2017 through January 2018, then followed Bitcoin's crash. By September 2018, cryptocurrencies collapsed 80% from their peak in January 2018, making the 2018 cryptocurrency crash worse than the Dot-com bubble's 78% collapse.[16] *By 26 November, Bitcoin also fell by over 80% from its peak, having lost almost one-third of its value in the previous week.**[39]*


I mean, the Wall Street Journal must be lying as well too, Rassah.



Rassah said:


> Do you have a better option for people around the globe to escape the extremely harmful, environmentally destructive, and poverty inducing inflation?


Yes, actually. Seriously handle this pandemic getting everyone vaccinated here stateside and around the world so we can get businesses working normally again. That will solve the myriad of supply chain issues currently driving up prices worldwide, including for certain sectors Bitcoin is dependent on, though arguably this pandemic has given the Bitcoin market a lot of its current investors.

Putting this pandemic in the rearview mirror is a winning proposition for everyone.


----------



## MechaMegs (Dec 12, 2021)

The way to fix the issues of poverty brought on by capitalism is a currency to make capitalism even more unregulated for the uber wealthy to prosper even farther and hold even more power over the workers.


See its like fighting a fire you just dump more accelerants onto it.


----------



## KimberVaile (Dec 13, 2021)

Florida Governor Releases Budget Proposal With Effort To Create Crypto-Friendly State - The Daily Hodl
					

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is including provisions to promote the use of blockchain and crypto assets into the Sunshine State’s latest budget proposal.




					dailyhodl.com
				




Pretty interesting development in my state.


----------



## Yakamaru (Dec 13, 2021)

When the dip down to $30,000 occurred I said it would recover. I also said dips like these does not matter to any serious long-term investors and only see it as an investment opportunity if anything. And I will repeat myself once more: Long-term. 



Rassah said:


> This is an interview that is being deleted from YouTube and every other major digital media platform. Don't know why, but eh. Either way, if you listen to it, it may be the most important info you'll hear in your life, or you'll dismiss it and then wonder what happened.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting interview that's for sure.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Dec 13, 2021)

Putting aside the month-long decline of the price of Bitcoin (it has lost approximately 18,000 or 27% of it value over a month to date) and that it is not behaving like an inflation hedge, Michael Saylor is a very suspicious messenger for touting Bitcoin based on his history of fraud.

Saylor was a party to an alleged accounting scheme that vastly, and fraudulently, overstated his company, MicroStrategy, earnings, to make the publicly traded corporation which was losing money look profitable. Saylor, along with two other executives and the company itself, had to pay out a $11 million settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Saylor personally signed off the fraudulent earning reports and had to pay $8.2 million of that $11 million settlement. The fraud charges were settled without anyone admitting wrongdoing.

Despite that, he held onto his job since the 2000 settlement for the last 20 years, though it should be noted that the company's revenue has declined every year since 2014, with the exception of increase it has experienced since MicroStrategy used debt offerings to buy up Bitcoin, which is an extremely risky enterprise that the current downturn in the Bitcoin market is proving foolhardy. Citigroup downgraded MicroStrategy to a sell rating in response to the company's cryptocurrency purchases.

Saylor has a direct and personal interest in keeping suckers in the Bitcoin market.


----------



## Mambi (Dec 14, 2021)

For information on cryptocurrency scams, seemed relevant: a story of a woman losing thousands and a warning to others.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/facebook-scam-cryptocurrency-online-rcmp-fraud-meta-1.6284552


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 14, 2021)

I saw Michael Saylor mentioned and looked him up. 

Is a business executive who personally lost _$6b_ after misleading investors really the face folk want to attach to cryptocurrencies?


----------



## Foxy Emy (Dec 17, 2021)

*has flashbacks to before the politics section of the form was removed.*

Was not expecting this to turn into a flame war when I made it back in 2018.


----------



## KimberVaile (Dec 17, 2021)

Foxy Emy said:


> *has flashbacks to before the politics section of the form was removed.*
> 
> Was not expecting this to turn into a flame war when I made it back in 2018.


I was tempted to mention that in retrospect, I would have liked the thread topic to cover Cryptocurrenices in a general sense, rather than just Bitcoin. With that said, the debates here already get far too heated and condescending. I couldn't imagine how much worse it'd get with other crytocurrencies being discussed. I generally find the technology behind cryptocurrencies interesting, especially some of the newer generation cryptos that rely on proof of stake, and sharding. It's very impressive how fast the technology is evolving. It's just a shame it's such a contentious topic here.


----------



## Foxy Emy (Dec 17, 2021)

KimberVaile said:


> I was tempted to mention that in retrospect, I would have liked the thread topic to cover Cryptocurrenices in a general sense, rather than just Bitcoin. With that said, the debates here already get far too heated and condescending. I couldn't imagine how much worse it'd get with other crytocurrencies being discussed. I generally find the technology behind cryptocurrencies interesting, especially some of the newer generation cryptos that rely on proof of stake, and sharding. It's very impressive how fast the technology is evolving. It's just a shame it's such a contentious topic here.



For real. I am far more interested in the tech than any investment.

I particularly am fascinated by DAG (IOTA as an example) ledger structures as opposed to blockchain.

All the toxic pump and dump schemes and meme coins are kind ruining it for me, though.

And most or the artists I know hate NFTs which are marketed as helping digital artists fight fraud but kinda just encourage people to turn someone else's work into an NFT without permission to make a quick buck. And it can't really fight fraud if there is no way for artists to block randos from doing "save image as" and then uploading work that isn't theirs.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 17, 2021)

KimberVaile said:


> It's just a shame it's such a contentious topic here.


The well has basically been poisoned thanks to, among other things:
1) Years of inertia re: Cryptocurrencies being used for blackmarket and other illegal activities. Like, even if one wants to make arguments or presentations about what they are or aren't used for _now_, practically a decade of "It's used on blow and CP" has influenced a lot of people's perceptions.
2) Similarly, inertia re: Environmental Impact (plus how Environmental Impact, unlike blow and CP, is a thing that has been heavily politicized which is its own can of worms). To say nothing of how many of the efforts to try and address Point 2 run headlong into the issue that very few people have trust towards companies saying "It's totally safe / carbon neutral, honest!" due to _other_ companies promising the same (see: Lead, Asbestos, Oil, et al) only to learn so many years later "It was not safe / carbon neutral'.
3) On top of all _this_, there's the blatant slew of grifters with knock-off / imitation currencies (even disregarding potential debates as to bigger ones like Bitcoin) as well as people who only give half-answers or dishonest summaries of the Cryptocurrency market (ex: Some people _in this very thread_ who have strongly inferred that all you need to mine Bitcoin and become a millionaire is an okay internet connection and a semi-modern phone... which is technically true in the same sense that all you need to become a millionaire is have two dollars in cash, six numbers in mind, and a gas station selling Mega Million lotto's).
4) Then there's the whole "A lot of people aren't fond of the modern iteration of the web _in general_," since Crypto is often touted as being integral and / or otherwise _highly relevant_ to Web 3.0... but does absolutely nothing to fix people's main gripes with Web 3.0 (Mandatory updates; "Lease not Own"; Increasing consolidation, sterilization, and privatization of online spaces; etcetera), with a lot of Crypto proponents at best talking past people and at worst either seeing these as a _plus_ *or* failing to realize that many of the iterations put forward so far _do the opposite of what they think they do_ (ex: You generally don't actually _own_ a NFT. You own a glorified map to an end state that currently - but not necessarily permanently - contains the NFT, which runs into the exact same "Lease not Own" issue wherein the owner is utterly reliant on others to still retain possession. Yet many people present NFTs as being super-secure "This is yours and nobody can ever take it away from you" second only to having a physical object directly in hand).

All of this (and other factors) comes together in a perfect storm of "Yeah, you probably aren't going to get an actual discussion on the matter outside a thoroughly vetted and personally known group otherwise there's just too many variables that could lead to a sudden clusterfuck".


----------



## LameFox (Dec 17, 2021)

Foxy Emy said:


> All the toxic pump and dump schemes and meme coins are kind ruining it for me, though.


No kidding lol. Nothing has been so effective in putting me off crypto as the character of the people who want me to buy it.


----------



## Ramjet (Dec 17, 2021)

The parallels to cypto to the dotcom bubble is uncanny...
Rock bottom low interest rates fueling useless speculative asset prices to full retard levels, next year will certainly be interesting...

The only cypto I'm bullish on longterm is Hedera Hbar.
Do your own DD....


----------



## Foxy Emy (Dec 17, 2021)

LameFox said:


> No kidding lol. Nothing has been so effective in putting me off crypto as the character of the people who want me to buy it.


When I first got started in 2014 there were a handful of memecoins (RonPaulcoin, Dogs, and CoinyeWest) but it was mostly just some rookie devs forking Bitcoin and making tweaks to see what happened. Like a strange social experiment. No one invested in them seriously and those that made off with a boat load of cash were as surprised as anyone else... now it has become a formulaic.

Make stupid meme coin: promise it is better than Bitcoin, get friends to artificially inflate the price for you, and when you think it has lost traction, sell out with your friends before before anyone else catches on.

Makes me sick to my stomach.

And then there are big money hotshots backing memes as the future of money (looking at you Elon Musk) that might know what a hash is but have no idea how mining difficulty is adjusted based off of it.

The see the technology is a mirical cure to every financial problem ever..
 And it's not. It is certainly a technological breakthrough, but it still has limitations and is still in the early stages of implementation and as it scales there are issues that need to be worked out with scaling.

Distributed Ledger Technology can do a lot of things better than traditional systems... but not everything... and adding a dash of blockchain to every random thing doesn't inherently make it better.


----------



## Yakamaru (Dec 17, 2021)

Foxy Emy said:


> For real. I am far more interested in the tech than any investment.
> 
> I particularly am fascinated by DAG (IOTA as an example) ledger structures as opposed to blockchain.
> 
> ...


Wouldn't mind a different thread altogether on the topic of the technologies behind it rather than cryptocurrencies. We've seen quite a lot of development on the tech front in these past 5 or so years.

For me Bitcoin and other crypto isn't as much a cure for all the financial/economical problems than it is adding various options for savings/interest, etc. I'm all for options for people, as proper competition encourages services to become better and better over time.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 18, 2021)

Ramjet said:


> The parallels to cypto to the dotcom bubble is uncanny...
> Rock bottom low interest rates fueling useless speculative asset prices to full retard levels, next year will certainly be interesting...
> 
> The only cypto I'm bullish on longterm is Hedera Hbar.
> Do your own DD....



Your post reminded me that Michael Saylor, who was mentioned last page, literally was an example of somebody who lost a fortune in the dotcom bubble. So spot-on I guess.



Foxy Emy said:


> RonPaulcoin,



Read this as 'RuPaul'


----------



## Rassah (Dec 18, 2021)

@Attaman Of the numbered list of problems you listed, #1 and #2 are extremely huge problems for USD that Bitcoin actually greatly improves upon. #3 is a problem, but the main overall problem is that most people just don't understand what money is or how it works. Until recently they never had to think about it. So they think that just because one lovey went up, some shit knockoff will too. I look at it as a much needed education that a lot of people will get, and hopefully won't have to pay too much for.

@Foxy Emy Yeah, the shitcoins bug me too. We had a lot of that back in 2014. Then people learned their lessons, but instead we got ICO crap. Now NFT crap. And surprisingly people who haven't learned their lessons in 2014 coming back to the shitcoin crap. I hope it will go away once a single currency finally gains enough of a network effect to make the rest obsolete and obvious enough to be seen as worthless. Don't know how long that will take, but I guess that's just growing pains of moving a large ignorant population onto a new financial system.
I remember when USSR fell apart and the ruble lost all value, when Russia printed new money and people first got exposed to the idea of "investment" and "savings accounts" (previously illegal "profit" things), a lot of people got scammed by fake banks and ponzi schemes. And I mean like A LOT. Eventually enough learned about the new financial concepts that the west has known about for years, and wised up. This reminds me of that.


Oh hey, this is funny, one of my friends in my BitcoinFurs Telegram group pointed something out I never noticed before. Generally when news articles make bogus claims about Bitcoin's energy use, they cite either Alex DeVries/Digiconomist, or this Cambridge "study"  https://ccaf.io/cbeci/index (both are flawed, but I covered that already). What he pointed out that I never noticed was that at the very bottom is a "Supported by UK AID"  picture. That means our very own Fallowfox is spending his tax dollars to fund anti-bitcoin propaganda XD


----------



## MechaMegs (Dec 19, 2021)




----------



## Miles Marsalis (Dec 19, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Wall Street Journal said that it fell from its peak. Which it did over the course of two years. It didn't crash in November like you said. That's like saying the *US dollar crashed 99% in November of 2021!!!* Well, no, it declined to losing 99% of its value over the course of the last 100 years. It didn't just "crash." And if that's what you're comparing, then, fine, Bitcoin crashed 80% before going up something like 800%, BUT the US dollar crashed 99%+ and continues to crash.


There's a lot wrong with the statement, like based on historical data for the board price-adjusted dollar index, the dollar has definitely not crashed 99% over the last 100 years. This is common misconception regurgitated by goldbugs, whom some in the Bitcoin community take their cues from, erroneously. 

Also, the strength of the US dollar is currently rising on the US Dollar index, but hey. 

More importantly, the price of Bitcoin declined almost continuously from December of 2017 to December 2018; that was a serious drop during which anyone who invested in Bitcoin along that timeline was losing money. Also, bear in mind that this is over a year, which isn't that long fiscally and still relevant determining the past performance of an investment, unlike your example of the dollar ... over a century. 


Rassah said:


> That solves NONE of the inflationary issues I mentioned, which happened BEFORE the pandemic. Also tells me you never even bothered to read them. So, I won't bother explaining again other than just repeating that if you support inflation, you're a poor hating, environmentally destructive bastard, and should never claim that you support the poor or the environment without being a giant hypocrite.


Insults and mischaracterizations aside, we literally have the Fed for that, which has been managing inflation well since the last major inflationary period was the Great Inflation in 1965 to 1982. 



Rassah said:


> SEC is like THE MOST HOSTILE of government agencies, which will even go after you if you're not a US citizen and not living in US, claiming jurisdiction over the whole planet and all domestic and foreign citizens, arresting you, dragging you to US, charging you, and imprisoning you, if you sell ANYTHING they suspect as a security to someone in US without SEC's permission. It's why so many foreign banks refuse to do business with Americans. And with unlimited pockets of the government printing press, they have unlimited legal ability. So I gotta ask: why did they settle instead of charging, prosecuting, and throwing in jail, or at least banning him from dealing with securities?


The short answer which contradict your statements on the aggressiveness on SEC is that the SEC is ... generally very lenient in its enforcement, so if they are investigating you, you're probably into some incredibly shady business the commission just couldn't ignore. Which you definitely know since you were working in finance, during Great Recession, I believe too. The deal Saylor and the other MicroStrategy executives got is emblematic of how the SEC is lenient in its enforcement. If Saylor was innocent, he wouldn't be paying the lion's share of the settlement. 

You got some things wrong about the SEC too:

1.) The SEC doesn't arrest people because they don't have criminal authority, though their divisions do investigate violations of securities laws and regulations. The SEC can and does refer matters to sometimes state and mainly federal prosecutors because of criminality, however. 

2.) SEC only comes after foreign national brokers who offer investments to US investors without registering with the SEC. They also delist foreign stocks regularly for failure to meet audit requirements or comply with US regulations. This is to protect US investors from securities fraud and protect their investment.

Just stating the law for your benefit.



Rassah said:


> *And Fallowfox is a criminal too, so don't listen to his advice.* He's actually one of those I've been telling to buy Bitcoin when it was a few hundred dollars. But he deserved missing this opportunity.


Fallowfox isn't a criminal, but do explain.


----------



## Rassah (Dec 20, 2021)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1472500680250249216


Miles Marsalis said:


> More importantly, the price of Bitcoin declined almost continuously from December of 2017 to December 2018;


I bet you feel really bad for all those people who bought Bitcoin in 2017 or 2018. They lost so much money buying it at less than $20,000...



Miles Marsalis said:


> Insults and mischaracterizations aside, we literally have the Fed for that, which has been managing inflation well since the last major inflationary period was the Great Inflation in 1965 to 1982


ALL my explanations about the Cantillon Effect and why inflation causes problems, aside too I see. It's like you either never even read any of that, about how it creates massive waste, environmental destruction, wealth inequality, and powerty. Or your brain is refusing to allow you to acknowledge any of it because you are SO DEEPLY DEPENDENT on the idea that "inflation good!". But it's fine. You seem to be the type that believes since Bitcoin declined for one year when it was averaging $10,000, that you would have lost money now that it's $50,000 (or even if it declines to $30,000) and that is all anyone needs to know about the quality of investment advice you can give.

P.S. My friends and I have a different experience with SEC and their enforcement.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 20, 2021)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Fallowfox isn't a criminal, but do explain.



My abs are criminal. :}


----------



## Mambi (Dec 20, 2021)

Remember this as a basic guideline, whenever you hear anyone talking about the excitement of cryptocurrency and how you should join in:

No matter how good it is, it's worthless unless people agree to accept it for basic day-to-day things (food, gas, rent, etc)
Therefore, they profit immensely by *promoting* it until everyone agrees to accept it, regardless of whether the value is true or not.

After all, if everyone ignored it, it would be meaningless how many bitcoins they'd have amongst themselves if the barber and the supermarket and the tax collector still insists on "money". It's a more organized version of a Pump and Dump scheme basically. They almost HAVE to convince people it's the "new way of the world" just to give them a reason to have the cryptocurrency instead of "money" in the first place. It's an investment that in order to profit they HAVE to offload for standard money at some point...which is impossible if everyone refuses to share their enthusiasm for it.

Let me put it another way. if I don't like Star Wars, I don't give a CRAP how much your collector's set is worth if you owe me $15,000 and you try to give me your "toys" instead...I want cash! Your "toy" collection would only have value to another collector, unless you can convince the world that Star Wars toys are worth giving someone a house or a bank loan in exchange for. If someone offered you 1 million North Korean "won" for your car, you'd be an idiot to take it knowing that only North Korea would care to accept those wons later on for anything meaningful. Same deal.


----------



## Rassah (Dec 21, 2021)

Remember this as a basic guideline, whenever you hear anyone talking about the excitement of the internet and how you should join in:

No matter how good it is, it's worthless unless people agree to accept it for basic day-to-day things (news, messages, online shopping, etc)
Therefore, they profit immensely by promoting it until everyone agrees to use it, regardless of whether the value is true or not.

After all, if everyone ignored it, it would be meaningless how many internet connections they'd have amongst themselves if the barber and the supermarket and the tax collector still insists on "telephone". It's a more organized version of a Pump and Dump scheme basically. They almost HAVE to convince people it's the "new way of the world" just to give them a reason to have the internet instead of "telephone" in the first place. It's an investment that in order to profit they HAVE to offload for standard real world communication at some point...which is impossible if everyone refuses to share their enthusiasm for it.

Thus is all new technologies whose value depends on the "Network Effect". The only question is whether the new technological innovation is better or worse than what we had before. Bitcoin is obviously better.


----------



## Mambi (Dec 21, 2021)

Rassah said:


> Thus is all new technologies whose value depends on the "Network Effect". The only question is whether the new technological innovation is better or worse than what we had before. Bitcoin is obviously better.
> 
> View attachment 124631



Ah, but that's apples and oranges though.

I will give you this point...both are highly dependent on the vast majority adopting it as a good idea. If only 10 people liked Internet, there'd be no internet as you need the numbers of people agreeing to it. BUT there's a fundamental difference between the 2 mindsets:

The internet changed the world by giving people something they did not have before...the ability to link computers over vast distances (everything we think of as the internet is just built from this fundamental foundation). Suddenly information and cultures were wide open to everyone, and from there good old fashioned commerce took over and here we are watching ads on "free" servers like Youtube.

Cryptocurrency isn't giving _anything _new though. Literally it isn't. It's trading existing money for something virtual that eventually has to be changed back into money. It's an investment no different than gambling on Pokemon cards or the diamond trade. That idea is the stock market, and even though crypto tries to sidestep banks and gouvernments to make it a "currency", in reality it's a bunch of people agreeing to coloured rocks that they will trade for money later on. REAL money, which crypto simply is not and cannot be unless EVERYONE agrees it is, hence the con and the constant attempts to "tell the world about this great new thing!!!".

Yeah sure, one could argue that the idea of cryptocurrency and the tech is the new thing, but it's still based on a house of cards and with no backing whatsoever, to solve a problem that most normal people simply do not have. Really now, when has the average peson had to close a multimillion dollar deal and just can't wait until tomorrow for the banks, or your shareholders will be upset? Or you just need to buy 500,000 dollars worth of stuff but don't want the gouvernment to ask questions or have a trace at all. These are the examples given for it's superiority over cash! LOL-LOL-L.O.L!

People might not like the gouvernments but those very gouvernments are what gives the money its "power" to begin with. Crypto's power is literally word of mouth and faith, rappers singing about how you need to get into it, celebrities telling people to buy their hot <_whatever_>-coins, and all of it to hide the fact that it's all meaningless fluff. There's no backing, no security, and no hope it will ever just be another currency because it again has no backing in the slightest. That can't be stressed enough...countries have GDP and workforces and objects and manufacturing an resource reserves to back their currency's values...Bitcoin has what? Nothing, it's 100% virtual and arbitrary! But if you can convince enough people of the opposite and get them to buy your coins before the boom hits...now you have the endgame laid out. <_giggle_>

People have to BELIEVE in crypto in order for it to work, but I can SEE the armies of the gouvernment on any currency I have in my hand backing it up. That's the key.


----------



## Rassah (Dec 23, 2021)

When people claim Bitcoin is too volatile, I'd rather use fiat:









						Turkey’s lira leaps by more than 40% in a day against the U.S. dollar
					

The move may have staved off a banking crisis for now.




					fortune.com
				






Mambi said:


> Ah, but that's apples and oranges though.
> 
> I will give you this point...both are highly dependent on the vast majority adopting it as a good idea.


That's actually literally the value of everything. All value is subjective, and is only worth as much as someone else is willing to pay you for it. That's why I'm saying "Bitcoin is only worth something as long as you can find someone to sell it to" isn't really an argument against Bitcoin.





Mambi said:


> BUT there's a fundamental difference between the 2 mindsets:
> 
> The internet changed the world by giving people something they did not have before...the ability to link computers over vast distances (everything we think of as the internet is just built from this fundamental foundation). Suddenly information and cultures were wide open to everyone, and from there good old fashioned commerce took over and here we are watching ads on "free" servers like Youtube.
> 
> Cryptocurrency isn't giving _anything _new though



It is giving something new. A lot of new things actually:
1) It's the first time we can send any amount of value over long distances without having to trust anyone in the process. That has never happened before. Transporting gold required trusting security and hoping your transport doesn't get robbed. Transferring money requires trusting your bank, the receiving bank, and whoever runs the transfer system in the middle. We're spoiled in US by having working financial systems, but vast majority of the world doesn't have that. In most other places you hand your cash over to some stranger, have him make international phone calls, and hope his buddy on the other line passes cash to whomever you're sending to. Remember, over 2/3rd of the people in the world don't even have a bank account and can't even get access to one. But they have smartphones...
2) It's the first money that can be owned and controlled entirely by software. Until now, the only way to have software manage money is to go and open a bank account in your or your company's name, full of paperwork and such, and sign up for special API access that lets you connect to your account directly. That's is if your bank even allows you that kind of access. And then the software just sends instructions to the bank, where some banker has to receive them and process them almost manually. Now with Bitcoin, an app can hold the private key, and thus hold its own money, right in the app itself, and send, receive, and control it however it wants. Like, imagine a self driving car that does Uber rides and uses Bitcoin. That car wouldn't even been to be tied to any person, and can just own itself and work all on its own. The implications for AI are rather profound, with AI programs being able to have their own money and pay for their own server space, electricity, etc.
3) It's the first money that we can use with each other online without needing to know or trust each other. All the old/legacy financial systems work on the "pull" principle. When you give someone a check, or give someone a credit card number or your bank details, what you're effectively doing is giving them full access to your bank account and asking them to only pull out what they are supposed to. If they pull out more, you can ask the bank pull that money back, but that doesn't always work, and usually the merchant just eats the loss on your behalf. Basically our old financial system is the equivalent of you sending an email by writing it, saving it in drafts, giving someone your email account login and password, and hoping they read only their own email. It's RIDICULOUSLY insecure. Bitcoin is the first digital financial system that works as a "push" system, similar to an email, where someone gives you an address and you "push" the money to them same as you would send an email. This is very useful in cases where you want to transact with someone you don't know and don't trust. Like for example if you want to buy internet access for an hour. Right now you have to connect to some stranger's wifi, give them all your personal info and bank details, and have them pull money out of your account, hoping they're legit. With Bitcoin they just post an address to send money to add you just send money. You don't have to give them anything else. Moreso, you can make thousands of micro transactions that you can't do with credit cards, where instead of buying an hour of internet, you can pay per kilobyte of data, so you pay a 1¢, get a kilobyte, and if it's working, just keep streaming pennies to them in exchange for kilobytes of data to you. And if they stop sending data, you just stop paying. All of that can even be handled completely automatically in the background by your app without you even doing anything.
And as a furry artist, you can collect payments on anything from anyone in the world, simply by posting your Bitcoin address anywhere - under your Furaffinity art post, in your YouTube video description, etc. You don't need to have people sign up for anything like PayPal or other payment service, you don't need to sign up for any payment processing service yourself, you don't have to worry about your account being shut down like PayPal does with porn accounts, you don't have to pay fees to anyone...
There are a whole lot of other new things that Bitcoin can do that the old financial system simply can't, which are as advanced as the internet is compared to using fax machines and snail mail, but I don't want to take up a whole page.




Mambi said:


> It's trading existing money for something virtual that eventually has to be changed back into money.


You can also trade it for goods and services like any other money.



Mambi said:


> REAL money, which crypto simply is not and cannot be unless EVERYONE agrees it is,


Not everyone agrees to Caribbean Dollars. By far not everyone. And it's still "REAL" money. You don't need EVERYONE to agree to it for it to be money. It just needs to be a medium of exchange for trade, which Bitcoin is.


----------



## Rassah (Dec 23, 2021)

Mambi said:


> with no backing whatsoever,


That's its make benefit. Not a downside. Backing is a BAD THING. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. The ONLY reason the dollar was backed was because people only trusted and wanted GOLD as money, but gold was too difficult to transport, store, and divide, so people very unfortunately had to resort to using gold backed papers, which is what dollar used to be. Now dollar isn't backed by anything at all, but it's also a terrible money.



Mambi said:


> Really now, when has the average peson had to close a multimillion dollar deal and just can't wait until tomorrow for the banks, or your shareholders will be upset?


Likewise, when has the average person had to send someone text right away and just can't wait a few days until a written paper letter got delivered? That would be the argument you would use against the internet. Sure, you can send a letter, and you can wait for the bank to be open and maybe physically drive there to send an international wire (like you have to with mine). But if there's something much more efficient and convenient, why not use that? And just as internet allowed us to design much more complex things rooted in that simple "send a message instantly" idea, Bitcoin will allow us to design much more complex things rooted in the "send value instantly" idea too.




Mambi said:


> People might not like the gouvernments but those very gouvernments are what gives the money its "power" to begin with


No they don't. They only give it power by spending an ENORMOUS amount of resources fighting counterfeiting, since one of the core aspects of money is "scarcity." People trust that the money governments issue will hold its value because they trust government not to print a bunch of it, and to keep counterfeiters from doing the same. Preventing counterfeiting is what Bitcoin mining does. And governments have failed pretty badly with the promising not to print too much thing.



Mambi said:


> Crypto's power is literally word of mouth and faith,


You don't need faith to know it won't be printed to hell like dollars, bolivars, Zimbabwe money, etc was. Bitcoin issuance is public, can't be changed, and you can always verify the security of that by looking at how much mining power is there to secure it. It's the USD that QUITE LITERALLY relies in word of mouth, from central bankers and politicians making promises, and faith that they will keep their word, which, being professional liars, they never have.




Mambi said:


> There's no backing, no security,


That's good there's no "promises of IOU" that backing is, and there is A LOT of security! Tens of billions of dollars worth of security. All of Bitcoin mining is the security. At this point there's so much security even big governments like China and US can't overtake it.


Mambi said:


> That can't be stressed enough...countries have GDP and workforces and objects and manufacturing an resource reserves to back their currency's values..


That doesn't back a country's currency value in the slightest. If the US central bank were to print 10x as much dollars as exist right now, the value of the dollar would crash by 90%. Not right away, but over a fairly short period. All that work force, manufacturing, and even the military won't prevent that. All they would do is demand 10x as much money for everything they produce. As I said, the only "backing" or more specifically security that a government can provide is the promise that the currency's scarcity will be maintained. That's why massive military powers like the Soviet Union still had their ruble hyperinflate and collapse, and why one of the richest countries in South America with massive oil reserves, Venezuela, still had their currency hyperinflate and collapse. They had massive GDPs, workforces, and manufacturing, but all that did nothing when they printed too much money.
This is also why Bitcoin is the biggest and most valuable cryptocurrency: it has the strongest security promising that it will not be inflated above what the scheduled release rate is. And no amount of armies are able to change it. You can hold a gun to a central banker's head and force him to print more (actually why Weimar Republic had its hyperinflation). You can't hold a gun to the math that runs Bitcoin and force it to change.


----------



## Mambi (Dec 23, 2021)

Rassah said:


> That's actually literally the value of everything. All value is subjective, and is only worth as much as someone else is willing to pay you for it. That's why I'm saying "Bitcoin is only worth something as long as you can find someone to sell it to" isn't really an argument against Bitcoin.



Sure it is, as it has to do with backing...the thing you want to avoid as you think it's a bad thing. 



Rassah said:


> You can also trade it for goods and services like any other money.



See, that's the thing, in the real world you can't. For fun, I tested that...everywhere I went this week to buy anything, I asked them "Out of curiousity, would you acceot cryptocurrency as payment here?" and every single one told me the same thing. "No, we can only accept Canadian (and sometimes American) dollars". That's the real value...I could be rich with cryptocurrency but cannot even buy a loaf of bread or pay a single bill with it. THAT'S it's real value. 




Rassah said:


> Not everyone agrees to Caribbean Dollars. By far not everyone. And it's still "REAL" money. You don't need EVERYONE to agree to it for it to be money. It just needs to be a medium of exchange for trade, which Bitcoin is.



Not true. It comes down to backing again. You don't quote seem to understand:

I'm currently IRL holding a nice crisp Canadian $20 in my left hand. I know it's worth $20 becasue the entire Canadian gouvernment is behind it, and it would only lose it's value if the gouvernment of Canada collapsed. It is backed by something tangible...the army they have to defend their right to put a value on this currency and have it respected. Therefore I feel confident in holding this dollar and having it keep it's value. I can SEE the country of Canada. I can TOUCH the tanks if I ask nicely. THIS is what gives it value, not the holdings of the country...the raw strength of the population and it's economic interchange and workforce and raw resources.

Bitcoin though? No backing...no security. *Period*. The value is placed just as arbitrarily true, but the group PUTTING the backing into crypto cannot defend it, secure it, or justify it in any way at all. That is why most other places refuse to accept it for fruit or gas...they can't risk holding onto it when the bottom collapses, and without a gouvernment or stable backing, it WILL collapse, guaranteed. 



Rassah said:


> That's its make benefit. Not a downside. Backing is a BAD THING. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. The ONLY reason the dollar was backed was because people only trusted and wanted GOLD as money, but gold was too difficult to transport, store, and divide, so people very unfortunately had to resort to using gold backed papers, which is what dollar used to be. Now dollar isn't backed by anything at all, but it's also a terrible money.



You're half right...the value is now backed not on gold but on the country's GDP itself, as well as the strength of the workforce, respect/confidence of the world that the country is stable, and the debts from interchange. It still has a physical backing, *that* is the physical backing, and that is a GOOD thing because otherwise it would be a con pulled out of thin air. Like bitcoin...if it doesn't represent anything then the value will change on whims. Why do you think rappers pump it up so much? They know it will fall radically so they want others to buy it first from them before it does. But you first have to convince people it has value to do so...and here we are. 



Rassah said:


> Likewise, when has the average person had to send someone text right away and just can't wait a few days until a written paper letter got delivered? That would be the argument you would use against the internet. Sure, you can send a letter, and you can wait for the bank to be open and maybe physically drive there to send an international wire (like you have to with mine). But if there's something much more efficient and convenient, why not use that? And just as internet allowed us to design much more complex things rooted in that simple "send a message instantly" idea, Bitcoin will allow us to design much more complex things rooted in the "send value instantly" idea too.



...using the Internet. I already haev this ability, through secured banks and gouvernment programs for the rare times I need to transfer millions. Until then, bitcoin cannot feed my family so it is not the currency of the future, no matter how many times that gets repeated. You can't complain to "bitcoin central police" if someone doesn't accept your bitcoins, but I can call the gouvernment anytime someone doesn't want to accept my dollars. 



Rassah said:


> No they don't. They only give it power by spending an ENORMOUS amount of resources fighting counterfeiting, since one of the core aspects of money is "scarcity." People trust that the money governments issue will hold its value because they trust government not to print a bunch of it, and to keep counterfeiters from doing the same. Preventing counterfeiting is what Bitcoin mining does. And governments have failed pretty badly with the promising not to print too much thing.



If it's all virtual, it will be counterfeited. Just give it time...but then again, if I can't even buy a single apple with it, why would I even bother trying to counterfeit it? 



Rassah said:


> That doesn't back a country's currency value in the slightest. If the US central bank were to print 10x as much dollars as exist right now, the value of the dollar would crash by 90%. Not right away, but over a fairly short period. All that work force, manufacturing, and even the military won't prevent that. All they would do is demand 10x as much money for everything they produce. As I said, the only "backing" or more specifically security that a government can provide is the promise that the currency's scarcity will be maintained.



But the country would still exist, and that is the backing. They can devalue their money all they want, but it's still tied to a tangible thing...the ratio of bills to their country's GDP/etc. Meanwhile, Bitcoin would be even more volitile, 



Rassah said:


> That's why massive military powers like the Soviet Union still had their ruble hyperinflate and collapse, and why one of the richest countries in South America with massive oil reserves, Venezuela, still had their currency hyperinflate and collapse. They had massive GDPs, workforces, and manufacturing, but all that did nothing when they printed too much money.



No, they had other issues as well...but you're still missing the point. No matter how much money they printed, it was still backed by their millitary and population. The fact they chose to print more is irrelevant to your point of "backing". Their mismanagement is not a factor for you to throw away the very ability TO manage it by tying it to something real. The value cannot just exist in someone's head or it will lose value the instant they die. You need something real.



Rassah said:


> This is also why Bitcoin is the biggest and most valuable cryptocurrency: it has the strongest security promising that it will not be inflated above what the scheduled release rate is. And no amount of armies are able to change it. You can hold a gun to a central banker's head and force him to print more (actually why Weimar Republic had its hyperinflation). You can't hold a gun to the math that runs Bitcoin and force it to change.



No need to, as it has no backing anyway it would just collapse regardless. Saying "strongest security" is meaningless if it isn't tied to anything, has nothing to defend it, and is only "strong" in the sense that others are watching it but have no actual avenue to deal with any potential fraud anyway! There is no "bitcoin" embassy to register complaints to, therefore it is NOT secure. I don't have any digs in this fight so to speak, but really this doesn't seem too hard a concept to accept. <_shrug_>

All you have to do to prove me wrong is buy a simple apple from a human being with it. _<munch-munch> _If as a money it can't do that, then it can't do anything...<lol>


----------



## Rassah (Jan 3, 2022)

Mambi said:


> Sure it is, as it has to do with backing...the thing you want to avoid as you think it's a bad thing.


If I have a 10 ounce gold coin in my right hand, and a gold backed piece of paper that says "This certificate is redeemable for 10 oz of coin by Rassah" you would take the piece of paper IOU because you think it's more valuable since it's backed 9.9



Mambi said:


> See, that's the thing, in the real world you can't [trade Bitcoin for goods and services]



You can't, I and lots of other people can. I buy most of my stuff with Bitcoin. And if you lived in El Salvador, you can walk into any Walmart, McDonald's, or other shop and just pay with Bitcoin. The "it's not money because you can't spend it" is an old dumb claim that as predicted only gets less valid with time.



Mambi said:


> I'm currently IRL holding a nice crisp Canadian $20 in my left hand. I know it's worth $20 becasue the entire Canadian gouvernment is behind it, and it would only lose it's value if the gouvernment of Canada collapsed.


LOL! I know 1 bitcoin is worth 1 bitcoin because it has the number 1 on it too. What a silly thing to claim. What matters is what it can buy. What the actual value of it is relative to other things. It would only lose its value if the government of Canada collapsed? Well, look here (https://www.in2013dollars.com/Canada-inflation)



Seems your government is dead or something. All that government backing seems to be worth jack shit. But, those of us in the know understand that it's actually the opposite of what you claim: governments like yours have an INCENTIVE to destroy the value of your dollar, rather than protect or "back it." By inflating it, they can pass policies that no one would actually vote for if they knew they had to pay for them with taxes directly, and by devaluing it they can make the value of the national debt be smaller and smaller. All at your expense of course.



Mambi said:


> It is backed by something tangible...the army they have to defend their right to put a value on this currency and have it respected. Therefore I feel confident in holding this dollar and having it keep it's value. I can SEE the country of Canada. I can TOUCH the tanks if I ask nicely.


None of that army is yours just because you hold a dollar. It doesn't give you a right to those tanks in any way like an actual backed certificate would. There's no backing. Even legally so.




Mambi said:


> Bitcoin though? No backing...no security. *Period*.


Like gold, Bitcoin has no backing. Like gold, it needs no backing. Bitcoin is THE value, THE asset, all on its own. Like I've been trying to tell you. Holding a Bitcoin is like owning a gold coin, or a car, or a house. No backing is necessary because you actual own the actual asset directly. And, security? There's more security protecting Bitcoin than your dollar or any other asset out there. Why do you think it has never been hacked in over ten years, despite there being such a HUGE prize for anyone who manages it? Sure it's been stolen off hacked computers, but the Bitcoin network never has been. Because you don't understand how it works or how it's secured, you think it has none, but you're just wrong,v that's all.



Mambi said:


> That is why most other places refuse to accept it for fruit or gas...they can't risk holding onto it when the bottom collapses,


That's not why. They don't accept it because their payment systems aren't set up for it and it would be too much work for too little reward to add it, since too few people still have and use it. But once MasterCard, Square, and PayPal add support for it to their services by default, they'll all accept it without even needing to do anything. And if you were in El Salvador or Bitcoin communities around other parts of the world, yeah, the places would accept it for fruit or gas. The chances of it collapsing at this point are less than the chance of USD collapsing.




Mambi said:


> You're half right...the value is now backed not on gold but on the country's GDP itself, as well as the strength of the workforce, respect/confidence of the world that the country is stable, and the debts from interchange.


That's not how backing works, and not how a currency's value works.



Mambi said:


> It still has a physical backing, *that* is the physical backing, and that is a GOOD thing because otherwise it would be a con pulled out of thin air.


That is literally what US and Canadian dollars, and all fiat, actually are. They're a con pulled out of thin air. Want to buy a $300,000 house? A bank just pulls that $300,000 out of thin air. They just create it on their computer from nothing. Then they give the seller that $300,000 con pulled from thin air, and give you a $300,000 loan you have to pay back with interest. You have to work to pay back, what they made with nothing but a few keystrokes. That's why Bitcoin was created, to stop that con.




Mambi said:


> Until then, bitcoin cannot feed my family so it is not the currency of the future


Bitcoin has been feeding my family since 2014, and my parents family since 2018.
"I know everyone has computers and smartphones and internet, but I don't know how to use it and still have a landline telephone, so internet is not the future" LOL



Mambi said:


> You can't complain to "bitcoin central police" if someone doesn't accept your bitcoins, but I can call the gouvernment anytime someone doesn't want to accept my dollars.


And "the government" will laugh in your face, because no one is obligated to accept your dollars XD



Mambi said:


> If it's all virtual, it will be counterfeited.


Again, your saying this just proves that you're saying a lot about something you don't even understand the basics of how it works. It can't be. Literally impossible.




Mambi said:


> but then again, if I can't even buy a single apple with it, why would I even bother trying to counterfeit it?


I don't know, I bought a car and a few houses with it, so there's probably some reason to 




Mambi said:


> but you're still missing the point. No matter how much money they printed, it was still backed by their millitary and population


No it wasn't. It literally went to zero. Worthless. They scrapped the old Bolivars and started new ones. Again, you don't understand backing or where value of a currency comes from. But you sure talk a whole lot as if you do...




Mambi said:


> The value cannot just exist in someone's head or it will lose value the instant they die. You need something real.


No, you don't, and yes, that's how value exists. There is no value outside our heads. Things didn't have any value until humans started valuing them. Everything is only as valuable as much as someone is willing to pay for it. If you had a very valuable to you piece of art and you lived alone on an island, that art becomes trash as soon as you die. The only reason money has value is because there are a lot of people valuing it in their heads. The only reason YOU value that $20 bill of yours is because you know SOMEONE ELSE will be willing to trade that $20 of yours for something else you need later. That's it. That's the whole reason. And that's the same reason Bitcoin is so valuable. There are hundreds of millions of people who will be willing to trade your bitcoin for something else of value later.



Mambi said:


> There is no "bitcoin" embassy to register complaints to, therefore it is NOT secure.


You're still making the mistake that having to beg a bureaucrat who doesn't give a shit about you is somehow more secure than math. It's not. No amount of embassy or government bureaucrats with no amount of threats can influence or force bitcoin to do something it's not supposed to. That's how much more secure it is.



Mambi said:


> All you have to do to prove me wrong is buy a simple apple from a human being with it. _<munch-munch> _If as a money it can't do that, then it can't do anything...<lol>


I bought three Apple Ipad minis so far


----------



## Rassah (Jan 3, 2022)

By the way, I asked around and no one here accepts Canadian $20 bills either. Proof that Canadian dollars are completely worthless. You can't even buy an apple or gas or anything with it. It's trash


----------



## Mambi (Jan 3, 2022)

Rassah said:


> If I have a 10 ounce gold coin in my right hand, and a gold backed piece of paper that says "This certificate is redeemable for 10 oz of coin by Rassah" you would take the piece of paper IOU because you think it's more valuable since it's backed 9.9



No I wouldn't. I know that the gouvernments of a country are stable. I don't know your financial status's stability from a hole in the ground. I can't verify that you can defend your gold in your example, but gouvernments have armies. That's the difference. It's not just "word against word", the backing is real and tangible.



Rassah said:


> You can't, I and lots of other people can. I buy most of my stuff with Bitcoin. And if you lived in El Salvador, you can walk into any Walmart, McDonald's, or other shop and just pay with Bitcoin. The "it's not money because you can't spend it" is an old dumb claim that as predicted only gets less valid with time.



ONLY if everyone in the world agrees to support it, which is exactly what Bitcoin promoters not only are counting on, but are absolutely dependent on.  I will give you that though...IF I lived in El Salvador and they for some insane reason decided to accept those, then yes they now have buying power. ONLY at those particular stores that decided to accept them, as gouvernments don't consider it legal tender yet globally. Again, that's what promoters NEED...hence posts like this from you and others gushing over how it's the future. There's no stability and El Salvador stores are taking a massive gamble by accepting those. (presumably as a test market? I'll check back on them in 5 years...)




Rassah said:


> LOL! I know 1 bitcoin is worth 1 bitcoin because it has the number 1 on it too. What a silly thing to claim.



That is NOT what I claimed though. I claimed it had value because it had the entire Canadian gouvernment authorizing it to have the value. Monopoly money has numbers on it as well, but they're backed by Parker Brothers inc, and they refuse to support the values as listed. <giggle>. I'm not sure why this seems a hard concept for you to understand...it's not just someone saying "this is worth <x>" and walking away, it's a large group with physical assets backing it and willing to fight to defend it.



Rassah said:


> What matters is what it can buy. What the actual value of it is relative to other things. It would only lose its value if the government of Canada collapsed? Well, look here (https://www.in2013dollars.com/Canada-inflation)
> View attachment 125330
> Seems your government is dead or something. All that government backing seems to be worth jack shit. But, those of us in the know understand that it's actually the opposite of what you claim: governments like yours have an INCENTIVE to destroy the value of your dollar, rather than protect or "back it." By inflating it, they can pass policies that no one would actually vote for if they knew they had to pay for them with taxes directly, and by devaluing it they can make the value of the national debt be smaller and smaller. All at your expense of course.



But that's all completely irrelevant and you know it. No matter how it values, the value is still backed by reality. To use the same analogy, if Cryptocurrencie makers decided to start adding more coins to the pile metaphorically, they devalue as well. What matters is the gouvernment will defend the value as it's set. Who defends Bitcoin? If an American bank tells me my dollar is worth only 5 cents American, the gouvernment will back up my claim that it's actually much higher. Who backs up bitcoin problems if El Salvador Walmart only decides to accept them at half value? See the difference now? You're debating the wrong point...





Rassah said:


> None of that army is yours just because you hold a dollar. It doesn't give you a right to those tanks in any way like an actual backed certificate would. There's no backing. Even legally so.



The army defends the Dollar, not me. My complaint that my dollar is not being accepted at par will be defended by any gouvernment organization that exists. I'm not personally important enough for an army to get involved probably, but if a canadian CEO had a few million on the line and had the same situation, the gouvernment would absolutely step in, as would the global trade orginazations. Now...who steps up for you when Bitcoin is rejected, if this is the debate path you want to go down now?



Rassah said:


> Like gold, Bitcoin has no backing. Like gold, it needs no backing. Bitcoin is THE value, THE asset, all on its own. Like I've been trying to tell you. Holding a Bitcoin is like owning a gold coin, or a car, or a house. No backing is necessary because you actual own the actual asset directly.



Gold exists. Bitcoin does not. Gold is guarded by military. Bitcoin exists in a computer. Gold has practical uses that determine it's value (jewellery, electronics, etc). Bitcoin is 100% digital and only floats nebulously on the internet. THAT is why Gold is an asset and Bitcoin is not. If you own Bitcoin, you do not own anything but an number on a computer screen. You can PRETEND it's real if you'd like when they send you a cheap bitcoin token to carry around, but you know as well as I do that you don't actually own anything of value...unless ou can convince everyone to take it from you. 



Rassah said:


> And, security? There's more security protecting Bitcoin than your dollar or any other asset out there. Why do you think it has never been hacked in over ten years, despite there being such a HUGE prize for anyone who manages it? Sure it's been stolen off hacked computers, but the Bitcoin network never has been. Because you don't understand how it works or how it's secured, you think it has none, but you're just wrong,v that's all.



I'm not concerned about it being stolen or hacked...not once did I make THAT argument. I'm concerned that the foundation it's based on will collapse due to lack of tangibility or backing. So sure, I'll give you that it may be more secure from hacking and theft. I lose nothing by admitting that to be probably true. Still doesn't change anything though...



Rassah said:


> That's not why. They don't accept it because their payment systems aren't set up for it and it would be too much work for too little reward to add it, since too few people still have and use it. But once MasterCard, Square, and PayPal add support for it to their services by default, they'll all accept it without even needing to do anything. And if you were in El Salvador or Bitcoin communities around other parts of the world, yeah, the places would accept it for fruit or gas. The chances of it collapsing at this point are less than the chance of USD collapsing.



"bitcoin communities"? Oh wow, now we're getting into hipster termonology, we've crossed the streams! <LOL> Seriously though, somewhere in the world I can find communities of people willing to take my old MLP figurs for piles of fruit...doesn't mean it's a new wave of currency. Just means some people decided to play in new waters.


----------



## Mambi (Jan 3, 2022)

(split message, over 1000 char. Oops! )




Rassah said:


> That is literally what US and Canadian dollars, and all fiat, actually are. They're a con pulled out of thin air. Want to buy a $300,000 house? A bank just pulls that $300,000 out of thin air.



Bullshit, so nothing to debate here. If you can't see the value of an entire gouvernment's support compared to randos in the internet, then I got nothing I can say. 



Rassah said:


> They just create it on their computer from nothing. Then they give the seller that $300,000 con pulled from thin air, and give you a $300,000 loan you have to pay back with interest. You have to work to pay back, what they made with nothing but a few keystrokes. That's why Bitcoin was created, to stop that con.



Again bullshit. The bank has their pile of money they they give you. They gives them less. Your payments give it back to them. They dont pull it out of this air, they borrow it from the gouvernment and central bank. Of the gouvernment they are in. It still exists, ya know! Meanwhle Bitcoin is doing the exact same thing except they don't even pretend to have anything supporting it, and then turn around and lock the totals so they can't make more and devalue the rest. Sorry, you're just wrong on how the banking system works apparently.



Rassah said:


> And "the government" will laugh in your face, because no one is obligated to accept your dollars XD



They are if I'm in the country that gives it to me. 

Other countries have the choice true, but that's where the power and stability of the country in question comes into play. You know, the BACKING you're ignoring? Canada is stable and thus confidence is high that if an American takes a canadian dollar, they'll be able to turn it back to American if they choose as Canada isn't collapsing tomorrow. North Korea is not and thus many places will not take their money. Bitcoin? 100% confidence with no tangibility...there is no country to watch to see how they are doing to back the value.



Rassah said:


> I don't know, I bought a car and a few houses with it, so there's probably some reason to


I invested in softwood a few years back and made a profit from it as well. But I'd be insane to try and say that people should start trading in trees because of it. LOL



Rassah said:


> No it wasn't. It literally went to zero. Worthless. They scrapped the old Bolivars and started new ones. Again, you don't understand backing or where value of a currency comes from. But you sure talk a whole lot as if you do...



...becasue the gouvernment collapsed internally and things went to shit. The backing of that particular currency went the way I predict bitcoin will...internal colapse and instant devaluing. Now do you believe that will happen to stable strong countries like Europe? America? Canada? Italy? You're almost agreeing with me by accident here, take the final step. <_snicker_> 



Rassah said:


> By the way, I asked around and no one here accepts Canadian $20 bills either. Proof that Canadian dollars are completely worthless. You can't even buy an apple or gas or anything with it. It's trash



Hahaha, good one and I get your comparison, but there's one key difference...you're not standing in Canada. I can go *anywhere *in this country and my money has value. If I explore the planet, no matter where I am standing I would have to hunt to find as you called them "bitcoin communities" to accept the coins, and I'm sure they're not as clearly marked in location as the border of an entire country. Huge difference there.


----------



## KimberVaile (Jan 4, 2022)

Not entirely related admitedly, but I've been wondering whether some of the altcoins will break off from following Bitcoin and Ethereum's price this year. There have been no shortage of projects with very great promise.


----------



## Rassah (Jan 9, 2022)

Some will get the massive beneficial implications of this. Most won't...








						Miners Are The Optimal Buyers: The Data Behind Bitcoin-Led Decarbonization In Texas
					

Comments from Senator Ted Cruz underscore the potential that Bitcoin mining has to integrate with the Texas energy grid in a transformative way.




					bitcoinmagazine.com


----------



## Rassah (Jan 9, 2022)

Mambi said:


> I know that the gouvernments of a country are stable. I don't know your financial status's stability from a hole in the ground. I can't verify that you can defend your gold in your example, but gouvernments have armies. That's the difference. It's not just "word against word", the backing is real and tangible.


Hahaha! No. You don't even know if your government HAS the gold they claim they do. For all we know in US, Ft. Knox could be empty. But you obviously missed my point. Why would you take an IOU that someone claims is "backed" over an actual thing that supposedly does the backing? Take the gold, not the IOU. And obviously governments have already PROVEN that they can't be trusted. Know how? Your dollar used to be backed by gold. But they broke their promise and it isn't anymore. That's why Bitcoin isn't backed, and doesn't depend on anyone's lousy promises.



Mambi said:


> ONLY if everyone in the world agrees to support it,


Canadian dollars are completely worthless because far from everyone in the world agrees to support it. Only a small fraction of people do. So it's garbage.




Mambi said:


> ONLY at those particular stores that decided to accept them, as gouvernments don't consider it legal tender yet globally.


No governments accept ANY money as legal tender "globally." Nor does money need that to be valuable, which is self evident.




Mambi said:


> El Salvador stores are taking a massive gamble by accepting those. (presumably as a test market? I'll check back on them in 5 years...)


They're accepting Bitcoin because, like many other Latin American countries, they're sick of being controlled by the very oppressive US dollar. They want to be free to grow their economies and do what they feel is best for their people. But they can't do that as long as they stay tethered to the USD and IMF. But people living in privileged countries wouldn't know anything about it.



Mambi said:


> I claimed it had value because it had the entire Canadian gouvernment authorizing it to have the value.


Hah, no, that's not how value works. You can't "authorize" value XD




Mambi said:


> I'm not sure why this seems a hard concept for you to understand...


Because as someone who is formally educated on the subject and is an expert on it with decades of study and practical experience, it's all ignorant bupkiss to me. You need to go back and learn about where value, and especially monetary value, comes from.



Mambi said:


> To use the same analogy, if Cryptocurrencie makers decided to start adding more coins to the pile metaphorically, they devalue as well.


That's the "scarcity" aspect of what makes Bitcoin valuable. And with Bitcoin, that "adding more coins to the pile" is completely impossible. That's why Bitcoin was created the way it was created.



Mambi said:


> Who defends Bitcoin?



The massive, multi-million dollar, decentralized and completely impossible to take down mining network.



Mambi said:


> If an American bank tells me my dollar is worth only 5 cents American, the gouvernment will back up my claim that it's actually much higher.


Lol, how? If a merchant tells you that the bread you used to pay $1 for now costs you $20 because that dollar is worth as much as 5 cents, whom are you going to complain to? No government is going to send armed troops to grocery stores to force merchants to value the dollar more than what the market actually values it at. It's a ridiculous premise.



Mambi said:


> Who backs up bitcoin problems if El Salvador Walmart only decides to accept them at half value? See the difference now?


No. There isn't one. Your dollars and US dollars can crash in value just as much as Bitcoin. Notice the lack of government troops preventing the $1 USD I have from dropping to 93¢ from inflation.



Mambi said:


> The army defends the Dollar, not me.


No it doesn't. I've asked how. All you and others have said is that it does. As an expert on the matter in telling you it doesn't.



Mambi said:


> Now...who steps up for you when Bitcoin is rejected, if this is the debate path you want to go down now?


Would love to. No one will step in if a millionaire tried to offer half price for something because he thinks your dollar isn't worth as much as it used to either.




Mambi said:


> Gold has practical uses that determine it's value (jewellery, electronics, etc). Bitcoin is 100% digital and only floats nebulously on the internet.


That's the downside to gold. Money should never have a secondary use, since it distorts both the value of the money, and the usefulness of those other uses. That's why Bitcoin was created as pure money. On purpose. And unlike gold it's 100% digital, with all the benefits that entails. Those are advantages, not problems.



Mambi said:


> THAT is why Gold is an asset and Bitcoin is not.


That's not what determines if something is an asset.



Mambi said:


> If you own Bitcoin, you do not own anything but an number on a computer screen.


Same goes for your Canadian dollars, which we've already established are completely worthless by your logic, and this only cements that.


Mambi said:


> I'm concerned that the foundation it's based on will collapse due to lack of tangibility or backing.


Because it's not tangible, it can't collapse from physical issues (like transportation problems, sudden discovery of abundant supply, massive theft, etc.). Since it's not backed, it can't collapse from the backers stealing the REAL asset underlying it, like Canadian and US dollars have when governments cut the gold backing. So Bitcoin is LESS prone to collapse because of those things. Again, you're listing advantages.


Mambi said:


> doesn't mean it's a new wave of currency. Just means some people decided to play in new waters.


It actually does. Especially since at this point it's not just millions of people and thousands of stores that use it as currency, but an entire nation. The trend isn't "some communities but no more." The trend is still going. 5 years from now you'll be all "Lol, it's only used by a few dozen countries. That doesn't make it a currency XD"



Mambi said:


> If you can't see the value of an entire gouvernment's support compared to randos in the internet, then I got nothing I can say.


You're the rando on the internet, telling me something completely wrong. I'm the guy with the actual education and knowledge telling you you're wrong.




Mambi said:


> Again bullshit. The bank has their pile of money they they give you. They gives them less. Your payments give it back to them. They dont pull it out of this air, they borrow it from the gouvernment and central bank. .... Sorry, you're just wrong on how the banking system works apparently.


What I said is true. They do just print it out if thin air. This is my specialty, not yours. Update your understanding of it. Here's a good article








						The truth is out: money is just an IOU, and the banks are rolling in it | David Graeber
					

David Graeber: The Bank of England's dose of honesty throws the theoretical basis for austerity out the window




					www.theguardian.com
				






Mambi said:


> Meanwhle Bitcoin is doing the exact same thing


It's not. You can't make more Bitcoin without putting in massive amounts of some other value. It can't be created unfairly where someone has "special rights" just to make more of it. And all the Bitcoin that gets created is actually a payment for providing a service of protecting the entire system. It's not just people giving themselves money for free.



Mambi said:


> They [merchants] are [obligated to accept it] if I'm in the country that gives it to me.


No they're not. There's no law in your country forcing someone to accept any money. Anyone can refuse your Canadian dollars for selling you stuff, and there's nothing you can do about it. Legal tender (in US and Canada) only applies to repayment of debts. It says nothing about the value of the money compared to other things, or forcing others to accept it in



Mambi said:


> You know, the BACKING you're ignoring?


I'm outright saying there's no such thing as this "government backing" fantasy that you're describing. I'm not ignoring it.



Mambi said:


> Canada is stable and thus confidence is high that if an American takes a canadian dollar, they'll be able to turn it back to American if they choose as Canada isn't collapsing tomorrow.


Only reason is because people know Canadian government won't print a crap ton of them, inflating and crashing the value. That's it.


----------



## Rassah (Jan 9, 2022)

Mambi said:


> North Korea is not and thus many places will not take their money.


The reason people won't take NK's money is because of sanctions. You can't exchange NK money outside of NK. There's also a huge lack of transparency with regards to NK's banking, so no one really knows what the supply of their money is. That's not a problem for Bitcoin, obviously.


Mambi said:


> 100% confidence with no tangibility...there is no country to watch to see how they are doing to back the value.


No country to watch. Just *the most transparent financial system ever to be devised.* Want to know how much Bitcoin exists? It's public. Want to know how much of it was created, will be created, and how much security is protecting it? Completely public too.



Mambi said:


> ...becasue the gouvernment collapsed internally and things went to shit.


The government didn't collapse. Maduro and his government are still there, still in power. The reductions on supply collapsed. The government promised too many payments, was forced to print too much money to cover those payments, and that increase in supply caused their hyperinflation. It's no more complicated than that.



Mambi said:


> The backing of that particular currency went the way I predict bitcoin will


There was no backing of that currency. Same as there's no backing of your currency or the USD. No one is promising you ANYTHING of value in exchange for your dollar. Ask any government official, they'll tell you the same thing.


Mambi said:


> Now do you believe that will happen to stable strong countries like Europe? America? Canada? Italy? You're almost agreeing with me by accident here, take the final step. <_snicker_>


Of course it will. It's already starting to. They're all spending more than they have, and all are forced to print more money, causing it to fall in value. It's only a matter of time until bitcoin triggers a speculative attack.


Mambi said:


> I can go *anywhere *in this country and my money has value.


I can go anywhere in the WORLD and my Bitcoin has value. True, not many people will be willing to trade for that entire value (unless I'm in El Salvador), but it still has value. Tell me you wouldn't give up $10,000 of your Canadian dollars for 1 Bitcoin right now. You'd be stupid to pass up such a deal.



Mambi said:


> If I explore the planet, no matter where I am standing I would have to hunt to find as you called them "bitcoin communities" to accept the coins, and I'm sure they're not as clearly marked in location as the border of an entire country.


They are marked that clearly. That country is El Salvador. Soon probably Panama and a few others too. It's only a matter of time. Other people understand money and value, and understand Bitcoin. That's why it has continued to grow in value over the last decade. You don't, but that's just your problem alone. You not getting it doesn't make everyone else's Bitcoin worth any less.


----------



## Mambi (Jan 17, 2022)

'Cryptoland:' A Quick Dive Into Crypto Enthusiasts' Idea Of Utopia
					

We cannot stress enough how absolutely everything on this crypto island will either be an internet meme that most of the population has moved on from because it’s just not that funny, or a crypto pun.




					www.cracked.com


----------



## Ramjet (Jan 21, 2022)




----------



## Rassah (Feb 17, 2022)

For all those furries concerned about Bitcoin's energy usage, please know that I'll only be using Bitcoin from this source from now on.


----------



## Rassah (Mar 16, 2022)

Bitcoin proves once again why it's needed. The comfy and convenient financial systems we have only work until they don't, as was discovered by Canadians, Russians, and Ukrainians (and a number of furries who's accounts were banned for selling porn).

"Already, #cryptocurrency has had an outsized role in the war. The #Ukrainian government has managed to raise over $60 million by posting its #bitcoin and #ether wallet addresses on Twitter. Millions more have been raised for local charities & NGOs."









						Surviving Off Crypto When Cash Fails
					

Many Ukrainians and Russians lost access to their bank accounts in the days following Russia's invasion.




					www.cnet.com


----------



## Green_Brick (Mar 31, 2022)

I wouldn't call myself a furry, but I know what bitcoin is. I'm not the least bit interested in it, or blockchain technology for that matter, but I give credit to those who managed to make a decent amount of money from investing in the stuff!


----------



## Rassah (Apr 4, 2022)

It's been confirmed, there will be a crypto furs panel at Free Fur All conference in July. Mainly going to be talking about what Bitcoin is and how to use it for newbies, and how to get set up to accept tips and payments for the artists and content producers. Furry fandom is global and mostly online, so it makes sense to adopt it as a borderless form of payment. Especially now that unfortunately some people's finances are cut off from the world.


----------



## Rassah (Apr 5, 2022)

RachelDawes said:


> Free fur all?


Yep, Free Fur All, the con that, like this forum, bans all politics, and which as a result gets accused of ties to bad kind of politics by people who only want their own politics to exist. That's why it's Free Fur All, not just for some. Like Bitcoin, which likewise doesn't care about your nationality, identity, or politics


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Apr 5, 2022)

Not misleading at all.


----------



## TyraWadman (Apr 5, 2022)

Bitcoin doesn't care about your background, ethics or politics because it just wants your money and therefore more power.

_Wow.

Who would have thought.

(just like any other business out there)_


----------



## Rassah (Apr 6, 2022)

Bitcoin doesn't want your money any more than dollar or euro wants your money. It is money. It's not a business. No one runs or controls it or wants your money. It's a money and payment system that won't close your account or seize your money because it doesn't agree with you, or with what you believe, or where you live.


----------



## Rassah (Apr 6, 2022)

If you don't see people twisting the arms of others into using the dollar, then you missed the wars in Iraq, Lybia, and many other countries who tried to use things other than dollars for things like oil trade. El Salvador is currently having their arm twisted for the audacity of just adding Bitcoin to their dollar use. They didn't ban dollar, just added Bitcoin as an option, and are getting massive pressure and threats as a result.
But Bitcoin doesn't need to twist anyone's arm. It doesn't need you or others, others need Bitcoin, especially if they live in countries where their own money or financial restrictions is failing them. It's just a life boat that others who discovered it are telling others to get into.

A few crypto accounts have been seized in very large criminal investigations, usually because the thieves did something stupid and were a massive target where trying to hide so much money (hundreds of millions of dollars worth) is very difficult. But in general it's rare and constantly getting harder due to continuing improvements in privacy.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Apr 6, 2022)

Rassah said:


> El Salvador is currently having their arm twisted for the audacity of just adding Bitcoin to their dollar use. They didn't ban dollar, just added Bitcoin as an option, and are getting massive pressure and threats as a result.











						Six months in, El Salvador’s bitcoin gamble is crumbling
					

As El Salvador prepares to launch its 'Bitcoin bond', interviews with citizens, economists and technologists reveal cracks in the country's crypto revolution.




					restofworld.org
				












						Why Bitcoin Is Losing Its Shine in El Salvador
					

Six months on from the implementation of the country’s Bitcoin Law, aversion and distrust in the cryptocurrency have grown




					www.bloomberglinea.com


----------



## Rassah (Apr 6, 2022)

Yep, just like when Bitcoin itself first came out, the news were all about how it's clunky, buggy, and not going anywhere, but behind the scenes we kept building and improving despite the naysayers. Chivo, government's wallet, added Lightning support last December, making it a fully functional wallet instead of a custodial PayPal like account. Stripe and MasterCard are continuing to roll out Lightning as back end fund settlement systems and will open it to using Bitcoin directly soon, and I've sent hundreds of Bitcoin books that are now used as required reading for high school kids in supplementary schools for gifted kids. So while a few negative Nancys are complaining, we're continuing to work, improve, and grow 

Btw, I'm at the Bitcoin 2022 and some proof of clout in this space, that I'm not just some random nobody doing wishful thinking stuff.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Apr 7, 2022)

Rassah said:


> Yep, just like when Bitcoin itself first came out, the news were all about how it's clunky, buggy, and not going anywhere, but behind the scenes we kept building and improving despite the naysayers. Chivo, government's wallet, added Lightning support last December, making it a fully functional wallet instead of a custodial PayPal like account. Stripe and MasterCard are continuing to roll out Lightning as back end fund settlement systems and will open it to using Bitcoin directly soon, and I've sent hundreds of Bitcoin books that are now used as required reading for high school kids in supplementary schools for gifted kids. So while a few negative Nancys are complaining, we're continuing to work, improve, and grow


Well, clearly the improvements need to be happening faster or aren't working because we're six months into the implementation of Bitcoin Law and the same concerns are still persisting coupled with the overwhelming majority of the El Salvadoran population not using Bitcoin. To say nothing of how Bitcoin lost almost 50% its value from November continuously and continued to be extremely volatile.


----------



## Rassah (Apr 7, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Well, clearly the improvements need to be happening faster or aren't working because we're six months into the implementation of Bitcoin Law and the same concerns are still persisting coupled with the overwhelming majority of the El Salvadoran population not using Bitcoin. To say nothing of how Bitcoin lost almost 50% its value from November continuously and continued to be extremely volatile.


The improvements are happening pretty fast actually. So far the biggest announcement at this conference was from Jack Mallers, with was that Cash App is adding support for Bitcoin, making it into a Bitcoin wallet as well, that Shopify is adding Bitcoin as a payment method, and that his other Bitcoin company Strike partnered with NCR (NCR), the world’s largest point-of-sale (POS) supplier, and payments firm Blackhawk. As a result, the following companies will be accepting Bitcoin as a method of payment later this year:




Like l said, some people just complain and focus on the price volatility (while ignoring the price issues of their own currencies), while we don't care and just keep working and moving forward


----------



## Rassah (Apr 7, 2022)

RachelDawes said:


> Okay you’re highly invested in Bitcoin. That only explains all the more why you push so hard for it.


You're highly invested in the internet. That's why you push people who don't have it to use it too. Right?
I push people to use Bitcoin for the same reason anyone tells anyone else about good tech or ideas. If you think I'm doing it because I hope you buy it and it makes my Bitcoin go up, LOL! no XD. If everyone on this forum bought it, the price wouldn't make a blip. I think if everyone on FurAffinity bought it with all their savings it wouldn't make a blip. You need more than $100,000,000 all bought at the same time for it to actually move the price. It makes no difference to me whether you buy Bitcoin.


----------



## Rassah (Apr 7, 2022)

RachelDawes said:


> Oh look chain retailers that can survive and handle price volatility. Wonder how it would impact the dear mom and pop shops who can’t handle their value being chunked overnight.


They don't even get the price volatility. If you pay with Cash App for example, it will take your USD, convert it to Bitcoin, send Bitcoin to them, and instantly convert it back to USD. How it will affect the mom and pop shops is that instead of using 1949 credit card tech and lose 3%+ on every transaction while having to wait days to a week to get their money, they will get all their payment and get it almost instantly.
Did you know that credit card payment technology was invented in 1949, and has not changed or improved technologically ever since? Every time you make a transaction, you still have like 5 different entities involved in that process, each taking a cut. They're all run by monopolies too (MasterCard, VISA, American Express, and Discover). Just like old landline telephone companies, they use really old tech, charge a lot of money, and have no reason to upgrade. Bitcoin is like Internet. Just as internet created a decentralized open source communication network to replace monopoly telephone companies, Bitcoin is an open source payment channel that is replacing those four payment networks. And anyone can build and innovate on it. As a customer I can pay with Cash App, Strike, Zap, Moon, Phoenix, BlueWallet, or any number of services that are coming out. And the merchant can use any number of payment processing services to receive and keep the Bitcoin or convert it to dollars or any other currency. Just like I can run any server and you can use any browser.

But people who don't know are still all "But it's volatile, and GASP you can make money off it if you hold it, so I shouldn't buy it."

By the way, dear mom and pop shops in South American and Caribbean countries are paying 7% or more on their credit card transaction fees. You don't care about mom and pop shops.


----------



## Rassah (Apr 10, 2022)

My Prius is having a bidding war and it's kind of ridiculous...








						The First Car Bought With Bitcoin | Scarce City
					

An online marketplace for Bitcoin goods and Bitcoin NFTs



					scarce.city


----------



## Draconas (Apr 15, 2022)

taking nearly a full minute to do a bitcoin transaction seems like a step backwards compared to the 5 or so seconds to whip out physical cash or my debit


----------



## TyraWadman (Apr 15, 2022)

Draconas said:


> taking nearly a full minute to do a bitcoin transaction seems like a step backwards compared to the 5 or so seconds to whip out physical cash or my debit



In Canada we have contactless payments. You just tap your bank card or hover it close to the device and it's done.


----------



## Draconas (Apr 15, 2022)

TyraWadman said:


> In Canada we have contactless payments. You just tap your bank card or hover it close to the device and it's done.


Funny that I was trying to use my phone to pay for subway yesterday but alas didn't work because I disabled NFC at some point (doh), it also takes less time to unlock my phone and hover it over the terminal than it did with the bitcoin beer


----------



## TyraWadman (Apr 15, 2022)

Draconas said:


> Funny that I was trying to use my phone to pay for subway yesterday but alas didn't work because I disabled NFC at some point (doh), it also takes less time to unlock my phone and hover it over the terminal than it did with the bitcoin beer


Oh yea! The phone payments too! Forgot about that. XD


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 17, 2022)

TyraWadman said:


> In Canada we have contactless payments. You just tap your bank card or hover it close to the device and it's done.


I thought all countries have that?


----------



## TyraWadman (Apr 17, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> I thought all countries have that?


They might now since COVID. I just know places like the u.s were slow to get it, which was surprising to me since Canada is usually the slow one to adopt these new features. X) 

(Walmart still doesn't have a delivery service here. )


----------



## Rassah (Apr 20, 2022)

Draconas said:


> taking nearly a full minute to do a bitcoin transaction seems like a step backwards compared to the 5 or so seconds to whip out physical cash or my debit


Try doing that with a bank transfer during non-business hours 
Of course the difference here is that this is equivalent of sending a wire, as opposed to using an IOU with 5 different entities as you do with a credit card. You're not just promising to pay the store days later as you do with cards and contactless payments, you're actually transferring all the money right there and then. Imagine all that wealth that is stuck in limbo around the world, the only purpose of which is to slowly settle those IOUs, being unleashed to provide actually USEFUL investments and services to the economy.
And transactions are getting faster too. So much so that, by the way, by the end of the year the following companies will let you pay with Bitcoin, and it'll be the new faster tech that gets the payment in seconds:


----------



## Rassah (Apr 20, 2022)

This is what the modern Bitcoin payment system looks like and how fast it works


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 20, 2022)

RachelDawes said:


> I don’t see people trying to twist the arms of others into buying the dollar, where as I have seen guys and commercials like you trying to sell this currency off to others, and not for your own altruism as you frame it as if more people buy then you ultimately win and increase your own worth on their back from doing nothing really.
> 
> *Also haven’t governments been seizing crypto including BTC from various vectors and criminal cases and such? *I am fairly certain if you google government seize Bitcoin there are some interesting finds.



There is something I don't get about the way people respond to this.
People often say 'No no; if you employ good practice cryptocurrencies cannot be seized by the police or authorities,' as if that is a good thing.

I_ want _the police to be able to disrupt criminal enterprises. Surely everybody wants that.

Is there a way that a cryptocurrency could be designed to ensure that criminal actions could be investigated, and that people using the network for criminal enterprises could be frozen out of it?


----------



## Rassah (Apr 20, 2022)

Those of us working in Bitcoin understand that those posting from the perspective of "I _want_ the police to seize people's money" are living in the height of privilege, where their countries are still free and police still enforce what people voted for.
It's very very white and western to think that way, in a world full of governments where police seize money only as a means for their dictators to oppress the people. "Criminal actions" there actually include things like sending money to family, funding an anti-war protest, or even allowing women to have a job and earn money. All these are against the law, and I know people who personally experienced having police confiscate their money for these "criminal" activities.
I wish people would grow out of their priviliged racist bubbles and realize that not all laws around the world are good, and not all "criminals" are actually criminals.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Apr 20, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> There is something I don't get about the way people respond to this.
> People often say 'No no; if you employ good practice cryptocurrencies cannot be seized by the police or authorities,' as if that is a good thing.
> 
> I_ want _the police to be able to disrupt criminal enterprises. Surely everybody wants that.
> ...


Blockchain by its nature makes it easier to trace criminal activity already, but different law enforcement agencies have technical methods of tracing cryptocurrency transactions, wallets, and exchanges. Legally, several countries and economic blocs have "know your customer" laws for cryptocurrencies exchanges which are designed to prevent criminal activity like ransom exchanges and money laundering. 

Ironically, the ongoing sanctions against Russia are pushing the cryptocurrency industry towards more professional reporting standards and stricter regulation.


----------



## Rassah (Apr 22, 2022)

It's predictable what will happen once Bitcoin takes over more and more as a direct form of payment, and there's no more need for exchanges. Can't do KYC on an app you just download.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Apr 23, 2022)

Rassah said:


> It's predictable what will happen once Bitcoin takes over more and more as a direct form of payment, and there's no more need for exchanges. Can't do KYC on an app you just download.


The company that developed the app, and presumably manages and maintains it, would be subject to the KYC regulations as a financial services company if it handle payments or any kind of financial transaction.


----------



## Rassah (Apr 24, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> The company that developed the app, and presumably manages and maintains it, would be subject to the KYC regulations as a financial services company if it handle payments or any kind of financial transaction.


The company doesn't handle the payments or any kind of financial transaction. They just make the app. All payments and financial transactions are handled by every person with the app. That's the big difference with Bitcoin: no one is handling anything other than the people doing the trading. Makes it hard for people used to the world of banks and credit cards to wrap their heads around.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Apr 24, 2022)

Rassah said:


> The company doesn't handle the payments or any kind of financial transaction. They just make the app. All payments and financial transactions are handled by every person with the app. That's the big difference with Bitcoin: no one is handling anything other than the people doing the trading. Makes it hard for people used to the world of banks and credit cards to wrap their heads around.


Yeah, but what I'm saying is, legally, the app is facilitating those payments and would be held responsible for transactions on the platform. Another legal matter is the app makers would be required by law in most countries to keep records of the financial transactions or they wouldn't be allowed to operate, since that is just basic anti-money policy and fraud protection. Also, realistically, it's unlikely that developers would make an app and not profit from ongoing maintenance and improvement to it either.  

The same laws that govern PayPal and Western Union would apply to the app company, which you should from working in finance.


----------



## Rassah (Apr 26, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Yeah, but what I'm saying is, legally, the app is facilitating those payments and would be held responsible for transactions on the platform. Another legal matter is the app makers would be required by law in most countries to keep records of the financial transactions or they wouldn't be allowed to operate, since that is just basic anti-money policy and fraud protection. Also, realistically, it's unlikely that developers would make an app and not profit from ongoing maintenance and improvement to it either.
> 
> The same laws that govern PayPal and Western Union would apply to the app company, which you should from working in finance.


The app, or rather the user of the app is facilitating those payments, not the app developers. It's like developers of a Word Document editor not being responsible for what someone uses to write with it. Except in this case the written document is a transaction announcement transferring money that is broadcast to everyone.
App developers don't operate the app. Unlike PayPal and Western Union they never handle, touch, or even see the money. They don't even have a way to know whether their app is being used to transfer money. All they see is that people download it. It's really no different from a clothing company making wallets and letting people put whatever cash they want into it. As for making money, a lot of them are open source, free apps developed by groups of developers (like Linux), and some earn money through ads or marketing other services within the app, where again they don't actually handle the money, they just connect businesses with people.

The WHOLE POINT of Bitcoin is that no one is in control of your money but you. Which you should have known considering you've been posting as some authority on Bitcoin and why it won't work for a while now...


----------



## Rassah (Apr 26, 2022)

Actually I can literally write a Bitcoin transaction in notepad.exe, using a digital signature from memory, and broadcast it to the network, thus spending money. I don't think Microsoft should be held responsible for that despite them facilitating payments by creating notepad.exe


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Apr 26, 2022)

Rassah said:


> The app, or rather the user of the app is facilitating those payments, not the app developers. It's like developers of a Word Document editor not being responsible for what someone uses to write with it. Except in this case the written document is a transaction announcement transferring money that is broadcast to everyone.
> App developers don't operate the app. Unlike PayPal and Western Union they never handle, touch, or even see the money. They don't even have a way to know whether their app is being used to transfer money. All they see is that people download it. It's really no different from a clothing company making wallets and letting people put whatever cash they want into it. As for making money, a lot of them are open source, free apps developed by groups of developers (like Linux), and some earn money through ads or marketing other services within the app, where again they don't actually handle the money, they just connect businesses with people.
> 
> The WHOLE POINT of Bitcoin is that no one is in control of your money but you. Which you should have known considering you've been posting as some authority on Bitcoin and why it won't work for a while now...


Yeah, what you're not understanding or pretending not to understand (because you need to know for financial licensing exams and if you're working in finance in general) is that the app developers would be forced, by law, to assume responsibility for the app ... because the app is being used to execute financial transactions and virtually every country requires any entity that handles financial transactions to meet basic reporting standards to combat tax evasion and illicit financial activity.

Your analogy comparing an app handling financial transactions to actual wallet is ill-conceived because ... a wallet doesn't help you execute payments and just holds your money.

While I understand elements of Bitcoin and its market, you probably know the ins and outs of it more. What I do have some authority is finance and financial regulation because I've have to go through the financial licensing exam process, which you had to as well too.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Apr 26, 2022)

Rassah said:


> Actually I can literally write a Bitcoin transaction in notepad.exe, using a digital signature from memory, and broadcast it to the network, thus spending money. I don't think Microsoft should be held responsible for that despite them facilitating payments by creating notepad.exe


You would be held responsible ... because you wrote the code, not Microsoft.

But to nitpick a little more, the application you'd use to transmit the information to the network could be held responsible.


----------



## Rassah (Apr 27, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Yeah, what you're not understanding or pretending not to understand (because you need to know for financial licensing exams and if you're working in finance in general) is that the app developers would be forced, by law, to assume responsibility for the app ... because the app is being used to execute financial transactions and virtually every country requires any entity that *HANDLES* financial transactions to meet basic reporting standards to combat tax evasion and illicit financial activity.


Yes, I do know the law. Not only am I working in finance but I have my own ATM and finance company, so I know what I have to follow and what needs to be reported. I'm telling you the app developers aren't responsible or required to report anything. That big bold word there is key: developers DON'T HANDLE financial transactions. No more than leather wallet companies. The person running the app locally on their own phone, PC, or some hardware device does all the handling and transacting themselves. Even if app developers were compelled to report by law, they wouldn't be able to do so, because they don't get any information about their customers or transactions.


Miles Marsalis said:


> Your analogy comparing an app handling financial transactions to actual wallet is ill-conceived because ... a wallet doesn't help you execute payments and just holds your money.


It does. A wallet holds your paper cash, and helps you execute transactions by letting you take the papers out of it to give to someone else. Wallet app does the same, helping you hold Bitcoin and take it out of your wallet to give it to someone else.


Miles Marsalis said:


> While I understand elements of Bitcoin and its market, you probably know the ins and outs of it more. What I do have some authority is finance and financial regulation because I've have to go through the financial licensing exam process, which you had to as well too.



Cool. Then think of how exactly the app developer is involved. He publishes the code, which he can even do in the form of a book, and the user who compiles and uses that code never contacts the developer for any reason. All the transactions to receive and send money get published to the public Bitcoin blockchain network, not to the app developer. The app developer can't stop any transactions or monitor them because once the code is out there, he's not involved in any way anymore.



Miles Marsalis said:


> You would be held responsible ... because you wrote the code, not Microsoft.
> 
> But to nitpick a little more, the application you'd use to transmit the information to the network could be held responsible.



Right. In the same way that you would be responsible for composing an publishing the Bitcoin transaction with your app, not the developer. Since the application is code and code is protected under free speech laws (at least in US), the developer could be considered as someone who simply published text and not responsible for what someone else does with it.

Since a Bitcoin transaction is simply publicly broadcast information, I'm looking forward to a legal case where Bitcoin is found to be free speech too. Money as speech even moreso than the previous case.

And, this is what makes Bitcoin so powerful. There are no gatekeepers like banks. No one can decide that you're too poor, too gay, or too much of a specific race to deny you from opening an account, and no one can decide that you shouldn't be able to send your money to someone for whatever reason.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Apr 27, 2022)

@Rassah , I'm pretty sure you know KYC laws would apply to the hypothetical based on your finance experience and time as product manager, or should, so you know that, by law, developers can't just put an app that facilitates financial transactions and not claim responsibility for the financial transactions on it along with not adhering to KYC laws. 

Just to clarify, all financial institutions in the United States are subject to KYC laws and even most major cryptocurrency exchanges deal in "fiat-to-cryptocurrency" transactions have adopted in anticipation of the pending regulation of the cryptocurrency industry.

Furthermore, I'd would think would support KYC laws governing cryptocurrency exchanges and financial institution since they cut down on fraud and criminal activity in the space and no one wants to use an unsecured app for financial transactions.


----------



## Rassah (Apr 28, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> @Rassah , I'm pretty sure you know KYC laws would apply to the hypothetical based on your finance experience and time as product manager, or should, so you know that, by law, developers can't just put an app that facilitates financial transactions and not claim responsibility for the financial transactions on it along with not adhering to KYC laws.
> 
> Just to clarify, all financial institutions in the United States are subject to KYC laws and even most major cryptocurrency exchanges deal in "fiat-to-cryptocurrency" transactions have adopted in anticipation of the pending regulation of the cryptocurrency industry.
> 
> Furthermore, I'd would think would support KYC laws governing cryptocurrency exchanges and financial institution since they cut down on fraud and criminal activity in the space and no one wants to use an unsecured app for financial transactions.


KYC laws don't apply to app developers because they don't handle the money or facilitate the transactions. As I keep repeating, they are no more involved in a Bitcoin transaction than Louis Vuitton is involved in a leather wallet cash transactions.

KYC laws do apply, and in US they are the responsibility of whoever is actually facilitating the transaction. That means the user of the wallet app. If you trade more than a certain threshold of Bitcoin for cash, or USD for some other currency (like EUR), you yourself are required to collect the KYC information, and if the amount is more than the $10k equivalent you're supposed to submit a report with the other person's info to FinCEN. Which will get interesting once inflation makes $10k a fairly common trade amount. But just as almost no individuals follow KYC when they buy stuff with cash, almost none do with Bitcoin. Companies do that though. They don't do it because of "pending regulation" but because Bitcoin is already regulated. Bitcoin in US is subject to already existing corral regulations. The myth that it's unregulated is a myth  and no more are necessary.

I don't support KYC. It creates massive problems. Every one of those companies that is now forced to collect that information is now a massive target for hackers to expose and steal our identity or worse. All that KYC laws resulted in is a tiny bit increase in security in exchange for putting all of us at massive risk. And since KYC can't even be enforced with anonymous Bitcoin transactions, the only result is that those who follow the law are at a huge risk, and criminals aren't affected anyway.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Apr 28, 2022)

Rassah said:


> KYC laws don't apply to app developers because they don't handle the money or facilitate the transactions. As I keep repeating, they are no more involved in a Bitcoin transaction than Louis Vuitton is involved in a leather wallet cash transactions.
> 
> KYC laws do apply, and in US they are the responsibility of whoever is actually facilitating the transaction. That means the user of the wallet app. If you trade more than a certain threshold of Bitcoin for cash, or USD for some other currency (like EUR), you yourself are required to collect the KYC information, and if the amount is more than the $10k equivalent you're supposed to submit a report with the other person's info to FinCEN. Which will get interesting once inflation makes $10k a fairly common trade amount. But just as almost no individuals follow KYC when they buy stuff with cash, almost none do with Bitcoin. Companies do that though. They don't do it because of "pending regulation" but because Bitcoin is already regulated. Bitcoin in US is subject to already existing corral regulations. The myth that it's unregulated is a myth  and no more are necessary.
> 
> I don't support KYC. It creates massive problems. Every one of those companies that is now forced to collect that information is now a massive target for hackers to expose and steal our identity or worse. All that KYC laws resulted in is a tiny bit increase in security in exchange for putting all of us at massive risk. And since KYC can't even be enforced with anonymous Bitcoin transactions, the only result is that those who follow the law are at a huge risk, and criminals aren't affected anyway.


If you can make payment with the app, it is legally classified as a payment facilitator and subject to KYC laws; PayPal and Apple Pay are both apps that are required to meet that standard, along with the other payments apps excluding certain apps that purely deal with cryptocurrencies for the time being until pending legislation passes.









						KYC Requirements for Payment Facilitators - Infinicept
					

KYC “know your customer,” procedures that payment providers us to understand who their customers are, what their businesses do and risk they represent.




					www.infinicept.com
				












						Know Your Client (KYC)
					

Know Your Client (KYC) are a set of standards used in the investment services industry to verify customers and their risk and financial profiles.




					www.investopedia.com
				




Your beliefs don't into play here nor do my opinions; it's literally the law, whether you accept it or not.


----------



## Rassah (Apr 29, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> If you can make payment with the app, it is legally classified as a payment facilitator and subject to KYC laws;


The app is the facilitator, not the app maker.



Miles Marsalis said:


> PayPal and Apple Pay are both apps that are required to meet that standard, along with the other payments apps excluding certain apps that purely deal with cryptocurrencies for the time being until pending legislation passes.


PayPal Developer makes the PayPal app. They aren't the facilitator of transactions. PayPal Payments facilitates the transactions. The app sends them instructions to send the money, they hold the money and manage the payment. They as a money service and money transfer business are required to file regulatory standards, not the app developer. Same deal here, the Bitcoin wallet app developers don't hold or manage the money. They have no control over it even if they wanted to. There is literally no way for them to even find out who is using their app, how much money they are holding, and whom they are sending it to. The Bitcoin network handles all that. Bitcoin was SPECIFICALLY designed to be decentralized that way so that NO ONE was in control, and thus no one controls anyone's money or restricts anyone's access to finances.




Miles Marsalis said:


> KYC Requirements for Payment Facilitators - Infinicept
> 
> 
> KYC “know your customer,” procedures that payment providers us to understand who their customers are, what their businesses do and risk they represent.
> ...



These aren't my beliefs. I'm literally telling you the law. The app developers are NOT the facilitators of financial transactions any more than Microsoft is the author of Word documents.
Some of my friends were arrested and went to jail for a few years because the law changed on them. And I mentioned I run a company that has to follow these regulations, with my business partner being one of the two top lawyers in crypto space. The only part we're legally involved in and are required to comply with is when Bitcoin is deposited into our account or taken out by someone. In that case we have to follow KYC regs because we're dealing directly with the money and facilitating transactions ourselves. The company that wrote the Bitcoin software that we run (Bitcoin Core) is not the facilitating anything, so they don't report anything and don't even know we run their software. Listen to the guy who knows this law, how it applies to Bitcoin, and how Bitcoin works.


----------



## Rassah (Apr 29, 2022)

And also maybe realize why this makes Bitcoin truly great and unique. Bitcoin, the network, facilitates transactions, and you can regulate, sue, and jail it about as well as you can jail the internet.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Apr 29, 2022)

Rassah said:


> PayPal Developer makes the PayPal app. They aren't the facilitator of transactions. PayPal Payments facilitates the transactions. The app sends them instructions to send the money, they hold the money and manage the payment. They as a money service and money transfer business are required to file regulatory standards, not the app developer. Same deal here, the Bitcoin wallet app developers don't hold or manage the money. They have no control over it even if they wanted to. There is literally no way for them to even find out who is using their app, how much money they are holding, and whom they are sending it to. The Bitcoin network handles all that. Bitcoin was SPECIFICALLY designed to be decentralized that way so that NO ONE was in control, and thus no one controls anyone's money or restricts anyone's access to finances.


PayPal is legally defined as a payment facilitator; if the purpose of site or app is to enable people to make payments, receive payments, and execution financial transactions ... it's a payment facilitator. The entire operation is meant to be in compliance with KYC laws, including the app side. There are literally legal and consulting services which recognize and reference PayPal's status as a payment facilitator. 





__





						Why It Pays to Be a Payment Facilitator | TSYS
					

Understand what payment facilitators are all about and discover what payment facilitation can do for your business. Read today.




					www.tsys.com
				




You have too much experience in the financial sector to be making this inaccurate distinction accidentally, so I can only assume you're doing it deliberately. Anyone who works in finance or any corporate lawyer would contradict what you are saying about PayPal and apps not being beholden to KYC laws.

Furthermore, part of what I'm saying to you is that to comply with KYC laws, the developers of the type of app you're describing would have build out infrastructure to collect information and verification from their customers to be in compliance with the law.



Rassah said:


> Some of my friends were arrested and went to jail for a few years because the law changed on them. And I mentioned I run a company that has to follow these regulations, with my business partner being one of the two top lawyers in crypto space. The only part we're legally involved in and are required to comply with is when Bitcoin is deposited into our account or taken out by someone. In that case we have to follow KYC regs because we're dealing directly with the money and facilitating transactions ourselves. The company that wrote the Bitcoin software that we run (Bitcoin Core) is not the facilitating anything, so they don't report anything and don't even know we run their software. Listen to the guy who knows this law, how it applies to Bitcoin, and how Bitcoin works.


I'd like you explain why your friends were convicted before I even begin to comment on that, so I'm not touching that. However, the company that wrote the software you run would to the party liable to KYC laws ... you and the business's operators would be responsible since your business is managing and using the software to facilitate payments.

Like, I hope (or not) you have legal counsel actually versed in corporate law and not the crypto clown lawyers I've often seen representing the firms in the space, especially given your brushes with the SEC.


----------



## Rassah (Apr 29, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> PayPal is legally defined as a payment facilitator; if the purpose of site or app is to enable people to make payments, receive payments, and execution financial transactions ... it's a payment facilitator.


The app isn't the facilitator. The company that holds your money that directs funds to be transferred is the facilitator. The app just communicates your intention to the company.



Miles Marsalis said:


> The entire operation is meant to be in compliance with KYC laws, including the app side. There are literally legal and consulting services which recognize and reference PayPal's status as a payment facilitator.


Yep. PayPal holds your money. That money you see in your PayPal app? It's not in your phone, it's in PayPal's bank account. They control it. They facilitate payments, and can freeze or seize it. With a Bitcoin app there's no people or company on the other side. Your Bitcoin aren't in some company's account, they're very literally on your phone.



Miles Marsalis said:


> You have too much experience in the financial sector to be making this inaccurate distinction accidentally, so I can only assume you're doing it deliberately.


The distinction isn't inaccurate. I'm deliberately telling you the law as the authority on this matter. 



Miles Marsalis said:


> Anyone who works in finance or any corporate lawyer would contradict what you are saying about PayPal and apps not being beholden to KYC laws.


As I said, Bitcoin wallet apps and PayPal are different in that PayPal the company holds your money, while with Bitcoin you're the one holding your money. Bitcoin app developers aren't even aware of your payments and have no way to be aware of them. 
I can give you a number of lawyers you can contact to verify. Or if you don't trust my sources, feel free to provide your own to verify.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Furthermore, part of what I'm saying to you is that to comply with KYC laws, the developers of the type of app you're describing would have build out infrastructure to collect information and verification from their customers to be in compliance with the law.


They don't. They can't. The "infrastructure" is the Bitcoin network. All anyone has to do to facilitate payments on it is to just publicly post a cryptographically signed transaction to the network. That's it. I can do it as a KYC compliant regulated company on your behalf, or you can do it yourself using an app, or even notepad.exe. That wasn't an analogy when I mentioned notepad.exe. I can literally write and post a transaction using that app. And it would be absurd to hold Microsoft responsible.



Miles Marsalis said:


> I'd like you explain why your friends were convicted before I even begin to comment on that, so I'm not touching that.


He was running a business where people could buy Bitcoin for cash, before regulators declared Bitcoin an asset like money and decided it should follow KYC regulations for trades over a certain amount. Back then it was just a collectible token. Since financial regulators are able to backdate regulations, once they decided that Bitcoin trades should be subject to financial laws, they arrested him and a few others for selling a lot of it to someone without doing the required background check on him. That was it. It's like someone selling Pokemon cards and then FinCEN deciding Pokemon cards are money and thus everyone who sold them without KYC is a criminal.



Miles Marsalis said:


> However, the company that wrote the software you run would to the party liable to KYC laws


They're not. The software is Bitcoin Core. You can download it here https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/
You install it, it connects to the Bitcoin network and creates an account (wallet) for you, and you're immediately able to receive and send Bitcoin by creating and broadcasting transactions to the public network (enter amount and address to pay to, hit send, that's it). Tens of thousands of these running around the world, no KYC collected by the company. They wouldn't even be able to enforce KYC if they tried. As I said, it's impossible, because accounts don't get opened through them, and transactions don't go through them. They get posted pseudonymously by the app directly to the public blockchain network.




Miles Marsalis said:


> ... you and the business's operators would be responsible since your business is managing and using the software to facilitate payments.


We are responsible because we handle exchange of funds. Like that word you use, we *facilitate* the payments. When users use that software themselves, *they* facilitate the payments. The software company has nothing to do with it.



Miles Marsalis said:


> PLike, I hope (or not) you have legal counsel actually versed in corporate law and not the crypto clown lawyers I've often seen representing the firms in the space, especially given your brushes with the SEC.



What "crypto clowns" have you seen? What have they done? I had no brushes with SEC. We're following all required regulations.
With regards to Bitcoin, try it yourself if you still don't believe me. Download any non-custodial Bitcoin wallet, like Muun. You'll see that it doesn't ask for any of your personal information. Even if it did, and the company making the app collected it, it would be useless, since all transactions aren't going through the app developer. There is literally no way for the app developer to associate your transactions with your KYC information, since they never see your transactions.


----------



## Rassah (Apr 30, 2022)

Maybe a more technical explanation of its workings will help:

• Bitcoin is just a list of accounts and ballances on a database.
• There are tens of thousands of copies of those databases on the internet, all synchronized and talking to each other.
• You can keep a copy of that database yourself, or connect to anyone else's.
• Every account in the database has a public account number (Bitcoin address), and a digital signature used to prove ownership of the account.
• Only the owners of the account know the password, called the private key, to create that digital signature.
• The private key can be stored on a person's phone app, a piece of paper, or even just memorized in their head.
• In order to create an account to receive Bitcoin to, all you have to do is come up with a private key (usually 12 random words) and send it through a math function to get the associated Bitcoin address. You don't even need to be connected to the internet. You just put the private key as a variable in the math function and it spits out your account address.
• In order to send Bitcoin to any account, like the one created in the last step, you just have to write a transaction that instructs to send Bitcoin from an existing account to a new one, and sign it with the private key associated with that account.
• Once its signed, you send that transaction to any of those thousands of databases, which verify that the balance exists and the private key digital signature is correct, and then synchronizes that information with everyone else.
• Once that happens, all the databases now list the sending account as having a bit less money, and your newly created account now has a brand new entry showing it has funds to spend from.

That's pretty much it. You can even do all of this with a paper and pencil to get your receiving account address or to create transactions. Only thing needed to publish the result is a connection to one of those databases. A Bitcoin wallet app just makes all that easier by calculating and storing that private key for you, and then calculating and broadcasting the transaction for you. All that is done in the background and all you'll see is your Bitcoin address to receive to, and a method to send that only asks for an address and amount to send to.
Oh, and the people running the databases aren't liable for the transactions either, because
1. They exist on the global internet, and even if some country bans running them, you can connect to any one of the thousands in other countries. There are also lots of these databases behind Tor where there's no way to know where they are.
2. None of those databases know if the transaction you're submitting is a new one you're making, or if you're just another database forwarding a transaction you heard from another database.

Legally they're not facilitating transactions. They're just updating themselves with the current balance status. The person writing the transaction is still the one facilitating it. And the app developer isn't involved in any way. The app is effectively a fancy calculator with a nice GUI, which calculates private keys, public account addresses, and transaction signatures for you.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Apr 30, 2022)

@Rassah , you're describing the mechanics of Bitcoin, but not acknowledging the legalities governing exchanges and payment facilitators. I'm familiar with the mechanics; I've haven't been guessing and I've only Googled for evidence post to back up what I've been saying. However, I'm wondering if you're aware of these developments:









						What Is KYC and Why Does It Matter For Crypto?
					

KYC measures are now a must for any crypto platform looking to offer services in jurisdictions like the U.S., Australia and the U.K. as regulators clamp down on anonymous crypto transactions.




					www.coindesk.com
				




Also, as the article points out, KYC measures are mandatory for any cryptocurrency firm offering services in the US, UK, or Australia, as well as other jurisdictions, with the exception being decentralized exchanges where the trades are organized through smart contracts. So unless your app operates along those lines, you need to be complaint with KYC laws.

As side note, I remember you saying you and friends had "experiences" with the SEC and you went on rant about how you can't sell securities without registering with the SEC.


Rassah said:


> P.S. My friends and I have a different experience with SEC and their enforcement.



You could clarify that.


----------



## Rassah (May 1, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> @Rassah , you're describing the mechanics of Bitcoin, but not acknowledging the legalities governing exchanges and payment facilitators.


Wrong. I'm explaining that app developers are not exchanges or payment facilitators. Exchanges and custodial wallets that hold your money and facilitate payments are required to follow AML/KYC regulations. Wallet app developers don't facilitate payments and are thus not. This is legal advice.



Miles Marsalis said:


> However, I'm wondering if you're aware of these developments:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes. These aren't "developments." It's not new. Platforms that offer services, where they hold your money and coordinate trades between people, have always been subject to KYC regulations, as long as Bitcoin has been recognized as money OR as long as one side of the trade for Bitcoin involved government money. Bitcoin wallet apps aren't platforms run by app developers, so this doesn't apply to them, and can't be made to apply to them even if government wanted it to. It's just impossible. There is literally no way for an app developer to collect KYC information on someone using their app, or to track their money transfers.


Miles Marsalis said:


> As side note, I remember you saying you and friends had "experiences" with the SEC and you went on rant about how you can't sell securities without registering with the SEC.
> 
> 
> 
> You could clarify that.


Oh. Besides SEC being very sketchy about what they decide should be allowed to be legally sold as a security, where they seem to be basing those decisions based on connections and benefits rather than law and logic, they're also corrupt, have deep ties to the NYC mafia, play favorites where they let some people get away with gross violations while arresting others for minor ones, and even threaten you with assassination if you don't join and play by their corruption playbook.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (May 1, 2022)

Rassah said:


> Oh. Besides SEC being very sketchy about what they decide should be allowed to be legally sold as a security, where they seem to be basing those decisions based on connections and benefits rather than law and logic, they're also corrupt, *have deep ties to the NYC mafia*, play favorites where they let some people get away with gross violations while arresting others for minor ones, *and even threaten you with assassination if you don't join and play by their corruption playbook*.


I'm beginning with this, since this is nuts.

Yeah, SEC can lax in pursuing violations of securities laws and bigger firms have the potential to get away with more, but obviously the agency is not in bed with mafia (and there is no "NYC mafia", though there are a variety of organized crime groups here). The SEC is DEFINITELY not threatening people with assassinations.

There some room for reform at the SEC, but they prevent fraudulent securities from being offered to the American public and they're not cooperating with criminal elements or threatening assassinations.

Yes. These aren't "developments." It's not new. Platforms that offer services, where they hold your money and coordinate trades between people, have always been subject to KYC regulations, as long as Bitcoin has been recognized as money OR as long as one side of the trade for Bitcoin involved government money. Bitcoin wallet apps aren't platforms run by app developers, so this doesn't apply to them, and can't be made to apply to them even if government wanted it to. It's just impossible. There is literally no way for an app developer to collect KYC information on someone using their app, or to track their money transfers.

Furthermore, what you said about Bitcoin payment processors doesn't jive with FinCEN guidance, which is actual legal advice.









						FinCEN Rules Bitcoin Payment Processors, Exchanges are Money Transmitters
					

FinCEN releases new guidance for custodial bitcoin exchanges and payment processors, ruling them money services businesses under US law.




					www.coindesk.com


----------



## Rassah (May 2, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I'm beginning with this, since this is nuts.


It does sound like it, doesn't it. Like all powerful corrupt agencies, they obviously try to keep this under wraps, otherwise the plebs would freak out. Or considering recent events, maybe just shrug it off...



Miles Marsalis said:


> Yeah, SEC can lax in pursuing violations of securities laws and bigger firms have the potential to get away with more, but obviously the agency is not in bed with mafia (and there is no "NYC mafia", though there are a variety of organized crime groups here). The SEC is DEFINITELY not threatening people with assassinations.


How do you know? Just something you feel and refuse to believe to be true?



Miles Marsalis said:


> There some room for reform at the SEC, but they prevent fraudulent securities from being offered to the American public and they're not cooperating with criminal elements or threatening assassinations.


Well, it's a public fact that they're not preventing fraudulent securities from being offered to the public (like naked shorts) and actually push for the opposite, so that's wrong already...



Miles Marsalis said:


> Furthermore, what you said about Bitcoin payment processors doesn't jive with FinCEN guidance, which is actual legal advice.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What did I say that doesn't jive? Be specific.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (May 2, 2022)

Rassah said:


> It does sound like it, doesn't it. Like all powerful corrupt agencies, they obviously try to keep this under wraps, otherwise the plebs would freak out. Or considering recent events, maybe just shrug it off...





Rassah said:


> How do you know? Just something you feel and refuse to believe to be true?


I'm real certain that SEC is not in collusion with organized crime elements and I'm damn certain they're not threatening to assassinate people. 

It's just not happening. 

But if you have evidence of this, which I'll be waiting for with rapt attention, post it and then go to the press, lmao.



Rassah said:


> Well, it's a public fact that they're not preventing fraudulent securities from being offered to the public (like naked shorts) and actually push for the opposite, so that's wrong already...


Naked shorting does happen, but it is very much illegal now and has been since the Great Recession. The SEC has banned the practice and referred people for criminal charges based on violations of that ban. It is absurd to say they push for naked shorting.

To refresh your memory: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nakedshorting.asp



Rassah said:


> What did I say that doesn't jive? Be specific.



Where to begin? 



> The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has released new guidance for custodial bitcoin exchanges and *payment processors, ruling that such companies may be considered money services businesses under US law.*





> In a response to twin letters submitted in late 2013, the chief US money laundering and terrorist financing regulator explained that bitcoin exchanges may be money transmitters, even if they only match buyers and sellers on their platform. *Further, the letters suggest this is true, even if the exchanges behave more like traditional securities or commodities exchanges, where no money is transferred between the company and any counterparty.*





> While the first of today's issuances may have been expected by those following the space, *the more surprising update is perhaps that such guidance could apply to bitcoin processors as well as exchanges.
> The finding is notable as big companies in the sector like BitPay have indicated in the past that their services are exempt from FinCEN's guidance as they facilitate purchases between consumers and merchants, only accepting and transmitting funds as necessary to the sale.*


----------



## Rassah (May 3, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I'm real certain that SEC is not in collusion with organized crime elements and I'm damn certain they're not threatening to assassinate people.
> 
> It's just not happening.
> 
> But if you have evidence of this, which I'll be waiting for with rapt attention, post it and then go to the press, lmao.


So, you're just saying that it's not happening because you just wish it doesn't. Not because of anything you know or experienced. In other words you don't know but you INSIST that you know and that you should be listened to.

I know because I have friends and acquaintances in high places, some of whom took their big corps public, and then had "the negotiator" stop by explaining how things are going to work and what they have to agree to, and then when they refused to, had "the negotiator" stop by to explain to them what is going to happen to them if they don't comply, or they had phone calls from certain unscrupulousness underground call them with certain threats, or they actually had attempts on their life that they stopped thanks to their bodyguards and security.

I love that Elon Musk quote, about how we see the world from a different level of perception. You still live in a nice would where things are like they're supposed to be and how we're told they are, and I live among those at the top where I've, ahem, seen things.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Naked shorting does happen, but it is very much illegal now and has been since the Great Recession. The SEC has banned the practice and referred people for criminal charges based on violations of that ban. It is absurd to say they push for naked shorting.


It's, uh, way way worse now than it was before 2008. This is just but one glimpse








						What Traders Need To Know About GameStop And Naked Short Selling - GameStop (NYSE:GME)
					

GameStop Corporation (NYSE: GME) and AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc (NYSE: AMC) were the targets of a




					m.benzinga.com
				



but the practice is so bad that the entire stock market is a precariously teetering house of cards. I may have mentioned before, knowing what I know is why I can no longer in good faiy advocate for people to invest in the stock market.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Where to begin?


Yeah, again, all of that pertains to exchanges and custodial account. It doesn't apply to Bitcoin wallet companies. The companies who make them don't have custody of your coins like PayPal does.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (May 3, 2022)

Rassah said:


> So, you're just saying that it's not happening because you just wish it doesn't. Not because of anything you know or experienced. In other words you don't know but you INSIST that you know and that you should be listened to.
> 
> I know because I have friends and acquaintances in high places, some of whom took their big corps public, and then had "the negotiator" stop by explaining how things are going to work and what they have to agree to, and then when they refused to, had "the negotiator" stop by to explain to them what is going to happen to them if they don't comply, or they had phone calls from certain unscrupulousness underground call them with certain threats, or they actually had attempts on their life that they stopped thanks to their bodyguards and security.
> 
> I love that Elon Musk quote, about how we see the world from a different level of perception. You still live in a nice would where things are like they're supposed to be and how we're told they are, and I live among those at the top where I've, ahem, seen things.


I'll be to the point.

You're bullshitting.

Give me a news article and clip that shows the SEC:

1. Has been colluding or has bona fide links with organized crime.

2. Has threatened to assassinate someone. Anyone.

What you're purporting should've been newsworthy, so actual proof shouldn't be hard to produce.



Rassah said:


> It's, uh, way way worse now than it was before 2008. This is just but one glimpse
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is at best a fringe position given how important and normally secure stocks are, but you implied the SEC was deliberately encouraging naked shorts ... which is wrong because they've specifically been banned after the Great Recession.

Could enforcement be improved? Sure. But you don't ban and charge people for violations for an activity you're trying to encourage.



Rassah said:


> Yeah, again, all of that pertains to exchanges and custodial account. It doesn't apply to Bitcoin wallet companies. The companies who make them don't have custody of your coins like PayPal does.


The FINCen guidance pertains to wallets, which are considered payment processors and facilitators under the new guidance.


----------



## The_Happiest_Husky (May 3, 2022)

bitcoin
bitcon
bicon
bacon

yum


----------



## Rassah (May 3, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I'll be to the point.
> 
> You're bullshitting.


I'll get to the point.

I'm not and have no reason to. You just think of yourself as an expert on, I guess, everything, so you think what you say makes you an authority on a subject, and if someone says something different, then it's they who must be wrong, not you (like your barely informed opinions on Bitcoin and financial laws related to it that you keep positing). And I know people, you don't.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Give me a news article and clip that shows the SEC:
> 
> 1. Has been colluding or has bona fide links with organized crime.
> 
> ...


Why do you think this would be newsworthy? Obviously this would be kept hush hush. Obviously anyone claiming to the contrary would be met with denials, or worse they would attack them for being crazy or something (or killed). But I know people. For instance I know this guy: https://www.wired.com/2014/02/rise-fall-rise-patrick-byrne/
I also know others who have similar stories/warnings. And those lawyers I mentioned I know? They're not "clown attorneys" or whatever you called them, they're also guys with very high level Washington connections who also know of some these issues. It's why they're top lawyers: they know what to deal with.




Miles Marsalis said:


> That is at best a fringe position given how important and normally secure stocks are, but you implied the SEC was deliberately encouraging naked shorts ... which is wrong because they've specifically been banned after the Great Recession.
> 
> Could enforcement be improved? Sure. But you don't ban and charge people for violations for an activity you're trying to encourage.


It's a fringe position because most people don't do the data research needed to discover this kind of stuff. Hell, most people don't even understand investing period. "Fringe" doesn't make it less valid, since facts aren't based on popular opinion 
But the CES, they don't charge if it's people they're okay with doing it. As a lot of regulatory agencies do, they allow some of the things that are "illegal" to continue to exist in exchange for kickbacks, and hold the company doing it hostage, making them keep doing it to keep them paying. And if the company stops, then they charge and arrest them. Remember Enron? That's exactly what was happening there too, where the regulator was getting lots of kickbacks from the company in exchange for looking the other way, as long as the company kept giving them kickbacks. Thanks to Enron exploding like it did, you can find a lot more about this in reports on that.



Miles Marsalis said:


> The FINCen guidance pertains to wallets, which are considered payment processors and facilitators under the new guidance.



No, it pertains to exchanges and custodial accounts, including custodial wallets like Coinbase wallet, where the app runs on your phone but the Bitcoin keys and actual funds are stored on Coinbase's servers. Similar to how PayPal works. It DOES NOT apply to normal non-custodial wallets where the keys and funds are stored on your phone. Without the app maker even knowing that you have the app or being aware of the transactions you're making.
This isn't an argument. This isn't my opinion. I'm stating a legal fact there. I know this and you're wrong.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (May 3, 2022)

Rassah said:


> I'll get to the point.
> 
> I'm not and have no reason to. You just think of yourself as an expert on, I guess, everything, so you think what you know makes you an authority on a subject, and if someone says something different, then they must be wrong, not you (like your barely informed opinions on Bitcoin and financial laws related to it that you keep positing as the authoritative claim on the matter. I know people, you don't.


I wouldn't bill myself as an expert, actually; you've worked in the industry for longer than I've been work since I graduated university, so I'd assume you at least possess more knowledge about cryptocurrencies than I do. 

That said, I only speak on what I know for certain about Bitcoin and my areas of expertise are economics and computer science. I do, however, know about financial regulation, because it is was an area of study for me in university and I've know the regulation for my job as an management consultant. I've also been finished my financial licensing exams, which cover these regulations and which you completed. 

So I know enough to say when someone is bullshiting about those regulations and the SEC. 

Like with a lot of the assertions you've made here, you have no concrete proof that SEC has criminal links or has threatened people with murder. 

You just threw out those absurd assertions, which  you definitely wouldn't mention in a professional environment, to justify some fringe viewpoint.

If you want to convince me, or anyone, of what you're saying about the SEC, provide proof.

It's not that hard.



Rassah said:


> Why do you think this would be newsworthy? Obviously this would be kept hush hush. Obviously anyone claiming to the contrary would be met with denials, or worse, they would attack them for being crazy or something. But I know people. For instance I know this guy: https://www.wired.com/2014/02/rise-fall-rise-patrick-byrne/
> I also know others who have similar stories/warnings. And those lawyers I mentioned I know? They're not "clown attorneys" or whatever you called them, they're also guys with very high level Washington connections who also know of some these issues. It's why they're top lawyers: they know what to deal with.


Paul Byrne is a libertarian conspiracy theorist ... who coincidentally accused a hedge fund and equities firm of naked shorting, which is an extremely serious accusation ... and then couldn't provide any names or evidence.



> *Byrne sparked controversy in August 2005 by accusing a number of investment bankers, financial journalists and hedge fund managers of collaborating to ruin the reputations of companies to profit when their stock prices tumbled. Byrne claimed that his online store was victimized by such a scheme. In a now infamous 2005 conference call, he said the conspiracy was overseen by a mastermind he compared to a "Sith Lord" out of the Star Wars movies.
> Byrne's detractors accused him of trying to divert attention away from his company's poor financial performance. In 2005, Salt Lake City-based Overstock reported a $25 million loss. The company's share price, which hit $77 in 2004, closed trading on Tuesday at $17.29.*
> Salt Lake City, Utah-based Overstock in 2005 filed suit against Rocker Partners, a short-selling hedge fund, and Gradient Analytics, a research firm. He accused them of conspiring to manipulate Overstock's share price. The SEC opened an investigation into the companies but dropped the probe last month without taking any action.



In fact, his own rantings about the "deep state" and "men in black" tanked the stock price of his company, Overstock, and he was forced to resign because of that. 



Rassah said:


> They don't charge if it's people they're okay with doing it. As a lot of regulatory agencies do, they allow some of the things that are "illegal" to continue to exist in exchange for kickbacks, and hold the company doing it hostage, making them keep doing it to keep paying them, and if they stop, bring that "illegal" thing against them. Remember Enron? That's exactly what was happening there too, where the regulator was getting lots of kickbacks from the company in exchange for looking the other way, as long as the company kept giving them kickbacks. Thanks to Enron exploding like it did, you can find a lot more about this in reports on that.


The SEC didn't take bribes from Enron.

They did fail to review any of Enron's post-1997 annual reports and missed red flags in Enron's misleading descriptions of partnerships controlled by its chief financial officer and used to hide its debt, which was a failing of the agency.

However, they did investigate and they did file criminal referrals against several executive responsible for the scandal.

If the SEC was taking bribes, that information would've come out as charged executives attempted to make deals with the government. 

As a reminder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal#Restructuring_losses_and_SEC_investigation



Rassah said:


> No, it pertains to exchanges and custodial accounts, including custodial wallets like Coinbase wallet, where the app runs on your phone but the Bitcoin keys and actual funds are stored on Coinbase's servers. Similar to how PayPal works. It DOES NOT apply to normal non-custodial wallets where the keys and funds are stored on your phone. Without the app maker even knowing that you have the app or being aware of the transactions you're making.
> This isn't an argument. This isn't my opinion. I'm stating a legal fact there. I know this and you're wrong.


The guidance specifically mentions non-custodial wallets, as I outlined and linked to.


----------



## Rassah (May 4, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I wouldn't bill myself as an expert, actually; you've worked in the industry for longer than I've been work since I graduated university, so I'd assume you at least possess more knowledge about cryptocurrencies than I do.
> 
> That said, I only speak on what I know for certain about Bitcoin and my areas of expertise are economics and computer science. I do, however, know about financial regulation, because it is was an area of study for me in university and I've know the regulation for my job as an management consultant. I've also been finished my financial licensing exams, which cover these regulations and which you completed.
> 
> So I know enough to say when someone is bullshiting about those regulations and the SEC.



Okay, let's say you're right, that this regulation did require non-custodial wallets to follow KYC regulations. Describe how they would do this.




Miles Marsalis said:


> Like with a lot of the assertions you've made here, you have no concrete proof that SEC has criminal links or has threatened people with murder.


Unfortunately nothing concrete needs obviously these things are said in words, but it's unfortunate.




Miles Marsalis said:


> You just threw out those absurd assertions, which  you definitely wouldn't mention in a professional environment, to justify some fringe viewpoint.


Oh I definitely talk about them in a professional environment. Just depends on the situation. High level people working at high levels of business, we discuss this stuff no problem. It's the "commoners" we don't tend to mention it around since they would think it's crazy or scary.



Miles Marsalis said:


> If you want to convince me, or anyone, of what you're saying about the SEC, provide proof.
> 
> It's not that hard.


Word of mouth. Patrick Byrne's case. 
All this info and data https://www.deepcapture.com/the-story-of-deep-capture-by-mark-mitchell/
The full Enron story. But I don't have to convince you. We just have different levels of perspective.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Paul Byrne is a libertarian conspiracy theorist ... who coincidentally accused a hedge fund and equities firm of naked shorting, which is an extremely serious accusation ... and then couldn't provide any names or evidence.
> 
> In fact, his own rantings about the "deep state" and "men in black" tanked the stock price of his company, Overstock, and he was forced to resign because of that.


Like I said, anyone who tries to expose this gets threatened, whacked, or smeared. That's how it works and the plebs fall for it often. Like, I know Patrick and what he's found and gone through, and the "deep state" which, rather than being some Illuminati-style cabal, is just a bunch of entrenched regulatory bureaucracy, as well as others who got smeared similarly. It's disgusting and unsurprising how others fall for the fake scandals. But, again, that's my level of perspective.




Miles Marsalis said:


> The SEC didn't take bribes from Enron.


They did. Enron provided the regulators they had an "in" with some very posh offices right in the Enron office building, as well as nice benefits and very likely under the table kickbacks that obviously no one would reveal for threat of being jailed or worse. This is public info.



Miles Marsalis said:


> They did fail to review any of Enron's post-1997 annual reports and missed red flags in Enron's misleading descriptions of partnerships controlled by its chief financial officer and used to hide its debt, which was a failing of the agency.


They didn't fail to, they specifically decided not to.


Miles Marsalis said:


> However, they did investigate and they did file criminal referrals against several executive responsible for the scandal.


They did this only AFTER Enron collapsed and the problem couldn't be covered up or ignored.



Miles Marsalis said:


> If the SEC was taking bribes, that information would've come out as charged executives attempted to make deals with the government.


It did come out. It was published in a number of articles and case studies. Enron executives went to jail, I think some SEC guys also went to jail or were fired.




Miles Marsalis said:


> The guidance specifically mentions non-custodial wallets, as I outlined and linked to.



To make a sandwich, if this regulation did require non-custodial wallets to follow KYC regulations, describe how they would do this.


----------



## Rassah (May 4, 2022)

Oh right, and I know that Patrick didn't leave Overstock because he was pushed out or because of the stock stuff. He left because he wanted to focus on T0 blockchain, which can be used to issue and track stocks on to prevent that sort of naked short and fractional reserve issues in the future. The stuff you mentioned just somewhat coincided with it. His passion is solving this still existing securities problem. He figured since he spent all that time and effort to investigate and expose it, and in the end having that data stare people straight in the face yet most people just look at it and say "you must be a crazy conspiracy theorist," that just exposing the problem won't work. So he understood that the way to solve it is to create something better outside of government control that people will adopt on their own, like his blockchain.
Just like how people who point out the massive problems with central banking and inflation are looked at as crazy conspiracy theorists, so we created a better system called Bitcoin that fixes the problem which people are just adopting on their own.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (May 4, 2022)

I'm going to answer you in two parts because KYC regulation for unhosted wallets is legitimate, but I want to separate than from the ridiculous conspiracy theories you seem to be on.



Rassah said:


> Okay, let's say you're right, that this regulation did require non-custodial wallets to follow KYC regulations. Describe how they would do this.


You worked in finance, so you should know that in the United States, the FinCEN rule, which was first proposed in 2020 but come back in into focus now (so it's been known in the Bitcoin industry, especially since FinCEN had an extended comment period about it), will require cryptocurrency exchanges and crypto wallets, unhosted and self-hosted, to comply with KYC rules. Under the guidance, cryptocurrency exchanges are required to collect names and home addresses, among other personal details, from anyone hoping to transfer cryptocurrencies to their own private wallets. Currency transaction reports would be required for transactions to unhosted wallets, just regular financial institutions have file CTRs for customers who transact more than $10,000 in one day. Developers and operators of wallet apps would be require to amend operations to collect verifying information from users of the app and file regular reporting as normalized under KYC laws. Business operating these apps would have to comply or they would shut down under FinCEN auspices, the same way institutions that do not comply with KYC regulations are. Targeting the developers and companies making the wallet apps is a sure way to ensure compliance and these apps can't persist without regular maintenence, especially since wallet apps that do comply with KYC laws will be allowed to continue operations and remain competitive.

The EU has also recently voted to pass similar legislation, along with the UK and Australia.

Now about the conspiracy bullshit.



Rassah said:


> Oh I definitely talk about them in a professional environment. Just depends on the situation. High level people working at high levels of business, we discuss this stuff no problem. It's the "commoners" we don't tend to mention it around since they would think it's crazy or scary.





Rassah said:


> Word of mouth. Patrick Byrne's case.
> All this info and data https://www.deepcapture.com/the-story-of-deep-capture-by-mark-mitchell/
> The full Enron story. But I don't have to convince you. We just have different levels of perspective.





Rassah said:


> Like I said, anyone who tries to expose this gets threatened, whacked, or smeared. That's how it works and the plebs fall for it often. Like, I know Patrick and what he's found and gone through, and the "deep state" which, rather than being some Illuminati-style cabal, is just a bunch of entrenched regulatory bureaucracy, as well as others who got smeared similarly. It's disgusting and unsurprising how others fall for the fake scandals. But, again, that's my level of perspective.


This sounds like the talk someone who is spouting conspiracy theories, but can't prove what they saying. If you don't have concrete proof, admit it; don't pose like you can talk about publicly or that you have a different irascible "perspective".

Like, if you have legitimate proof that the SEC has ties to mob and is threatening to kill people or that there was widespread bribery within the agency during the Enron scandal, I definitely would like to see it, full stop.

Don't give Patrick Byrne's crackpot rambling about the "deep state" on his personal conspiracy theory blog. 

Give me the real evidence.


----------



## Rassah (May 6, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> You worked in finance, so you should know that in the United States, the FinCEN rule, which was first proposed in 2020 but come back in into focus now (so it's been known in the Bitcoin industry, especially since FinCEN had an extended comment period about it), will require cryptocurrency exchanges and crypto wallets, unhosted and self-hosted, to comply with KYC rules. Under the guidance, cryptocurrency exchanges are required to collect names and home addresses, among other personal details, from anyone hoping to transfer cryptocurrencies to their own private wallets.


Could've omitted all of this since it doesn't apply to Bitcoin wallets.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Currency transaction reports would be required for transactions to unhosted wallets, just regular financial institutions have file CTRs for customers who transact more than $10,000 in one day. Developers and operators of wallet apps would be require to amend operations to collect verifying information from users of the app and file regular reporting as normalized under KYC laws. Business operating these apps would have to comply or they would shut down under FinCEN auspices, the same way institutions that do not comply with KYC regulations are. Targeting the developers and companies making the wallet apps is a sure way to ensure compliance and these apps can't persist without regular maintenence, especially since wallet apps that do comply with KYC laws will be allowed to continue operations and remain competitive.
> 
> The EU has also recently voted to pass similar legislation, along with the UK and Australia.



Yeah, cool. You still didn't explain how. I download a wallet off the app store, or GitHub, or from some website, or even through Telegram. The app creator has no idea I have it. The app creator could even be in another country, like Austria or Taiwan or South Africa. They wrote the code, put it out there, or even just had a GitHub account where lots of devs contribute to the open source code, as what happens with most Bitcoin wallets. Now, how would the app developer, who has no idea that I have their app or what I'm using it for, or even a public open source repository, collect my data?

That's what I'm trying to get at: the law doesn't exist, because it's not enforceable. That EU law you linked is just a proposal, similar to ones that were proposed before in EU and US. They failed, or were changed to not apply to non-custodial wallets, because that regulation is impossible to enforce, goes against the original intent of the whole KYC thing where only those handling money are required to report, and would cause all kinds of issues for other financial activities, not just Bitcoin. Plus it's stupidly totalitarian.



Miles Marsalis said:


> This sounds like the talk someone who is spouting conspiracy theories, but can't prove what they saying.


Yep. I'm just saying I know more than you or most, but that's all.



Miles Marsalis said:


> If you don't have concrete proof, admit it; don't pose like you can talk about publicly or that you have a different irascible "perspective".


I do have a different perspective, because I work with the people who deal with those issues and have contacts who can verify these things. Best proof I have is what came out in the Enron case and the things from Patrick's articles, as well as the data found by deepcapture.com site. You don't have to believe me. It'll come out eventually anyway.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Like, if you have legitimate proof that the SEC has ties to mob and is threatening to kill people or that there was widespread bribery within the agency during the Enron scandal, I definitely would like to see it, full stop.


The Enron stuff is easy enough to find. It was even covered in Harvard Business school cases during my MBA. But I'm not going to condense a few years of study and research for you. You have Google. The SEC ties to the mob is something you'll have to ask CEOs who went public with large corps about. Why do you think it would be published somewhere?



Miles Marsalis said:


> Don't give Patrick Byrne's crackpot rambling about the "deep state" on his personal conspiracy theory blog.
> 
> Give me the real evidence.



Oh, I see. In that case no. Because any real evidence will be dismissed as "crackpot rambling conspiracy about the deep state." You literally admitted that you will dismiss any proof of "deep state" as a rambling conspiracy of deep state. In other words you already admitted that anything you don't believe in you will dismiss. So why bother?
As I said, we have different levels of perspective. I hang out with millionaires and billionaires who run the world and know how things work from the top, you see things from your I guess recently graduated low level employees and compliant citizen perspective (especially with that creepy totalitarian insistence that wallets comply with KYC). Maybe I'm wrong, but it's obvious you won't agree or believe anything I say about this topic. But the nice thing is I don't care if you do.


----------



## Rassah (May 6, 2022)

P.S. All these KYC on private wallets proposals are probably going to fail every time anyway, just because too many politicians have millions in Bitcoin at this point, and obviously don't want anyone to know that.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (May 6, 2022)

Rassah said:


> eah, cool. You still didn't explain how. I download a wallet off the app store, or GitHub, or from some website, or even through Telegram. The app creator has no idea I have it. The app creator could even be in another country, like Austria or Taiwan or South Africa. They wrote the code, put it out there, or even just had a GitHub account where lots of devs contribute to the open source code, as what happens with most Bitcoin wallets. Now, how would the app developer, who has no idea that I have their app or what I'm using it for, or even a public open source repository, collect my data?
> 
> That's what I'm trying to get at: the law doesn't exist, because it's not enforceable. That EU law you linked is just a proposal, similar to ones that were proposed before in EU and US. They failed, or were changed to not apply to non-custodial wallets, because that regulation is impossible to enforce, goes against the original intent of the whole KYC thing where only those handling money are required to report, and would cause all kinds of issues for other financial activities, not just Bitcoin. Plus it's stupidly totalitarian.


I mean, you can commit a variety of crimes without being immediately caught. That doesn't change the fact that those crimes are illegal. First off, the burden would be on the app developers to create a way to collect that requiste information via the app and file the necessary reports to the appropriate regulatory agencies. The developers could create an unhosted wallet app that avoids compliance, sure. But they run the risk of being charged for violating financial regulations and of their app being removed from wherever it is available.

Most developers aren't going to risk that.

Furthermore, more than likely, these developers are making the app to make money or are least regularly updating the app if they aren't because almost all app are updated regularly for their general lifespan. 

If the developers of app that is not compliant with KYC laws are arrested and their app is suspended, they can't make those updates. Most intelligent Bitcoin users aren't going to use an app that isn't regularly updated with security features and streamlining fixes; they'll favor other apps that are updating. 

In addition, KYC laws actually benefit Bitcoin users because it removes bad actors from cryptocurrency economies and marketplaces. KYC laws don't just protect against terrorism; they also target those who engage in financial crimes as well.

Also, in the EU, the KYC regulations have passed and they're adopting them: https://decrypt.co/96539/eu-parliament-votes-impose-kyc-private-crypto-wallets



Rassah said:


> Oh, I see. In that case no. Because any real evidence will be dismissed as "crackpot rambling conspiracy about the deep state." You literally admitted that you will dismiss any proof of "deep state" as a rambling conspiracy of deep state. In other words you already admitted that anything you don't believe in you will dismiss. So why bother?
> As I said, we have different levels of perspective. I hang out with millionaires and billionaires who run the world and know how things work from the top, you see things from your I guess recently graduated low level employees and compliant citizen perspective (especially with that creepy totalitarian insistence that wallets comply with KYC). Maybe I'm wrong, but it's obvious you won't agree or believe anything I say about this topic. But the nice thing is I don't care if you do.


I mean, I work for a Big Three firm and our institutional clients along with our individual clients aren't poor. I know how the SEC works from my university coursework, career experience, and preparation for my financial licensing exams; most people in banking and business in general would look at you like you're a lunatic for making the assertions that SEC:

1.) is in cahoots with "the mafia."

2.) is threatening to assassinate targets of investigation when they don't even arrest people.

3.) took bribes from Enron. (Furthermore, it's ludicrous to insist that the "truth" will come about this eventually when it's been about 20 years since this happened.)

That is nuts. 

You haven't provided any reliable evidence at all backing up your claim, aside from a "deep state" conspiracy site maintained by a proven slanderer (Byrne) and his paid extortionist (Mitchell) ... and the assertion that somehow your association with high net-worth individuals has given you information on this that you can't share. 

Forgive me for believing the financial industry and a government agency over your baseless assertions.


----------



## Rassah (May 7, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I mean, you can commit a variety of crimes without being immediately caught.


That's what "unenforceable regulation" means: you can't get caught. There's no way to track this, both for the app developer or the government.



Miles Marsalis said:


> That doesn't change the fact that those crimes are illegal. First off, the burden would be on the app developers to create a way to collect that requiste information via the app and file the necessary reports to the appropriate regulatory agencies. The developers could create an unhosted wallet app that avoids compliance, sure. But they run the risk of being charged for violating financial regulations and of their app being removed from wherever it is available.
> 
> *Most developers aren't going to risk that.*


On the contrary, most developers will, and already do, create wallets that make it impossible for them to do this stupid unethical thing. If they can't enforce it, regulators can't ask for it. And if any of them does do this, they will lose ALL their global customers, because no one wants to use a service that literally spies on them. Also this makes it actually impossible for most of the world's customers to use your product since most people in the world don't HAVE passports, IDs, or other stuff KYC asks for. Bitcoin is the only banking and online finance option they have. Honestly I keep forgetting how disgustingly privileged your opinions on this are.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Furthermore, more than likely, these developers are making the app to make money or are least regularly updating the app if they aren't because almost all app are updated regularly for their general lifespan. If the developers of app that is not compliant with KYC laws are arrested and their app is suspended, they can't make those updates. Most intelligent Bitcoin users aren't going to use an app that isn't regularly updated with security features and streamlining fixes; they'll favor other apps that are updating.


Most of these apps are free and open source, and the updates are made by anonymous volunteer contributors (look into what "open source" means). Most intelligent Bitcoin users won't use an app that spies on them either.



Miles Marsalis said:


> In addition, *KYC laws actually benefit Bitcoin users because it removes bad actors* from cryptocurrency economies and marketplaces. KYC laws don't just protect against terrorism; they also target those who engage in financial crimes as well.


No they don't . They harm Bitcoin users, bank account owners, and everyone else, because they create massive honeypots for scammers that ALWAYS get hacked eventually. All they do is put us all at risk. And bad actors? They'll just use an app that doesn't have KYC, or compile their own. Like I said, you can even use notepad.exe and a calculator to use Bitcoin.

Also Bitcoin exists to solve the problem of providing banking to those who can't get it. Adding this KYC stuff because some shit country wants to spy on their citizens means huge costs to collect that data, process it, store it, and keep up to date with regulations. Meaning costs that the app developer will have to pass down to the users. Meaning no poor people can use the app, because of some small country's totalitarian crap. You want only the rich of the world to own bank accounts and have access to the global economy, and the poor to stay poor, trapped in a local cash-only economy. Even if you don't realize that's what you want. Bitcoiners want to change that and let anyone in the world have access to global banking and finance. Bitcoin devs and Bitcoin supporters in general would rather still continue to provide banking to those considered too poor to have bank accounts, or those for whom it's otherwise illegal to get bank accounts for, like women, refugees, certain classes, etc. It's MEANT to break unfair and unethical laws.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Also, in the EU, the KYC regulations have passed and they're adopting them: https://decrypt.co/96539/eu-parliament-votes-impose-kyc-private-crypto-wallets


Maybe read your articles?
"In order for the legislation to be officially adopted, it must first go through tripartite meetings between the EU Parliament, European Commission, and European Council."

I doubt it will go anywhere, and even if passed, it's still unenforceable. All it will do is hurt EU citizens, but they will probably ignore it too.



Miles Marsalis said:


> I mean, I work for a Big Three firm and our institutional clients along with our individual clients aren't poor. I know how the SEC works from my university coursework, career experience, and preparation for my financial licensing exams; most people in banking and business in general would look at you like you're a lunatic for making the assertions that SEC:
> 
> 1.) is in cahoots with "the mafia."
> 
> ...


Ah, so you're a low level cog tasked with processing financial data who wouldn't be privy or trusted with anything like that anyway. And your university failed you because it didn't even cover Enron in depth. Didn't even give you the core of the issue where SEC regulators and Enron guys were working in the same office. Sounds like your problem.

See me as a lunatic? Why do you say that? Hoping it will convince me otherwise? I was looked at as a lunatic when I said all that money printing in the last few years would cause massive inflation. I was looked at as a lunatic when the increasing debt will result in capital flight and force changes in policies that will trigger a market crash. I was looked at as a lunatic for a lot of economic and other claims (internet, business killing regs, COVID stuff), claims that were eventually proven true. Hell, I was looked at a lunatic when I said Bitcoin will become a valuable money adopted by governments, back when it was traded like collectible tokens for a few dollars. Or, at least I was looked at as a lunatic by a bunch of broke sheep. Those in the know actually valued my insight and continued working with me for it. Most people who understand how the world works are seen as lunatics by those who follow the comfy common(er) narratives. And lunatics are the ones who eventually change the world, so I'm in good company XD



Miles Marsalis said:


> *You haven't provided any reliable evidence at all* backing up your claim, aside from a "deep state" conspiracy site maintained by a proven slanderer (Byrne) and his paid extortionist (Mitchell) ... and the assertion that somehow your association with high net-worth individuals has given you information on this that you can't share.
> 
> Forgive me for believing the financial industry and a government agency over your baseless assertions.


I have, but like I said, you're free to ignore the pure data just because it comes from a source that allows you to dismiss that data. I know of similar situations from a number of friends and acquaintances besides Byrne, including cases of them hiring "business partners" who approach and work with you only to tank your business from the inside for the benefit of big established competitors, attempted extortion cases (even ones involving Epstein's people), etc. Even if I didn't know that the mafia was involved, the whole thing is run like one. Hell, remember when it came out that oil companies wrote their own regulations during the BP oil spill investigation? Same deal. Connect the dots, or don't. Unfortunately for you, your government isn't going to yell you that they're corrupt and how they're screwing you, since they want you to keep voting for them. And the financial industry isn't going to tell a low level servant anything about it either. They don't trust you, don't know you, and maybe don't want you to look at them like a lunatic  But since that seems to be the only source you'll listen to, that's your problem to ignore and eventually deal with, not mine. In short, you're not going to get proof, and even if you do you'll reject it.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (May 7, 2022)

Rassah said:


> Maybe read your articles?
> "In order for the legislation to be officially adopted, it must first go through tripartite meetings between the EU Parliament, European Commission, and European Council."
> 
> I doubt it will go anywhere, and even if passed, it's still unenforceable. All it will do is hurt EU citizens, but they will probably ignore it too.


It has the votes and the EU has been signalling this for months to prepare the markets. Arguably, the bloc is more skeptical of cryptocurrencies than other major market.



Rassah said:


> I have, but like I said, you're free to ignore the pure data just because it comes from a source that allows you to dismiss that data. I know of similar situations from a number of friends and acquaintances besides Byrne, including cases of them hiring "business partners" who approach and work with you only to tank your business from the inside for the benefit of big established competitors, attempted extortion cases (even ones involving Epstein's people), etc. Even if I didn't know that the mafia was involved, the whole thing is run like one. Hell, remember when it came out that oil companies wrote their own regulations during the BP oil spill investigation? Same deal. Connect the dots, or don't. Unfortunately for you, your government isn't going to yell you that they're corrupt and how they're screwing you, since they want you to keep voting for them. And the financial industry isn't going to tell a low level servant anything about it either. They don't trust you, don't know you, and maybe don't want you to look at them like a lunatic  But since that seems to be the only source you'll listen to, that's your problem to ignore and eventually deal with, not mine. In short, you're not going to get proof, and even if you do you'll reject it.


Please post this super secret knowledge and enlighten this lowly servant then. 



Rassah said:


> No they don't . They harm Bitcoin users, bank account owners, and everyone else, because they create massive honeypots for scammers that ALWAYS get hacked eventually. All they do is put us all at risk. And bad actors? They'll just use an app that doesn't have KYC, or compile their own. Like I said, you can even use notepad.exe and a calculator to use Bitcoin.
> 
> Also Bitcoin exists to solve the problem of providing banking to those who can't get it. Adding this KYC stuff because some shit country wants to spy on their citizens means huge costs to collect that data, process it, store it, and keep up to date with regulations. Meaning costs that the app developer will have to pass down to the users. Meaning no poor people can use the app, because of some small country's totalitarian crap. You want only the rich of the world to own bank accounts and have access to the global economy, and the poor to stay poor, trapped in a local cash-only economy. Even if you don't realize that's what you want. Bitcoiners want to change that and let anyone in the world have access to global banking and finance. Bitcoin devs and Bitcoin supporters in general would rather still continue to provide banking to those considered too poor to have bank accounts, or those for whom it's otherwise illegal to get bank accounts for, like women, refugees, certain classes, etc. It's MEANT to break unfair and unethical laws.


I mean, you act like exchanges and the more unsecure choices for wallets aren't hacked on a monthly basis. KYC compliant traditional banks have a much better on cybersecurity than Bitcoin exchanges and Bitcoin exchanges are where the supposed future of Bitcoin lies because that is where the large financial institutions that drove the most significant surge in the price of Bitcoin will do business. Wallets may serve as payment processors of the Bitcoin economy, but the exchanges will be the hub.

Furthermore, El Salvador is kind of calling in question than Bitcoin is lifting whole countries out of poverty. 



Rassah said:


> On the contrary, most developers will, and already do, create wallets that make it impossible for them to do this stupid unethical thing. If they can't enforce it, regulators can't ask for it. And if any of them does do this, they will lose ALL their global customers, because no one wants to use a service that literally spies on them. Also this makes it actually impossible for most of the world's customers to use your product since most people in the world don't HAVE passports, IDs, or other stuff KYC asks for. Bitcoin is the only banking and online finance option they have. Honestly I keep forgetting how disgustingly privileged your opinions on this are.


I wouldn't be too sure those regulations are unenforceable; law enforcement has been getting good at tracking Bitcoin transactions and actors and developers are easier to track, especially if they're looking to profit from their wallet apps. Non-profit developers could possibly evade this, if their apps are open source, but not the for-profit developers.

And one thing that is questionable about unhosted wallets is fraud protection and refunds for money a user has been defrauded out of; the regular banking system handles relatively well.


----------



## Fallowfox (May 7, 2022)




----------



## Borophagus Metropolis (May 7, 2022)

I own about 700 Dogecoin.


----------



## Rassah (May 8, 2022)

"If you’re a private investor, not investing in #BTC because it “uses energy” is like not investing in solar because it “uses energy” (coal in solar’s case) in it's manufacture: a 101 level cost-accounting fail."









						Thread by @DSBatten on Thread Reader App
					

@DSBatten: While not investment advice, this is my opinion as a fund manager on the ESG case for Bitcoin after 2 months due diligence. If you’re a manager of fund where #bitcoin is an investment candidate: failure...…




					threadreaderapp.com


----------



## Rassah (May 8, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> It has the votes and the EU has been signalling this for months to prepare the markets.


Actually for years now. I remember being concerned about this before the pandemic and it was just changed to only custodial again. They still can't enforce it.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Please post this super secret knowledge and enlighten this lowly servant then.


I have. Dig through the data on deepcapture.com. It's all there about how bad of a problem naked shorts are. Not gonna do your homework for you.



Miles Marsalis said:


> I mean, you act like exchanges and the more unsecure choices for wallets aren't hacked on a monthly basis.


Literally the opposite of what I said. Exchanges get hacked (though usually the smaller obscure ones. The big ones get hacked as often as banks). Banks and investment places get hacked too. Which is the whole problem with KYC. Regulators force your information to be on these banks and exchanges, and then all your private data gets hacked and stolen. We're not protected by KYC rules, we only get put more at risk.



Miles Marsalis said:


> KYC compliant traditional banks have a much better on cybersecurity than Bitcoin exchanges



No. But regulated exchanges are the exact same when it comes to KYC, financial regulations, account insurance, and security. They almost never get hacked, same as banks.



Miles Marsalis said:


> and Bitcoin exchanges are where the supposed future of Bitcoin lies



Laughably no. The future of Bitcoin lies in using Bitcoin as money for savings and spending. Exchanges are a short term business, only existing while people still need to transition from old government money to Bitcoin, and while there are still people confused enough to think altcoins are a good investment who want to gamble on them (we call crypto exchanges "shitcoin casinos" for a reason). The future of Bitcoin and the future of the global economy doesn't need exchanges.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Wallets may serve as payment processors of the Bitcoin economy, but the exchanges will be the hub.


If everything is priced in Bitcoin and all business is done in Bitcoin, exchanges have no purpose. At best, multi-signature account security providing "banks" will be hubs.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Furthermore, El Salvador is kind of calling in question than Bitcoin is lifting whole countries out of poverty.


It is? El Salvador's economy is continuing to improve from their bitcoin adoption, they actually had to create an immigration office for the first time because for the first time they've had people move INTO El Salvador, and with Bitcoin having a 150% to 200% long term annual return, within a few years the government's investment into Bitcoin (and those citizens who individually put their savings into it) will make that country's wealth go up 10x. They might leapfrog a few of the "rich" countries in the area. It's why Panama, Mexico, and a few other countries there are working on doing that too.
Also there's more and more millionaire investors moving their money into Bitcoin and moving to those countries, so that's less money spent in US and more in El Salvador, Mexico, etc. too. Without this El Salvador would still be a crime riddled country no one has ever heard of.



Miles Marsalis said:


> I wouldn't be too sure those regulations are unenforceable;



I'm 100% sure they're unenforceable, because, again, unlike you I know how this works.



Miles Marsalis said:


> law enforcement has been getting good at tracking Bitcoin transactions


Mostly through third party tracking systems, which we obviously know how they work and know what to build to get around them. It's not some secret. That's why I've been saying Lightning Network will make tracking near impossible.



Miles Marsalis said:


> and actors and developers are easier to track, especially if they're looking to profit from their wallet apps. Non-profit developers could possibly evade this, if their apps are open source, but not the for-profit developers.



For profit developers just get paid in that same anonymous Bitcoin though. That's how it already works. All funds that the wallet collects just sits in some hidden account somewhere, and then when the devs want to withdraw them, they send them through an anonymizing mixer and there's nothing tying the dev people to the wallet.  



Miles Marsalis said:


> And one thing that is questionable about unhosted wallets is fraud protection and refunds for money a user has been defrauded out of; the regular banking system handles relatively well.



Regular banking system has never been able to handle it at all when it comes to cash and coins. Yet people somehow managed with cash and coins for centuries ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Multi-signature account "banks" can provide similar protections, without even having custody of your money, where all they do is co-sign your transactions with one of the three signatures on the account. Since they only own one, they can't spent or control your money, and this aren't subject to financial custody either. Such services already exist. Lots of services that banks are incapable of doing and which make the old system seem like a rotary phone by comparison already exist


----------



## Ramjet (May 12, 2022)

Customary pink wojak


----------



## Yakamaru (May 12, 2022)

Ramjet said:


> Customary pink wojak
> View attachment 131858


Rofl. Should I post the stonks one whenever it goes up again?


----------



## Ramjet (May 12, 2022)

Yakamaru said:


> Rofl. Should I post the stonks one whenever it goes up again?



We gotta give Buttcorn all our energy Yaka!!!!!


----------



## Ramjet (May 12, 2022)

Ramjet said:


> The parallels to cypto to the dotcom bubble is uncanny...
> Rock bottom low interest rates fueling useless speculative asset prices to full retard levels, next year will certainly be interesting...
> 
> The only cypto I'm bullish on longterm is Hedera Hbar.
> Do your own DD....



>The FED hiked
 >This kills the crypto 

T.Hbar bagholder


----------



## Miles Marsalis (May 12, 2022)

I feel I'm wasting time here, so I'll just note a few obvious things in bullet point, @Rassah .

1. Deep Capture is not legitimate source, especially given that legal actions and libel cases have proven the information on the site to false and Mr. Byrne has been forced to pay out on account of that.

2. I'd question that KYC laws are unenforceable given that:

a. the largest exchanges (like Binance and Coinbase) and wallet operators already have KYC compliance in place and would cooperate with FinCEN to weed out those not complying with KYC regulations. 

b. the government has built significant abilities to track cryptocurrency transactions in recent years, which would be augmented third part firms like what you mentioned. 

c. financial institutions, which were the main drivers of the most prominent surge in Bitcoin's price, will not do business with firms or wallet operators that don't comply with KYC regulations.

Finally, it's weird you're talking about how law is unenforceable ... because if it is illegal to operate a wallet app money transmission enterprise or exchange that is non-compliant with KYC regulations ... _businesses and financial institutions aren't going to do business with those entities and put themselves at risk._ 

You should know this.

3. You must not be keeping with El Salvador, because the economic situation on the whole there has worsened since they adopted the Bitcoin Law, partly because Bitcoin's has fallen precipitously over the last 6 months.









						Six months in, El Salvador’s bitcoin gamble is crumbling
					

As El Salvador prepares to launch its 'Bitcoin bond', interviews with citizens, economists and technologists reveal cracks in the country's crypto revolution.




					restofworld.org


----------



## Rassah (May 12, 2022)

RachelDawes said:


> This is the sound investment people are trying to push?



It's pretty sound if you're just holding Bitcoin instead of doing leverage, options, and other gambling like you can do with USD on Forex. Bitcoin's crash just means you're where you were a year ago 



Miles Marsalis said:


> 1. Deep Capture is not legitimate source, especially given that legal actions and libel cases have proven the information on the site to false and Mr. Byrne has been forced to pay out on account of that.


False. Deep Capture data comes from legitimate sources, including SEC, and the libel case came from things Patrick Byrne himself said, not from the site. If there were libel claims on that site, they would be gone by now, so you can be sure you're only reading facts.




Miles Marsalis said:


> 2. I'd question that KYC laws are unenforceable given that:
> 
> a. the largest exchanges (like Binance and Coinbase) and wallet operators already have KYC compliance in place and would cooperate with FinCEN to weed out those not complying with KYC regulations.


Exchanges are not wallets. They hold your coins. With wallets you hold your coins.



Miles Marsalis said:


> b. the government has built significant abilities to track cryptocurrency transactions in recent years, which would be augmented third part firms like what you mentioned.


Tracking crypto on blockchains has nothing to do with KYC.



Miles Marsalis said:


> c. financial institutions, which were the main drivers of the most prominent surge in Bitcoin's price, will not do business with firms or wallet operators that don't comply with KYC regulations.


Wallet operators that hold your coins, and firms that hold your coins, hold your coins and thus have to follow KYC. With wallets you use yourself you hold your coins, so you're the only one responsible for your own KYC. And every one of those financial institutions has no problem sending coins to your own wallet.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Finally, it's weird you're talking about how law is unenforceable ... because if it is illegal to operate a wallet app money transmission enterprise or exchange that is non-compliant with KYC regulations ... _businesses and financial institutions aren't going to do business with those entities and put themselves at risk._


They will do business if the law is from another country. I don't give a crap about doing business with someone in another country where doing business with an American is illegal, or doing it breaks some other unethical law. If I want to help people there, I'm indifferent about breaking their laws that don't apply to me. Such as by buying software services from *women* software developers in a country where women aren't allowed to work or have bank accounts. And yes I'm a business too. Stop confusing "legal" with "right/ethical."



Miles Marsalis said:


> You should know this.
> 
> 3. You must not be keeping with El Salvador, because the economic situation on the whole there has worsened since they adopted the Bitcoin Law, partly because Bitcoin's has fallen precipitously over the last 6 months.



1. Old news
2. Nothing new or unexpected
3. Doesn't matter because the point is long term investment, to break off from under US government boot with its USD oppression, and to allow those who couldn't get a bank account before to get access to banking. You know it's really hard to get a bank account when you're poor, right? So those people are trapped in a cash only economy, not able to buy things online or save and invest or start business. Bitcoin fixes this. All of this.
On the other hand,

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1523742670044413954
And, if you think Bitcoin had a crash where it went to where it was a year ago, check out stocks XD


----------



## Fallowfox (May 13, 2022)

The Central African Republic recently adopted bitcoin as an official currency. 
About 4% of their population actually has internet access, so its pick-up among normal people may not be too high. 
Mobile telephone use is currently low in the country but has been increasing.
Currently Russian mercenaries are fighting a war in the Republic against rebel forces, in exchange for Russian access to mineral deposits.


----------



## SirRob (May 13, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> The Central African Republic recently adopted bitcoin as an official currency.
> About 4% of their population actually has internet access, so its pick-up among normal people may not be too high.
> Mobile telephone use is currently low in the country but has been increasing.
> Currently Russian mercenaries are fighting a war in the Republic against rebel forces, in exchange for Russian access to mineral deposits.


If bitcoin is something they can utilize to get ahead economically, then more power to them, I guess. I don't personally follow that stuff, although I'm not in a dire financial situation either (really I just went into the topic for your post, rather than the topic itself). Are there other African countries going through the same thing with Russia, or just the Republic? It's honestly a horrible situation, and I know Russia's not the only one responsible-- all the major powers try and take advantage of Africa. Are those rebel forces a group that I should be rooting for, or are they dangerous extremists, which typically seems to be the case in these sorts of struggles?


----------



## Fallowfox (May 13, 2022)

SirRob said:


> If bitcoin is something they can utilize to get ahead economically, then more power to them, I guess. I don't personally follow that stuff, although I'm not in a dire financial situation either (really I just went into the topic for your post, rather than the topic itself). Are there other African countries going through the same thing with Russia, or just the Republic? It's honestly a horrible situation, and I know Russia's not the only one responsible-- all the major powers try and take advantage of Africa. Are those rebel forces a group that I should be rooting for, or are they dangerous extremists, which typically seems to be the case in these sorts of struggles?



My _guess _is that Bitcoin will be used to facilitate under-the-table payments to Russia.
Alternatively, the best interpretation is that it is being used to provide pressure for an alternative to the Central African Franc, which is a problematic currency for some countries because of its colonial associations.

The Wagner mercenary group is involved in conflicts in numerous African countries, where it is widely accused of crimes against humanity such as killing civilians and sexual torture. 
So I would probably say we shouldn't support the Wagner group. 

I can't really comment on the internal politics of CAR though.


----------



## SirRob (May 13, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> My _guess _is that Bitcoin will be used to facilitate under-the-table payments to Russia.
> Alternatively, the best interpretation is that it is being used to provide pressure for an alternative to the Central African Franc, which is a problematic currency for some countries because of its colonial associations.
> 
> The Wagner mercenary group is involved in conflicts in numerous African countries, where it is widely accused of crimes against humanity such as killing civilians and sexual torture.
> ...


Makes sense regarding the under-the-table payments, although the pressure on the country's primary currency is over my head... Trying to explain it to me would require multiple years worth of lectures given my complete lack of knowledge on global history and politics, so it probably isn't worth getting into. I'm certainly interested enough to learn more, though.

I knew it, that always seems to be the case, doesn't it? The only people willing to fight are the crazy people who are just as bad. And why wouldn't that be the case? The sane people actually have self-preservation in mind. Of course, I'm just generalizing but... it's happened time and time again since I've started following this sort of stuff on the news.


----------



## ConorHyena (May 13, 2022)

The Wagner group are propably worse than your average rebel/insurgent forces tbh.


----------



## SirRob (May 13, 2022)

Okay, I did a skim of their Wikipedia article and I think I was mistaken; the Wagner Group is the Russian mercenaries, while the rebels are a different group. Is that correct? The article is very long... I guess it's a group I should've already been aware of


----------



## Miles Marsalis (May 13, 2022)

Rassah said:


> False. Deep Capture data comes from legitimate sources, including SEC, and the libel case came from things Patrick Byrne himself said, not from the site. If there were libel claims on that site, they would be gone by now, so you can be sure you're only reading facts.


You're mistaken because, aside from the fact that website promotes "deep state" conspiracy theories which you seem to believe, _Deep Capture actually published the material that was cited and contentious in the cases_.



> I*n part to publicize his thoughts on naked short selling, Byrne founded the website "Deep Capture". In October 2011, Vancouver businessman Altaf Nazerali sued Byrne for libel and defamation in the Supreme Court of British Columbia for articles published on the website.* The articles described Nazerali as being involved with "Osama Bin Laden's favorite financier," and that he worked with criminal syndicates including the Colombian drug cartel, the Russian mafia, and various "jihadi terrorist groups" including al Qaeda's Golden Chain. Deep Capture also accused Nazerali of "delivering weapons to war zones in Africa and to the mujahedeen in Afghanistan," of orchestrating "small-time 'pump and dump' scams… [and] bust-outs, death spiral finance and naked short selling," and of carrying out dirty work for "a Pakistani ISI asset" who "works for the Iranian regime." In May 2016, the Court found that the allegations in the Deep Capture articles were libelous and defamatory; Nazerali was awarded $1.2 million in damages, including $500,000 in aggravated damages, $250,000 in punitive damages and $55,000 in special damages.[33] Byrne was permanently banned from publishing these accusations. The Court found Byrne, his employee Mark Mitchell, and Deep Capture "engaged in a calculated and ruthless campaign to inflict as much damage on Mr. Nazerali's reputation as they could achieve." The 102-page decision said "It is clear on the evidence that their intention was to conduct a vendetta in which the truth about Mr. Nazerali himself was of no consequence."[34][35][36]
> 
> The judgment was upheld on appeal in August 2018.[37][38][39][40]







__





						Patrick M. Byrne - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




This isn't a reliable source of information.



Rassah said:


> Exchanges are not wallets. They hold your coins. With wallets you hold your coins.


I clearly mentioned exchanges and wallet operators, examples of which are already complying with the new FinCEN guidance.



Rassah said:


> Tracking crypto on blockchains has nothing to do with KYC.


The government has other methods besides that, but it is relevant to the enforcement of KYC regulations, you had asked about. 



Rassah said:


> They will do business if the law is from another country. I don't give a crap about doing business with someone in another country where doing business with an American is illegal, or doing it breaks some other unethical law. If I want to help people there, I'm indifferent about breaking their laws that don't apply to me. Such as by buying software services from *women* software developers in a country where women aren't allowed to work or have bank accounts. And yes I'm a business too. Stop confusing "legal" with "right/ethical."


You make the generous assumption you wouldn't prosecuted for breaking those laws here or be extradited to that country because we have a extradition agreement with them. Furthermore, with China, India, the EU, the US, Japan, and Australia adopting similar regulations, that includes most of the would-be big markets for Bitcoin and the economies where the most coveted possible Bitcoin investors are. It would be hard to do business that evades these regulations. Furthermore, because of the war in Ukraine, most of these countries are coordinating on their cryptocurrency regulations and making sure they overlap.

As a side note, you do realize you're admitting you'd willfully break the law if it suited your interests?


----------



## ConorHyena (May 14, 2022)

SirRob said:


> Okay, I did a skim of their Wikipedia article and I think I was mistaken; the Wagner Group is the Russian mercenaries, while the rebels are a different group. Is that correct? The article is very long... I guess it's a group I should've already been aware of


They are essentially putin's private army, yeh.


----------



## Rassah (May 14, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> You're mistaken because, aside from the fact that website promotes "deep state" conspiracy theories which you seem to believe, _Deep Capture actually published the material that was cited and contentious in the cases_.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh, even better, the stuff that was libelous didn't even have anything to do with the actual data on the markets and short selling. So, like I said, you can ignore his opinions and mistakes he makes, and just read the pore dada sourced from SEC and brokerages to come to your own conclusion.




Miles Marsalis said:


> I clearly mentioned exchanges and wallet operators, examples of which are already complying with the new FinCEN guidance.


No, you clearly mentioned wallet developers, suggesting that if a company created a non-custodial wallet where the user is in control of their own money, that the wallet developer would somehow still be responsible for KYCing the money they have no knowledge or control over. Moving goal posts to "operators" where wallet developers control the wallet somehow.

I really don't get why you can't understand that if you don't control someone's money, you're not responsible for what they do with it.



Miles Marsalis said:


> The government has other methods besides that, but it is relevant to the enforcement of KYC regulations, you had asked about.


How is tracking funds relevant to KYC regulations? You know that the public blockchain doesn't show anything about the kind of wallet used, right? It's just transactions with nothing attached to them.



Miles Marsalis said:


> You make the generous assumption you wouldn't prosecuted for breaking those laws here or be extradited to that country because we have a extradition agreement with them.


It's not an assumption, no. I don't have to assume that US is going to fine me for doing something legal in US, or allow another country to extradite me for doing something legal in US. Reminder, it's legal to pay women in US.



Miles Marsalis said:


> Furthermore, with China, India, the EU, the US, Japan, and Australia adopting similar regulations,


They're not adopting regulations making it illegal for women to have bank accounts or get paid. They're not adopting regulations making it illegal to send money to family. They're not adopting regulations making it illegal to fund groups that fight for human rights (well maybe China is).
If you mean general Bitcoin regulations, I don't know how much bigger and bolder I can make this so you'll get it but *BITCOIN IS ALREADY SUBJECT TO ALL THE SAME REGULATIONS AS ALL BANKING AND FINANCE*. Bitcoin is NOT unregulated.
If you mean regulations requiring KYC on non-custodial wallets, again, that's impossible to do. It's like regulations that require gravity to be half as strong or that 2+2 be equal 5. You can pass all the regulations you want, but it's just impossible to do and to enforce. You've yet to explain how a wallet would do that. How would you force Microsoft to regulate notepad.exe to force it to collect KYC on people using it to send Bitcoin transactions?



Miles Marsalis said:


> Furthermore, because of the war in Ukraine, most of these countries are coordinating on their cryptocurrency regulations and making sure they overlap.


Regulations already exist, and they already overlap with them being decades old banking and finance regulations.



Miles Marsalis said:


> As a side note, you do realize you're admitting you'd willfully break the law if it suited your interests?


Of course I would. By the same reasoning you're admitting you would turn in a Jewish family to the SS just because the law told you to. Enlightened intelligent people don't follow laws blindly.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (May 14, 2022)

Rassah said:


> Oh, even better, the stuff that was libelous didn't even have anything to do with the actual data on the markets and short selling. So, like I said, you can ignore his opinions and mistakes he makes, and just read the pore dada sourced from SEC and brokerages to come to your own conclusion.


And you feel that a site that published libelous information is going to accurately report on conspiracy theories regarding the SEC and the deep state apparently.




Rassah said:


> No, you clearly mentioned wallet developers, suggesting that if a company created a non-custodial wallet where the user is in control of their own money, that the wallet developer would somehow still be responsible for KYCing the money they have no knowledge or control over. Moving goal posts to "operators" where wallet developers control the wallet somehow.
> 
> I really don't get why you can't understand that if you don't control someone's money, you're not responsible for what they do with it.


No, I clearly mentioned multiple times that under the new FinCEN guidance that exchanges, custodial wallets operations, and non-custodial wallet operations are considered money transmitters and therefore subject to KYC regulations. 




Rassah said:


> How is tracking funds relevant to KYC regulations? You know that the public blockchain doesn't show anything about the kind of wallet used, right? It's just transactions with nothing attached to them.


Tracking funds and evidence provided by the blockchain would obviously be essential to any enforcement of KYC regulations.




Rassah said:


> How would you force Microsoft to regulate notepad.exe to force it to collect KYC on people using it to send Bitcoin transactions?


You would obviously have the developer of the app impose KYC verification in their app, rather than hold Microsoft, which only made the program they are using to make the app, responsible.




Rassah said:


> Of course I would. By the same reasoning you're admitting you would turn in a Jewish family to the SS just because the law told you to. Enlightened intelligent people don't follow laws blindly.


This is stupid and offensive. There is clear difference between following financial laws and abetting in the Holocaust.


----------



## Kope (May 14, 2022)

It’s what the rich use for tax evasion now right?


----------



## Rassah (May 15, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> And you feel that a site that published libelous information is going to accurately report on conspiracy theories regarding the SEC and the deep state apparently.


Yes if they're not conspiracy theories. You're free to dismiss whatever you don't agree with as conspiracy. As I said I know people personally who corroborate this. Not just Patrick.



Miles Marsalis said:


> No, I clearly mentioned multiple times that under the new FinCEN guidance that ... non-custodial wallet operations are considered money transmitters and therefore subject to KYC regulations.


They're not. And it's impossible for them to follow those regulations. We can keep going in circles, but that fact still remains.




Miles Marsalis said:


> Tracking funds and evidence provided by the blockchain would obviously be essential to any enforcement of KYC regulations.


... Okay, but tracking funds doesn't tell you what wallet was used to move those funds, and in most cases who even sent those funds. Tracking funds on the Bitcoin blockchain is generally very difficult to impossible anyway, outside of a few hops from an exchange.





Miles Marsalis said:


> You would obviously have the developer of the app impose KYC verification in their app, rather than hold Microsoft, which only made the program they are using to make the app, responsible.


Right, so you would hold Microsoft, the developer of notepad.exe, responsible for collecting KYC on notepad.exe users, and would have them build KYC verification into notepad.exe, because users can use that app to type up and send a Bitcoin transaction. Actually I guess every developer of a program that can write up text files would be required to impose KYC verification in their text editor in case their users decide to use it to send Bitcoin. How do you not see the absurdity of this?



Miles Marsalis said:


> This is stupid and offensive. There is clear difference between following financial laws and abetting in the Holocaust.


No there isn't. One is just a law you like and the other is one you don't. You're already against me breaking laws such as paying women for work in countries where it's illegal for them to work, or me breaking laws by sending money to families in need where their countries legally seize all international micro transfers that cross their borders via normal means. What's another unethical law to break?


----------



## Rassah (May 15, 2022)

Kope said:


> It’s what the rich use for tax evasion now right?


Nah, the rich use corporate structuring where they buy everything through corporations which allow them to deduct almost 100% of their spending, and use loan tactics where rather than take profits they use them as collateral for a loan, where loans are tax free. Bitcoin is what the poor and middle class can use for offshore tax havens. Stuff that only the rich had access to before.


----------



## Kope (May 15, 2022)

Rassah said:


> Nah, the rich use corporate structuring where they buy everything through corporations which allow them to deduct almost 100% of their spending, and use loan tactics where rather than take profits they use them as collateral for a loan, where loans are tax free. Bitcoin is what the poor and middle class can use for offshore tax havens. Stuff that only the rich had access to before.


*thinks about Tesla who owns millions in bit coin while it’s CEO promotes pumps and dumps* 

hmm


----------



## KimberVaile (May 15, 2022)

Seems Bitcoin is still following stocks, and with the stocks going into a bear market, there's already been a bit of blood.

I'm pretty sure Terra Luna is dead in the water now. Went from like, 80 dollars to less than a cent. Algorithmic stable-coins, hell stablecoins in general are bad news.
With the market going into bear territory, I wonder if it might be a good thing for crypto to flush out all the meme coins and other projects with poor fundamentals. NFTs have certainly been hit hard, thankfully.


----------



## Borophagus Metropolis (May 15, 2022)

KimberVaile said:


> Seems Bitcoin is still following stocks, and with the stocks going into a bear market, there's already been a bit of blood.
> 
> I'm pretty sure Terra Luna is a dead in the water now. Went from like, 80 dollars to less than a cent. Algorithmic stable-coins, hell stablecoins in general are bad news.
> With the market going into bear territory, I wonder if it might be a good thing for crypto to flush out all the meme coins and other projects with poor fundamentals.



Nooooo, not my Dogecoin!


----------



## Miles Marsalis (May 15, 2022)

Rassah said:


> No there isn't. One is just a law you like and the other is one you don't. You're already against me breaking laws such as paying women for work in countries where it's illegal for them to work, or me breaking laws by sending money to families in need where their countries legally seize all international micro transfers that cross their borders via normal means. What's another unethical law to break?


If you're actually doing that, I'll admit that is admirable ... but you've worked in finance long enough to know no banking institution is going to engage in that kind of activity if it is illegal in any country on either end of the transaction. 

It also doesn't detract from my point that me not supporting illegal financial activity is tantamount to supporting the persecution of Jews during the Holocaust. 

On the other stuff, I previously posted the link showing the language with FinCEN is mandating KYC for non-custodial wallet operations in their forthcoming guidance. 

As for Deep Capture, citing unknown individuals knowing the truth about your conspiracy theories isn't advancing your case about the SEC or the "deep state".


----------



## Kope (May 15, 2022)

RachelDawes said:


> View attachment 132000View attachment 132001


Good cryptobros are so annoying


----------



## Rassah (May 17, 2022)

Kope said:


> *thinks about Tesla who owns millions in bit coin while it’s CEO promotes pumps and dumps*
> 
> hmm


Just the Dogecoin bs. And then I think he just doesn't get the point, thinking it's more efficient, when the only reason it is, is because no one uses it so it barely has any volume.



KimberVaile said:


> I wonder if it might be a good thing for crypto to flush out all the meme coins and other projects with poor fundamentals. NFTs have certainly been hit hard, thankfully.



God I hope so. So many distractions and resources wasted. But when crypto goes down and stops being stupidly exciting again, that's when we get back to work 



Miles Marsalis said:


> If you're actually doing that, I'll admit that is admirable ... but you've worked in finance long enough to know no banking institution is going to engage in that kind of activity if it is illegal in any country on either end of the transaction.


Yeah, but who cares? Bitcoin makes banking institutions unnecessary. That's the whole point. You're in charge of your money, can pay or get paid, and no one can do anything about it. What do I need banks for?



Miles Marsalis said:


> It also doesn't detract from my point that me not supporting illegal financial activity is tantamount to supporting the persecution of Jews during the Holocaust.


Do you or do you not agree that some laws should be ignored because they're unethical?
If yes, that's what Bitcoin allows. Countries passing laws to regulate Bitcoin and regulate who can and can't have financial access are unethical.




Miles Marsalis said:


> On the other stuff, I previously posted the link showing the language with FinCEN is mandating KYC for non-custodial wallet operations in their forthcoming guidance.


Yeah, and I keep saying it's unenforceable and impractical. Like I said, Bitcoin makes notepad.exe and a calculator a financial app, a wallet, that lets you send Bitcoin, and thus would require the creator of notepad.exe to collect KYC on the users if that regulation passes. Plus Bitcoin node itself is a wallet, so that would make every node illegal, which is, good luck XD




Miles Marsalis said:


> As for Deep Capture, citing unknown individuals knowing the truth about your conspiracy theories isn't advancing your case about the SEC or the "deep state".


You're still confused thinking I have a case or am trying to convince you. I'm just telling you what I know. I don't care if you don't believe me and lose all your money in the market. I just ethically can't advise people to invest in it.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (May 17, 2022)

Rassah said:


> Do you or do you not agree that some laws should be ignored because they're unethical?
> If yes, that's what Bitcoin allows. Countries passing laws to regulate Bitcoin and regulate who can and can't have financial access are unethical.


I think there is wide gulf between breaking laws to save Jews during the Holocaust ... and breaking international and national financial regulations.

I'm side-eyeing your apparent sudden social-mindedness.



Rassah said:


> Yeah, and I keep saying it's unenforceable and impractical. Like I said, Bitcoin makes notepad.exe and a calculator a financial app, a wallet, that lets you send Bitcoin, and thus would require the creator of notepad.exe to collect KYC on the users if that regulation passes. Plus Bitcoin node itself is a wallet, so that would make every node illegal, which is, good luck XD


I mean, putting aside the vast resources the federal government has for enforcement, most people aren't to use the method you're describing to transfer funds for everyday transactions that is more convoluted than traditional electronic payment systems ... or cash.

Also, most individuals and institutions aren't going to use an app that isn't compliant with their country's financial regulations, for obvious reasons.

And you can just admit you have no proof of your SEC allegations.


----------



## Kope (May 17, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I think there is wide gulf between breaking laws to save Jews during the Holocaust ... and breaking international and national financial regulations.
> 
> I'm side-eyeing your apparent sudden social-mindedness.
> 
> ...


I see where you’re coming from but look at it from the average perspective. The rich break the rules all the time (sometimes the ones they intentionally implement through lobbying) so why would an average Joe care about this if the rich are hetting away with it as well.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (May 17, 2022)

Kope said:


> I see where you’re coming from but look at it from the average perspective. The rich break the rules all the time (sometimes the ones they intentionally implement through lobbying) so why would an average Joe care about this if the rich are hetting away with it as well.


I'd argue financial regulations should and do apply to everyone, not just the wealthy. 

I'd add as well that the flouting of financial laws Bitcoin somewhat enables actually empowers the wealthy to more effectively hide vaster sums of money from taxes and scrutiny while attempting to undermine the governments and economies that those who are not wealthy depend on.


----------



## Kope (May 17, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I'd argue financial regulations should and do apply to everyone, not just the wealthy.
> 
> I'd add as well that the flouting of financial laws Bitcoin somewhat enables actually empowers the wealthy to more effectively hide vaster sums of money from taxes and scrutiny while attempting to undermine the governments and economies that those who are not wealthy depend on.


Good point. I just wish we could level the playing field and lower the inequality for everyone.


----------



## Rassah (May 17, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I think there is wide gulf between breaking laws to save Jews during the Holocaust ... and breaking international and national financial regulations.


Not really, since international financial regulations are mainly used to control and oppress. Read _Confessions of an Economic Hitman_ some time. Or remember the Cantilon Effect I mentioned. It's why El Salvador and now many other countries are looking to Bitcoin for salvation, and why so many in Bitcoin are motivated to make it work no matter the price.






Miles Marsalis said:


> I'm side-eyeing your apparent sudden social-mindedness.


Nothing sudden about it. I kept telling you that's the reason I and many others are in Bitcoin. You and others keep saying it's to make money on it going up, or to sell my bags to someone else, but it's always been to give people freedom from financial oppression.



Miles Marsalis said:


> I mean, putting aside the vast resources the federal government has for enforcement,


They don't have enough. Even the totalitarian nightmare surveillance state of Communist China doesn't have enough.



Miles Marsalis said:


> most people aren't to use the method you're describing to transfer funds for everyday transactions that is more convoluted than traditional electronic payment systems ... or cash.


In Europe there's a popular payment method called MB Way, where you see a QR code on the permanent terminal, and you just scan it with your banking app. Same concept. But that's if you want to have control of your money. I agree most people will just keep trusting their bank with it, so they'll just use Bitcoin with their debit card, which they can already,




Miles Marsalis said:


> Also, most individuals and institutions aren't going to use an app that isn't compliant with their country's financial regulations, for obvious reasons.


Depends on the country. People in Venezuela have no problem using it, since they know their country's financial regulations and government are extremely corrupt.

But like I said, I'm not worried about KYC on non-custodial wallets. The concept is too stupid to even consider.



Miles Marsalis said:


> And you can just admit you have no proof of your SEC allegations.


I'm not a liar. As I said, you'll just dismiss any proof as conspiracy.


----------



## Rassah (May 17, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I'd argue financial regulations should and do apply to everyone, not just the wealthy.


As they say, a fine just means that only the rich can do it. There's also the whole too big to fail, bailouts, and things I mentioned that you don't believe.



Miles Marsalis said:


> I'd add as well that the flouting of financial laws Bitcoin somewhat enables actually empowers the wealthy to more effectively hide vaster sums of money from taxes and scrutiny while attempting to undermine the governments and economies that those who are not wealthy depend on.


They already can do that. I can even give you a number of legal ways how. But now everyone else can do it too. And, regarding the last sentence, good! Bad governments shouldn't be allowed to survive.


----------



## Kope (May 17, 2022)

Rassah said:


> Not really, since international financial regulations are mainly used to control and oppress. Read _Confessions of an Economic Hitman_ some time. Or remember the Cantilon Effect I mentioned. It's why El Salvador and now many other countries are looking to Bitcoin for salvation, and why so many in Bitcoin are motivated to make it work no matter the price.View attachment 132105
> 
> 
> Nothing sudden about it. I kept telling you that's the reason I and many others are in Bitcoin. You and others keep saying it's to make money on it going up, or to sell my bags to someone else, but it's always been to give people freedom from financial oppression.
> ...


“but it's always been to give people freedom from financial oppression.”

If you want to give me some freedom from financial oppression through some extra Bitcoin you have I’l I’d be willing to accept your offer :3


----------



## Fallowfox (May 18, 2022)

Who exactly was this mysterious Rachel Dawes and what was their plan?


----------



## Rassah (May 18, 2022)

While people were panicking and selling last week, thinking "crypto is crashing," guess who was buying it all up? Once again smart money knows what's up.


----------



## Rassah (May 18, 2022)

Kope said:


> “but it's always been to give people freedom from financial oppression.”
> 
> If you want to give me some freedom from financial oppression through some extra Bitcoin you have I’l I’d be willing to accept your offer :3


Post a Bitcoin address here, see what happens.


----------



## Kope (May 18, 2022)

Rassah said:


> Post a Bitcoin address here, see what happens.


I have a Robinhood/ PayPal for crypto and that’s it


----------



## KimberVaile (May 18, 2022)

Well, you know what they say. Beggars can't be choosers.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 18, 2022)

Rassah said:


> While people were panicking and selling last week, thinking "crypto is crashing," guess who was buying it all up? Once again smart money knows what's up.
> View attachment 132124


And now finally people can stop doing altcoins. Hopefully?


----------



## KimberVaile (May 18, 2022)

Yakamaru said:


> And now finally people can stop doing altcoins. Hopefully?


The ones worth keeping will survive, I posit. The ones that offer something useful. Which will cut out most of them.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 18, 2022)

KimberVaile said:


> The ones worth keeping will survive, I posit. The ones that offer something useful.


Yup. The ones with hard limits like Litecoin, preferably. Dogecoin was a meme coin but it made me richer, but that one's going the way of the dodo due to no hardcoded limit. Friend of mine made 200k out of it funnily enough.


----------



## Rassah (May 20, 2022)

Most coins, including Litecoin, are going away and are generally a terrible investment. There is no "the new Bitcoin" or "better than Bitcoin." Even ETH has caveats.








						Coinbase and the Insider Exchange Dump
					

Bitcoin is very different from all other cryptocurrencies. In fact, it shouldn’t even be considered the same asset class.




					www.swanbitcoin.com


----------



## KimberVaile (May 20, 2022)

Rassah said:


> Most coins, including Litecoin, are going away and are generally a terrible investment. There is no "the new Bitcoin" or "better than Bitcoin." Even ETH has caveats.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The market will determine which coins have use cases, I am fairly sure. Most bad projects don't survive long market downturns.


----------



## Releaseone (Jun 10, 2022)

Bitcoin is characterized as a digital currency that operates free of any central control or the oversight of banks or governments. At least, this was the case in the beginning. Now governments are adapting to the new reality, and they have started understanding that bitcoin and cryptocurrency overall will be around for longer than they expected. Now there are regulations the government is imposing. If you are new to cryptocurrency, my main advice is to be careful and study the crypto before buying/investing. I am lately following https://bhero.com and the projects they invest in or work with.


----------



## Rassah (Jun 17, 2022)

Banking uses 56 times more energy than Bitcoin: Valuechain report
					

A new approach to measuring Bitcoin energy consumption provides a precise estimate of its energy consumption as well as Lightning scalability.




					cointelegraph.com


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Jun 17, 2022)

@Rassah , out of morbid curiosity, have you been keeping your Bitcoin holdings over the last six months or did you sell with the hope of buying low later and riding the rise, however unlikely, back up again? I remember you saying you were maintaining your holdings no matter what and that the vast majority of your assets were in Bitcoin, so I'm interested to know if you're actually riding this out.


----------



## Rassah (Jun 18, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> @Rassah , out of morbid curiosity, have you been keeping your Bitcoin holdings over the last six months or did you sell with the hope of buying low later and riding the rise, however unlikely, back up again? I remember you saying you were maintaining your holdings no matter what and that the vast majority of your assets were in Bitcoin, so I'm interested to know if you're actually riding this out.


I and other wealthy holders don't sell. No point to. No one can predict bottoms, and selling would just add tax issues. I'm also finally selling of my two properties in the next 30 days with preparations to move to Europe, so I'm looking forward to buying about $400k of it cheap now. I rode the one from $32 to be$2.50 down, the $1200 one, and the $20k one, buying all the way down. So this isn't my first rodeo. Remember, this isn't about the short term valuation and volatility for us. It's still about forcing replacement of all central banking, with something that is deflationary and thus is guaranteed to go up long term.


----------



## idkthough120 (Jun 18, 2022)

its not a bitcoin if i dont get to play NES games on it


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Jun 18, 2022)

Rassah said:


> I and other wealthy holders don't sell. No point to. No one can predict bottoms, and selling would just add tax issues. I'm also finally selling of my two properties in the next 30 days with preparations to move to Europe, so I'm looking forward to buying about $400k of it cheap now. I rode the one from $32 to be$2.50 down, the $1200 one, and the $20k one, buying all the way down. So this isn't my first rodeo. Remember, this isn't about the short term valuation and volatility for us. It's still about forcing replacement of all central banking, with something that is deflationary and thus is guaranteed to go up long term.


Putting aside the six month slide down, you sure that it is wise to buy Bitcoin instead just keep the liquid cash? There are different regulatory frameworks in place in key markets that weren't for previous Bitcoin busts. This decline feels a lot systemic than the others. Institutional investors were responsible for the 2020 surge and they're arguably the ones driving this drop currently. Also, am I misremembering you saying that you invest 90% of assets in Bitcoin?


----------



## Rassah (Jun 19, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> Putting aside the six month slide down, you sure that it is wise to buy Bitcoin instead just keep the liquid cash? There are different regulatory frameworks in place in key markets that weren't for previous Bitcoin busts. This decline feels a lot systemic than the others. Institutional investors were responsible for the 2020 surge and they're arguably the ones driving this drop currently. Also, am I misremembering you saying that you invest 90% of assets in Bitcoin?


We should put aside six months slide down, since they're systematic of instant gratification culture and high time preference, created by, or at least influenced by our inflationary economy where people want to get stuff now rather than save up and get stuff later. Look at it over the long term.
Keeping liquid cash is problematic. Selling Bitcoin means you permanently lose a portion of your wealth to taxes. Bitcoin would have to fall by 15% to 25% more for you to buy in to break even. Moving it into cash means it's now in a bank, which is only insured for $250k, and could freeze your money until you explain there it came from. Unless you trade into one of those stablecoins that track the dollar, and those aren't very safe right now. Cash is also inflating hard right now, where official figure is 8.5% but I'm pretty sure we have been above 10% unofficially for two years. And then there's this. No one can predict the bottom and I've seen this so many times (imagine everyone who just sold at $17k expecting to buy in at $14k)




Regarding the cause of the drop, it wasn't institutional investors exactly. The first one was thanks to Luna, such ran a stablecoin that was stable not by USD backing but with an algorithm. It basically shorted its own coin, so if the coin goes down in value, it earns more on the short and can use that to prop the coin back up. It was sort of like this.




And of course that Rube Goldberg idea inevitable failed. But it had a ton of money invested and backing it by this time, so when it started crashing hard, the algo bot that was trying to prop it up ended up selling 80,083 bitcoin to try to save it. That's $2.4 billion dollars, dumped on the market within a day or two. Institutions would've sold slowly, this was just dump. That's what caused the drop from $40k to $30k.
Oh, I should mention that before this, there was concern about some exchanges having issues, or new regulations being considered causing your money to get stuck on exchanges, so people started pulling money out of exchanges to store on their own wallets. It wasn't anything concrete, just general concern with calls to get your money out. This resulted in very shallow market, meaning it was easier to move the price with less money.
The next crash was caused in large part by a Bitcoin lending company called Celsius. It lets you borrow USD using BTC at ridiculously low interest rates, and lets you earn interest by buying and "staking" certain coins like they were a savings account paying a guaranteed fixed interest. I've been warning about that company being sketchy and possibly a ponzi for over a year now. Once the price of Bitcoin crashed due to Luna dump, and forced other altcoins to crash too (they all just follow Bitcoin), as ponzis do when money contracts, Celsius got into major trouble and froze withdrawals. It also caused a bunch of margin calls on its network, where the collateral backing your loan becomes too low, so they're forced to sell your collateral to pay off the loan before its value drops below the value of your loan. This forced selling, and panic about such a big company locking up funds, caused the price to drop, which forced more margin calls, causing more selling, causing more margin calls, etc. In all, over a billion worth of Bitcoin was force sold again, driving the price from $30k to $20k. The little bit of a drop from $20 to $17 and back to $20 was just some leftover margin calls and liquidations by other smaller companies.
Big institutions, like Microstrategy, Blackrock, Tesla, and various banks haven't sold and didn't get margin called or liquidated, since they just hold Bitcoin. The big whales I know who hold a whole lot of Bitcoin didn't sell either. Only ones who lost were a few who gambled with a bit of their extra money on those staking coins that paid interest, which mostly fell now.
Overall, while the price crash sucked, it was a good thing because it forcefully cleared out any scams, ponzies, worthless "DeFi" schemes (Decentralized Finance, which are algorithmic investment or savings schemes running in smart contract platforms, but which turned out to be not as decentralized as people though, and were run by some scammers who had most of the DeFi tokens and used them for pump and dump scams), and many of the shitcoin altcoins and NFTs that had no real value. It also hopefully means falling GPU prices so I can finally ungrade my gaming PC.
And I've really f'ed up part about all this, is that Bitcoin and crypto is regulated. It's subject to FinCEN, banking, and SEC regulations, depending on the coin. Things like Celsius and those staking coins that promise a return were subject to SEC regulations as investments. But SEC did absolutely nothing about them, even though they were blatant violations of its regulatory requirements, and had SEC looked at them it would've made them instantly illegal for now-obvious reasons. So SEC is completely guilty of dereliction of their duty. This crash, which was caused entirely by these obvious scams and dumb ideas, which Bitcoin had nothing to do with, is entirely the fault of SEC, government, failing to do its job. And now some opportunistic politicians will be using this as an excuse that "We need more regulations! We need to restrict this stuff!" when more regulations aren't going to do anything since the regulatory agency isn't even doing the job of enforcing the regulations that exist...


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Jun 19, 2022)

@Rassah , let's not quite ignore the last six months (eight months, really), since this is a long-term trend and one that responsible elements in the finance industry have been warning about for awhile, but particularly last year. The cryptocurrency industry has been unregulated for some time and trading on overblown speculation, which has now come back roost even though Bitcoin is supposed be an inflation hedge. 

Not too long ago, you were deriding FinCEN, the SEC (actually you accused the SEC having "mafia" ties and engaging in criminal conduct), and lawmakers as being restrictive in imposing new regulations and reporting standards on the cryptocurrency industry. Now you're blaming them for not policing the industry enough when this is a mess the industry created itself, which has long attracted fraudulent actors. 

However, I think we'll see if the Bitcoin crash bottoms out for real come Tuesday.


----------



## Rassah (Jun 19, 2022)

@Miles Marsalis Let's not ignore eight months, but that's very short term. We have to take long term into consideration. And long term, a few years from now, it will continue to be up.
Yep, the Bitcoin industry has been warning about these scams and shitcoins for a while. And despite there being regulations, the regulatory agencies did nothing to stop it. Bitcoin is still an inflation hedge though. Since $7 trillion USD started to be printed, Bitcoin is up over 100%. And it will continue to go up, because the cause of the crash wasn't Bitcoin, but all those other things.

Yep, not too long ago I was deriding SEC for having Mafia ties, being selective with whom they pursue, being too restrictive on some businesses where they basically force them out, while looking the other way with others. Basically I accused them of being bullies who harass businesses for personal gain but who otherwise fail to do their jobs, like they failed with Enron, 2008 crash, and others.

And now, these "coins" and "investments" were obvious securities, and Celsius was a somewhat obvious scam with the interest rates it promised, and... Looks like I was proven right again. Though, thanks for reminding me, I didn't consider this aspect of it. Would be interesting to see if Celsius had a multimillion dollar deal with the SEC too.


----------



## Rassah (Jun 19, 2022)

Bitcoin goes down in Fridays because in a trade where you need dollars to buy with or bitcoins to sell, you can't get dollars into the exchange to buy with, but you can get Bitcoin into the exchange to sell. So once all the buying dollars are used up, there's nothing left to prop up the price of bitcoins that are still being sold.
We'll see if it's different this time, and more dollars being deposited into exchanges will somehow make Bitcoin price go down instead.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Jun 19, 2022)

Rassah said:


> @Miles Marsalis Let's not ignore eight months, but that's very short term. We have to take long term into consideration. And long term, a few years from now, it will continue to be up.
> Yep, the Bitcoin industry has been warning about these scams and shitcoins for a while. And despite there being regulations, the regulatory agencies did nothing to stop it. Bitcoin is still an inflation hedge though. Since $7 trillion USD started to be printed, Bitcoin is up over 100%. And it will continue to go up, because the cause of the crash wasn't Bitcoin, but all those other things.
> 
> Yep, not too long ago I was deriding SEC for having Mafia ties, being selective with whom they pursue, being too restrictive on some businesses where they basically force them out, while looking the other way with others. Basically I accused them of being bullies who harass businesses for personal gain but who otherwise fail to do their jobs, like they failed with Enron, 2008 crash, and others.
> ...


I fail to see your baseless conspiracy theories about the SEC having links to mafia elements and threatening to assassinate people translates into you being. Furthermore, the cryptocurrency industry has been largely unregulated up to now ... which means the SEC was inherently limited in any kind of intervention there, except for blatant violations like offering securities with registering with them. The cryptocurrency industry was also clearly lobbying for lax regulations and they are reaping what they sowed.

It's also ludicrous that Celsius had any kind of arrangement with the SEC as well, though reality seems not to temper your speculation, as this crash is evidence. 

As for Bitcoin as an inflation hedge ... it's clearly not performing like one right now, sinking like a stone as it is. Offering vague assurances that Bitcoin will recover and is still a sound investment, or much more an viable payment system capable of supporting an economy doesn't change that fact.


----------



## Rassah (Jun 20, 2022)

Miles Marsalis said:


> I fail to see your baseless conspiracy theories about the SEC having links to mafia elements and threatening to assassinate people translates into you being. Furthermore, the cryptocurrency industry has been largely unregulated up to now ... which means the SEC was inherently limited in any kind of intervention there, except for blatant violations like offering securities with registering with them. The cryptocurrency industry was also clearly lobbying for lax regulations and they are reaping what they sowed.
> 
> It's also ludicrous that Celsius had any kind of arrangement with the SEC as well, though reality seems not to temper your speculation, as this crash is evidence.
> 
> As for Bitcoin as an inflation hedge ... it's clearly not performing like one right now, sinking like a stone as it is. Offering vague assurances that Bitcoin will recover and is still a sound investment, or much more an viable payment system capable of supporting an economy doesn't change that fact.


Why was the SEC inherently limited? Crypto is subject to regulations and SEC has pursued, and even arrested and jailed some crypto operators before. As has FinCEN for prior operating crypto banks and crypto trades without licence or reporting. These "staking" coins and investment funds were clearly securities. Yet while going after some people, SEC completely ignored this for a year. Since when has SRC listened to anyone when asked to not regulate?

Why is it so ridiculous SEC had an arrangement with Celsius? I'm not saying they do, but SEC has had arrangements with others. They agreed not to pursue Ethereum as a security for example, despite spending a year building a case against it. And Celsius was clearly doing sketchy shit that should've been investigated. Yet, SEC didn't... 

When you say "though reality seems not to temper your speculation, as this crash is evidence," what do you mean? The reality, this evidence, is the SEC failed to do their job. My speculation is that SEC doesn't actually do its job...

All investments, even inflation hedges, can have issues. Bitcoin didn't sink like a stone because it failed to keep up with inflation, obviously. It didn't sink like a stone because a bunch of dollars were printed. You claiming that Bitcoin isn't a hedge, because it failed temporarily for completely different reasons, doesn't change that fact either. Fact still remains: dollars get printed to infinity, bitcoins are limited to 21 million. That's all that matters really.


----------



## herness (Jun 24, 2022)

I know what is bitcoin and even invested a little in few different crypto but probably not gonna do that anymore until i have more information about the blockchain technology and all the regulations. This article explains very well what is crypto currency license and how to legally buy it in lithuania. It is a first step to being professional in this subject and actually starting making some cash with it.


----------

