# Goldman Sachs now in the Crypto Exchange business & JP Morgan admit that Crypto is a threat



## tecate

A few people on here have expressed confusion at how cryptocurrency could possibly be a threat to conventional banking.

Jamie Dimon of J.P. Morgan infamously suggested that Bitcoin was a fraud - amidst other outbursts in recent months.  Meanwhile, J.P. Morgan have admitted for the first time that Crypto is a threat to their business;
_"“Both financial institutions and their non-banking competitors face the risk that payment processing and other services could be disrupted by technologies, such as cryptocurrencies, that require no intermediation,” the bank (JPM, -1.18%) wrote in the report."
_
In other not unrelated news, Goldman Sachs is now in the Cryptocurrency Exchange business.  I'll qualify that by saying that it's not direct - Goldman Sachs own a significant stake in payments company, Circle.  Circle in turn have bought one of the largest european crypto-exchanges - Poloniex.

LINK.


Crypto pricing could well end up much lower as others on here have speculated.  However, crypto itself is here to stay regardless of the pricing speculation.


----------



## TheBigShort

So what you are saying is, if I can interpret all this correctly, is that outside of the 'Bitcoin community', others are starting to see value in crypto?


----------



## tecate

TheBigShort said:


> So what you are saying is, if I can interpret all this correctly, is that outside of the 'Bitcoin community', others are starting to see value in crypto?


Both items are indicators that the established banking industry recognise that cryptocurrency is here to stay.  That's not to say that crypto won't crash and burn (price-wise) as Brendan maintains.  However, the price speculation end of things is separate.  Crypto will survive regardless of that event taking place.

It could be that they see 'value' in it or that they see it as a 'threat' or both - depends upon the perspective


----------



## Negotiator

tecate said:


> Crypto pricing could well end up much lower as others on here have speculated. However, crypto itself is here to stay regardless of the pricing speculation.



I totally agree, Cryptos are here to stay and I have absolutely no doubt about that. Price speculation is something that will settle down over time as the bad players get weeded out. At least Goldman Sachs aren't going around with their head in the sand like the vast majority in the banking industry!


----------



## noproblem

A building Co in Northern Ireland is now taking Bitcoin as payment for houses. There's also a stud farm selling racehorses for Bitcoin. I have no idea whatsoever if this will boost the "thing" or not, they could all be just taking a punt on it, if so good luck to them. Who knows how they'll get on?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

noproblem said:


> A building Co in Northern Ireland is now taking Bitcoin as payment for houses. There's also a stud farm selling racehorses for Bitcoin. I have no idea whatsoever if this will boost the "thing" or not, they could all be just taking a punt on it, if so good luck to them. Who knows how they'll get on?


You can safely take it that nobody is taking bitcoin for anything (except maybe a latte).  So I ask the builder in NI how much bitcoin do you want for your house, which he is, say,  pricing at £200,000.  So he tells me he will accept 20 BTC, which happens to be the correct exchange rate at the time of asking.  I tell him I'll confirm that this afternoon.  No way, says the builder, you confirm it now imediately so that I can get my £200K.  Otherwise the buyer is sitting on a one way bet and with movements of 10% a day not unusual that would be a very bad place to be for the builder.  On the other hand I have all the time in the world to pay £200k no matter where the BTC price goes.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

I think the Bitcoin Community are not really grasping the central mantra of the Anti Bitcoin Community.

ABC folk like myself think blockchain technology is a good thing and will possibly find niche uses for society.  

We can also see the attraction for some of a decentralised currency though personally I prefer my currency to have the guardianship of a central bank like the ECB, though Venezuelans would admittedly not be in the same position.

ABCers do not contest that the entry on the blockchain ledger has all the attributes accorded to it by the BCers.

Except one.  It is not a currency.  As Satoshi mused it lacks the central requirement of a currency, it has no value.  So if someone shows me a figure on her Smart Phone and tells me it is bitcoin and waxes lyrical about all its wonderful technical attributes, I say "so what, what is it other than that figure you are showing me?"


----------



## TheBigShort

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I think the Bitcoin Community are not really grasping the central mantra of the Anti Bitcoin Community.



'Its worth nothing', 'its hot-air', 'it will return to zero', 'it has no value', 'its a con-job', 'a ponzi scheme'...did I miss anything?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> We can also see the attraction for some of a decentralised currency



Wait a second, if something holds attraction to someone, then by its very definition it holds value to that person. 
So perhaps bitcoin holds no attraction to you, or Brendan, or others...but if it holds attraction to others then its not uncommon for that attraction, or value, to command a price in a market, is it? 




Duke of Marmalade said:


> personally I prefer my currency to have the guardianship of a central bank like the ECB,



Me too, but perhaps after all this time you have still missed one of the central points of why bitcoin was created in the first place.
Why there is still so much trust and respect afforded to this, and similar institutions, considering how the monetary system actually operates I do not know?
By any measure, the monetary system has failed on two fronts.
First, a belief that a system based on perpetual and increasing credit expansion will induce productivity growth that 'trickles down' to the less fortunate actually works.
Second, a belief that when the system crashed, that it is still the best system that just needed some (massive) repairs and that it can continue thereafter unabated.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> You can safely take it that nobody is taking bitcoin for anything (except maybe a latte).


Except that's not actually true, is it?  Never heard of overstock.com, expedia.com or microsoft.com?  Purse.io maybe? ...no?  Granted, it's at a low base and it has had a setback in terms of trying to scale.  That doesn't mean to say it's not being used for anything.  That's a sweeping generalisation to support your narrative.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> So I ask the builder in NI how much bitcoin do you want for your house, which he is, say,  pricing at £200,000.  So he tells me he will accept 20 BTC, which happens to be the correct exchange rate at the time of asking.  I tell him I'll confirm that this afternoon.  No way, says the builder, you confirm it now imediately so that I can get my £200K.  Otherwise the buyer is sitting on a one way bet and with movements of 10% a day not unusual that would be a very bad place to be for the builder.  On the other hand I have all the time in the world to pay £200k no matter where the BTC price goes.


So currently, pricing will base off FIAT - so what, Duke?  Big deal.  If anyone holds BTC, they know that it can swing - and they accept that reality. That wouldn't stop them in buying a house or anything else.  They know that it might gain or lose - but I'm sure they would be happy to book it in at the best available price at the time of signing or whatever.
Furthermore, this => 





Negotiator said:


> Price speculation is something that will settle down over time


Once again, you are pulling the trigger on btc when it's not even half way towards fully evolving.  I hope there are not too many regulators with your mindset as innovation in the crypto space will be truly screwed.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> ABC folk like myself think blockchain technology is a good thing and will possibly find niche uses for society.  We can also see the attraction for some of a decentralised currency though personally I prefer my currency to have the guardianship of a central bank like the ECB, though Venezuelans would admittedly not be in the same position.


You think it's just Venezuelans?  There's a long list and it keeps changing year on year.  As regards the ECB and the Euro, you think that the ECB enforce policy with Ireland in mind?  Is that what we found back in 2008/9?  You think that printing off paper on a whim and devaluing the pieces of paper in your wallet or the electronic euro in your bank account serves you - or any of us well?  I'm not suggesting we opt out - but I accept that bitcoin (in it's current incomplete form) is imperfect.  I don't think you accept the same for your precious euro.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> As Satoshi mused it lacks the central requirement of a currency, it has no value.


Just in case there are any newcomers to this subject here, I will correct this.  At no point did Satoshi state that Bitcoin would not succeed as a currency. He recognised certain difficulties it would face is all.  The rest you are making up to suit your own narrative.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> So if someone shows me a figure on her Smart Phone and tells me it is bitcoin and waxes lyrical about all its wonderful technical attributes, I say "so what, what is it other than that figure you are showing me?"


And he or she will retort - "see that piece of paper you took out of your pocket?  It's exactly that - a piece of paper."  Or if you whip out your phone - logged in to your AIB A/C and show him / her the Duke's euro wealth, he/she will say "so what, what is it other than that figure you are showing me?"


----------



## ant dee

Duke of Marmalade said:


> So I ask the builder in NI how much bitcoin do you want for your house, which he is, say, pricing at £200,000. So he tells me he will accept 20 BTC, which happens to be the correct exchange rate at the time of asking. I tell him I'll confirm that this afternoon. No way, says the builder, you confirm it now imediately so that I can get my £200K. Otherwise the buyer is sitting on a one way bet and with movements of 10% a day not unusual that would be a very bad place to be for the builder.



Come on Duke thats not an argument, bitcoin has nothing to do with it!
Noone should take a one way bet, be it on bitcoin, horses, the weather or any currency


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

ant dee said:


> Come on Duke thats not an argument, bitcoin has nothing to do with it!
> Noone should take a one way bet, be it on bitcoin, horses, the weather or any currency


Compare with the retailer in Newry who accepts euro and pounds.  She genuinely does accept both currencies because she knows there are customers around who naturally use either one or the other currency.  Nobody naturally uses bitcoin for transactions.  The gimmick is a publicity stunt.  No way is there a person in Larne, say, who now finds it more convenient to buy from the builder.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

TheBigShort said:


> Wait a second, if something holds attraction to someone, then by its very definition it holds value to that person.
> So perhaps bitcoin holds no attraction to you, or Brendan, or others...but if it holds attraction to others then its not uncommon for that attraction, or value, to command a price in a market, is it?


B/S read the whole of my musings, it's worth it, believe me. The following is an extract which you appear to have missed.  I have added the bold to draw your attention not to promote my Worldview.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> We can also see the attraction for some of a decentralised *currency *though personally I prefer my currency to have the guardianship of a central bank like the ECB, though Venezuelans would admittedly not be in the same position.
> 
> ABCers do not contest that the entry on the blockchain ledger has all the attributes accorded to it by the BCers.
> 
> Except one.  It is *not a currency*.



So let me try again.  A decentralised currency would have attraction for some but not me.  But we do not have a decentralised currency, not until we can satisfy Satoshi's plea to give value to the entries.  Arguing that they have value *because *they are decentralised is circular, but hey we have been here before, we are going around in circles.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> And he or she will retort - "see that piece of paper you took out of your pocket?  It's exactly that - a piece of paper."  Or if you whip out your phone - logged in to your AIB A/C and show him / her the Duke's euro wealth, he/she will say "so what, what is it other than that figure you are showing me?"


That is not comparable.  If you are arguing that the display of itself is worthless, well that is rather trite and I won't attempt to challenge it.

I would answer "You're from Mars aren't you?  Let me explain a bit about human economics. It is centred on the acts of buying and selling goods and services.  We do this with money.  Society devotes great attention to managing its money, which is effectively a debt on society. Some people owe money and some people are owed money and it goes round and round. That figure is what society owes me."  Bitcoins means nothing other than it is a digital entry on a blockchain.


----------



## TheBigShort

Duke of Marmalade said:


> decentralised currency would have attraction for some but not me


Yes, as I already mentioned.

First of all, the title 'currency', as in cryptocurrency. I agree, it is merely a label. Labels can be stuck on anything to portray a different meaning, or imply the product or service or item is something that perhaps it is not.
I dont know of anyone who claims that bitcoin is the finished product. In fact even if you listen to the most ardent of bitcoin supporters their language tends to veer to future tense "bitcoin _will _revoluntionise the monetary system", "bitcoin is _going to _change the world"...etc...

So, as has been said to you on numerous occassions, some people can see the _potential _in bitcoin. You seem to be fixated that as your groceries are not priced in bitcoin, therefore it holds no value. You use the Newry trader who accepts two currencies as an example. This is a consequence of economic forces, as in both jurisdictions on this island officialdom will tell you only one currency prevails.
So the point being, it is ultimately economic forces that will dictate what we use as ocurrency. Institutions can facilitate greatly in the adoption of a particular currency, but if faith in those institutions ever erodes, then so too faith in the currency that they stand over.
So finally, going back to what you said, that you can see how cryptocurency is attractive to some...perhaps you could elaborate a bit more on that?


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> And he or she will retort - "see that piece of paper you took out of your pocket?  It's exactly that - a piece of paper."



Except that piece of paper is backed by the ECB which in turn is underpinned by the 2nd largest economy in the world, representing 22% of the global economy and some 500 million people....


----------



## jman0war

Duke of Marmalade said:


> But we do not have a decentralised currency, not until we can satisfy Satoshi's plea to give value to the entries.  Arguing that they have value *because *they are decentralised is circular, but hey we have been here before, we are going around in circles.


I think you misunderstood that.
Decentralization by itself has no particular value, rather it's the censorship resistance that that decentralization enables, which gives it value.

The great thing about bitcoin isn't that you are able to transfer value over a decentralized network; it's that nobody can stop you.
That nobody can say to you: you can only transfer so much, you must get my approval first (KYC, AML etc).


----------



## jman0war

Money as Debt, and the current fractional reserve system has created a rather nasty pattern of cyclic economic shocks (crashes).
Excess monetary expansion with low interest rates leads to economic bubbles that burst and wreck peoples lives.

Bitcoin provides an antidote for that.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Compare with the retailer in Newry who accepts euro and pounds.  She genuinely does accept both currencies because she knows there are customers around who naturally use either one or the other currency.  Nobody naturally uses bitcoin for transactions.  The gimmick is a publicity stunt.  No way is there a person in Larne, say, who now finds it more convenient to buy from the builder.


Just because we've always done something one way, it can never change?  Really enlightening, Duke - seriously.  Bitcoin is moving from a standing start.  You dismiss it even though it's still evolving and still has not matured and you expect that it should be used by everyone today or if not, it's useless.  I really don't share your viewpoint and I don't think it's reasonable of anyone who does.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> But we do not have a decentralised currency, not until we can satisfy Satoshi's plea to give value to the entries.


Firstly, it's clear as night and day that it's decentralised.  Otherwise - and you keep doing this, but don't worry, I'll keep correcting it as I don't want anyone to be misinformed - Satoshi didn't 'plea' for anything.  You colour his comments with your own narrative.  Satoshi identified a problem to be overcome is all.  Furthermore, Bitcoin has overcome that problem as it has attained value.  The only debate is whether it will keep it (and I'd say that to be successful, it doesn't have to be the current valuation - it can be a hell of a lot less...it just needs to shake the volatility).



Duke of Marmalade said:


> That is not comparable.  If you are arguing that the display of itself is worthless, well that is rather trite and I won't attempt to challenge it.....Bitcoins means nothing other than it is a digital entry on a blockchain.


I completely and utterly disagree. The paper in your pocket is just that - paper. The digital entry in your bank account is just a number.  There is no difference between them other than FIAT has established a level of sentiment.  Bitcoin attempts to do so.



Firefly said:


> Except that piece of paper is backed by the ECB which in turn is underpinned by the 2nd largest economy in the world, representing 22% of the global economy and some 500 million people....


Same point as above, Firefly.  A central bank _backs_ a FIAT currency?  What meaning does that have?  The gold standard was dropped by the Brits in 1931 & the Americans finally killed it off in 1971.  That gave way for FIAT - which by it's very meaning - implies that it's decreed as currency by governments.  Guess what - governments fail and economies fail.  In any given year, there is a list of such economies.
Furthermore, government may decree it but it's still a system where sentiment dictates.  The euro has had some rocky times not that long ago. Nothing is impossible.  Furthermore, the electronic euro entry in your bank account can be subject to a haircut.  Where was the ECB when Bank of Cyprus depositors had 47.5% of their savings wiped out?  You'll recall we were pretty close to it ourselves.  I recall the scramble that was going on amongst AAM'ers - searching europe for safe-haven banks to store their euro.  That can't happen with a decentralised system.

The point is that be it bitcoin or euro, they are just entries and all that 'backs' them is sentiment.  The only difference is that Euro is more established and matured.  It would be prudent of people to withhold their judgement until cryptocurrencies have matured.  Hope for some in that respect but at this point, I don't expect the Duke to climb out of his entrenched position and embrace that idea.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Except that piece of paper is backed by the ECB which in turn is underpinned by the 2nd largest economy in the world, representing 22% of the global economy and some 500 million people....



And for all intents and purposes there is no need for cryptocurrencies.
Until you examine the currency of the ECB, and how in its very short lifetime bankrupted countries and saddled them with mountainous debt.
Or perhaps, as it transpires, the ECB can basically print as much of the stuff as it wants. 
I cant do that, you cant do that, 500million people cant do that. So its a fallacy to assume its 'our' currency. It is not. It is merely the currency we use. Sovereignty has been ceeded. Which is fine while we piggyback the good times, but not so good in bad times. 
Bitcoin, or other cryptos offer an opportunity to decentralise sovereignty to the individual. 
Whether it prevails or not remains to be seen. But clearly, some people can see the value in that and therefore a market has formed.


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> Same point as above, Firefly.  A central bank _backs_ a FIAT currency?  What meaning does that have?  The gold standard was dropped by the Brits in 1931 & the Americans finally killed it off in 1971.  That gave way for FIAT - which by it's very meaning - implies that it's decreed as currency by governments.  Guess what - governments fail and economies fail.  In any given year, there is a list of such economies.
> Furthermore, government may decree it but it's still a system where sentiment dictates.  The euro has had some rocky times not that long ago. Nothing is impossible.  Furthermore, the electronic euro entry in your bank account can be subject to a haircut.  Where was the ECB when Bank of Cyprus depositors had 47.5% of their savings wiped out?  You'll recall we were pretty close to it ourselves.  I recall the scramble that was going on amongst AAM'ers - searching europe for safe-haven banks to store their euro.  That can't happen with a decentralised system.
> 
> The point is that be it bitcoin or euro, they are just entries and all that 'backs' then is sentiment.  The only difference is that Euro is more established and matured.  It would be prudent of people to withhold their judgement until cryptocurrencies have matured.  Hope for some in that respect but at this point, I don't expect the Duke to climb out of his entrenched position and embrace that idea.



All very good points, but I would be happier with euros in my bank than Bitcoins on my computer or on some exchange somewhere....


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> And for all intents and purposes there is no need for cryptocurrencies.
> Until you examine the currency of the ECB, and how in its very short lifetime bankrupted countries and saddled them with mountainous debt.


Without going too far off topic, I believe countries themselves into trouble rather than the currency itself



TheBigShort said:


> Or perhaps, as it transpires, the ECB can basically print as much of the stuff as it wants.


It could, but it won't. The goal is inflation of 2% as you keep bringing up.



TheBigShort said:


> Bitcoin, or other cryptos offer an opportunity to decentralise sovereignty to the individual.


I agree and it were to really take off it would result in a massive wealth transfer and if you were unlucky enough not to have any you would have diddly squat.

How do you think public services would be funded in a Bitcoin world????


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> All very good points, but I would be happier with euros in my bank than Bitcoins on my computer or on some exchange somewhere....


Well, of course you would as you would NOT store them on an exchange.  ;-)
Otherwise, if it's with regard to volatility, I agree completely.  Nobody is saying that bitcoin (and crypto's generally) are stable.  There can't even be an expectation of them being stable just yet as they have not matured themselves, nor has the eco-system in which they are used been built out yet. 
Other than that, nobody is saying that it has to be one way or the other.  Cryptocurrencies will exist alongside FIAT.  There are certain transactional duties that crypo's can do much better.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

jman0war said:


> The great thing about bitcoin isn't that you are able to transfer value over a decentralized network; it's that nobody can stop you.
> That nobody can say to you: you can only transfer so much, you must get my approval first (KYC, AML etc).


A thought experiment for you.  Imagine that the network facilitated the transfer of dollars, euros, bananas whatever.  Would that increase the value of the dollar, euro or bananas?  We have the incredible irony that because it can only transfer mere digital entries which have no objective value these entries (bitcoin) are given ridiculous speculative prices.


----------



## jman0war

Firefly said:


> How do you think public services would be funded in a Bitcoin world????


"Money" could be streamed on a pay-as-you-use basis, down to the millisecond.

Does FIAT currency really do this better?  Can you explain it?
Does the Euro do this better than the Irish Punt did?


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> A thought experiment for you.  Imagine that the network facilitated the transfer of dollars, euros, bananas whatever.  Would that increase the value of the dollar, euro or bananas?  We have the incredible irony that because it can only transfer mere digital entries which have no objective value these entries (bitcoin) are given ridiculous speculative prices.


People determine value whether it's euro, dollar, bananas, bitcoin, etc. Your criticism is that a digital currency which everyone accepts hasn't even arrived anywhere close at maturing and is currently subject to major speculation can't succeed?  You clearly don't believe that volatility will dissipate as it matures.  That's fine - that's your _opinion_ - but it's not an opinion I share.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Without going too far off topic, I believe countries themselves into trouble rather than the currency itself



Yes, but the adoption of the euro as their currency facilitated the increases in spending.
The punt or drachma would not have been capable of these levels of spending without crashing those currencies.



Firefly said:


> It could, but it won't. The goal is inflation of 2% as you keep bringing up.



How much will they print? They havent put a final figure on it. Latest inflation figures show inflation falling away from 2%. 
The notion that they could print as much as they want, but wont, is with respect naive. 
Financial history is littered with examples of authoritative assurances to the public, but doing exactly the opposite.
The reality is, if they want to keep printing, you cant stop them.



Firefly said:


> I agree and it were to really take off it would result in a massive wealth transfer and if you were unlucky enough not to have any you would have diddly squat.
> 
> How do you think public services would be funded in a Bitcoin world????



You are envisaging a global cryptocurrency world without central authority? We are light years from that, if ever.
But one way public services could be financed is if central authorities accept bitcoin for taxes due. This is proposed in the Senate's of Arizona and Tennesse.


----------



## Leo

TheBigShort said:


> The punt or drachma would not have been capable of these levels of spending without crashing those currencies.



The Greeks were cooking their books long before the Euro arrived. If anything, the Euro, and the scrutiny that came with it, might have saved them from even more significant financial self-destruction.


----------



## jman0war

Leo said:


> The Greeks were cooking their books long before the Euro arrived. If anything, the Euro, and the scrutiny that came with it, might have saved them from even more significant financial self-destruction.


But also would deprive them of a method to climb back out: currency devaluation

Greece joined the Euro in 2001.


----------



## TheBigShort

Leo said:


> The Greeks were cooking their books long before the Euro arrived. If anything, the Euro, and the scrutiny that came with it, might have saved them from even more significant financial self-destruction.



They were cooking the books for purpose of meeting the criteria required to join the euro!


----------



## tecate

Leo said:


> The Greeks were cooking their books long before the Euro arrived. If anything, the Euro, and the scrutiny that came with it, might have saved them from even more significant financial self-destruction.


We're definitely going off topic now but if masses of cheap, German Euro wasn't made so easily available to them, maybe they'd never have got to that point in the first place.  Furthermore, whilst Greece and Ireland were in the crapper in 08/09, Germany was booming.  The ECB implemented policy for Germany - not Ireland or Greece.


TheBigShort said:


> They were cooking the books for purpose of meeting the criteria required to join the euro!


And Germany wanted everyone in the euro so they could sell them all their warez...regardless of whether it was in any ways suitable for the likes of Greece to join the Euro.


----------



## TheBigShort

tecate said:


> And Germany wanted everyone in the euro so they could sell them all their warez...regardless of whether it was in any ways suitable for the likes of Greece to join the Euro.



Exactly, and all this talk of the euro, Ireland, Greece, cooking the books etc just adds weight to the concept of owning your own currency outside of central authority.

Time to buy more bitcoin.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> But one way public services could be financed is if central authorities accept bitcoin for taxes due.



Do you really think it would be feasible for Revenue to audit and tax people based on their transactions / profits in Bitcoin to pay your salary? If you do you are some believer!!


----------



## jman0war

Firefly said:


> Do you really think it would be feasible for Revenue to audit and tax people based on their transactions / profits in Bitcoin to pay your salary? If you do you are some believer!!


I think the existing model is out-dated and technology is rendering the tax harvesting process archaic and obsolete.
That is the march of progress.
If Revenue want to stay relevant they have to re-invent.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Do you really think it would be feasible for Revenue to audit and tax people based on their transactions / profits in Bitcoin to pay your salary? If you do you are some believer!!



No I don't, do you?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

I see Bill Gates is no longer a poster boy for bitcoin.  Who's left?  Branson?  If he ever was a bitcoin fan, he said he would accept bitcoin for his space holidays but would immediately convert to real money.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I see Bill Gates is no longer a poster boy for bitcoin.  Who's left?  Branson?


I don't really see how this advances the discussion but just for the record Gates recently stated that he disliked the anonymity aspect of Bitcoin.  I'm not sure what your point is or how it relates to the bigger picture? Microsoft still accept bitcoin payments.
Crypto doesn't need 'poster boys'. The tech speaks for itself.

You're nothing if not repetitive on the conversion to FIAT.  So what? Once again, you expect a brand new tech and currency to immediately be right up to speed with what's in place already - nevermind the fact it hasn't matured ..nor has the eco system been built out. There's nothing pragmatic or reasonable in that viewpoint.


----------



## TheBigShort

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I see Bill Gates is no longer a poster boy for bitcoin.  Who's left?  Branson?  If he ever was a bitcoin fan, he said he would accept bitcoin for his space holidays but would immediately convert to real money.



So he is concerned about its anonymity and its speculative price. Hardly breaking news is it? Perhaps he has been reading the pages of AAM and been suaded by your musings? 

It says Steve Wozniack got scammed of Bitcoin through the use of a stolen credit card too. It's not clear from the article if he is still a fan of credits cards!


----------



## jman0war

What bitcoin has provided the world, is a paradigm shift.

What is now possible is to start to imagine what the future might bring.
For example:

Decentralized 'companies' that are owned by no person and controlled only by the programmatic rules it runs on.
Companies only existing "in the cloud", in the blockchain as a series of immutable smart contracts.
Contracts that transfer bitcoin to contributers for verified work performed.
It's possible that the 'company' would be created entirely by bots and not even by human programmers.


Taxis are ripe for major disruption.
Self-driving, autonomous taxis that control their own digital funds to re-fuel, recharge, check into repair centres and pay own bills. Accessing live traffic data to self-determine where to find customers and set it's own prices.
Perhaps driving across country to fill a service shortage.

We are crossing into a new paradigm where for the first time in history "Money" is not the exclusive preserve of humanity.

Let Revenue justify it's own existance.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> I'm not sure what your point is or how it relates to the bigger picture?





			
				Bill Gates ex bitcoin poster boy said:
			
		

> “I think the speculative wave around ICOs and cryptocurrencies is super risky”



Aside:  I apologise for my high level of activity today.  Blame it on Emma and the Beast.


----------



## tecate

Bill Gates without the Dukes inaccurate labelling said:
			
		

> I think the speculative wave around ICOs and cryptocurrencies is super risky


Another so what? moment Duke.  The level and nature of pricing speculation more recently has been overcooked.  There are many errant ICO's.  These are secondary to the bitcoin project itself.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> No I don't, do you?


I don't either, hence my post why public services would suffer....


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, but the adoption of the euro as their currency facilitated the increases in spending.
> The punt or drachma would not have been capable of these levels of spending without crashing those currencies.


I'm confused.  So we have "euro wicked, drachma good".  My understanding is that bitcoin is meant to be be an answer to incontinent currencies like the drachma.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I don't either, hence my post why public services would suffer....



Why would they suffer?


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I'm confused.  So we have "euro wicked, drachma good".


 Confused? We can't be having that 
The discussion turned to the euro to make the point that it is very much flawed.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> My understanding is that bitcoin is meant to be be an answer to incontinent currencies like the drachma.


Has someone in this discussion suggested a complete swap out? I guess I missed that part...
Does BTC have legitimate uses? Certainly.


----------



## TheBigShort

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I'm confused.



Clearly.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> So we have "euro wicked, drachma good"



Your words not mine.

The Greek government would never have been able to borrow to the extent it did without cooking the books using Drachma, with the assistance of the banking sector, to meet the criteria to join the euro.
Once in the euro, they were able to borrow beyond their capacity (without the need for cooking the books, they had the euro).


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> Has someone in this discussion suggested a complete swap out? I guess I missed that part...
> Does BTC have legitimate uses? Certainly.


I acknowledge that you have consistently argued that bitcoin could enjoy a niche role alongside fiat and I find that a credible position albeit one which, admittedly IMHO, is in error.

But others in the discussion have adopted a more evangelistic stance whereby they clearly long for a situation where crypto delivers us from the wicked corruption of central bank controlled currencies.  These same people seem to have a sympathetic nostalgia for the likes of the drachma, which I find a tad contradictory.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Why would they suffer?


They wouldn't be funded...


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> The Greek government would never have been able to borrow to the extent it did without cooking the books using Drachma, with the assistance of the banking sector, to meet the criteria to join the euro.


So that's whose fault exactly?


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> But others in the discussion have adopted a more evangelistic stance whereby they clearly long for a situation where crypto delivers us from the wicked corruption of central bank controlled currencies.


You have to bear in n mind that it's the ills of the existing system that led to the BTC project in the first instance.  I think anyone who has any any tine for crypto acknowledges this.  I have not seen anyone here suggest there will be a complete swap out.


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> So that's whose fault exactly?


Well it (the whole mess ) involves 2x FIAT currencies ;-)


----------



## TheBigShort

Duke of Marmalade said:


> But others in the discussion have adopted a more evangelist approach whereby they clearly long for a situation where crypto delivers us from the wicked corruption of central bank controlled currencies.



I detect a tone of sarcasm? Underlying the sarcasm is a tolerance for corruption. 
Thats understandable to an extent. The monetary system is so vast that certain levels of corruption and fraud can be withstood without adversely contributing to the demise of fiat currencies.
But when the level of corruption reaches the levels governments (e.g Greece), banks, and central bankers themselves, then that is a cause for concern. 
If you cant trust the referee and the linesmen and the fourth official, then why trust the players?


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> They wouldn't be funded...


Do you believe cash should've banned then?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> They wouldn't be funded...



Why not? The revenue have authority to demand payment in euro. If all I have is bitcoin it will be me who has to convert it to euro to comply.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> So that's whose fault exactly?



Eh, bitcoin?

Or the Greek government and Goldman Sachs perhaps?


----------



## TheBigShort

Duplicate.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> You have to bear in n mind that it's the ills of the existing system that led to the BTC project in the first instance.  I think anyone who has any any tine for crypto acknowledges this.  I have not seen anyone here suggest there will be a complete swap out.


Oh no. Nobody has suggested a complete swap out.  Let's not be coy here.  I am referring to B/S.  My read of his (apologies if it should be her)  position is that  he thinks there is a non trivial chance that it will fail.  But it is clear from his doctrine that paradise on this planet would be in sight if bitcoin replaced all fiat.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Why not? The revenue have authority to demand payment in euro. If all I have is bitcoin it will be me who has to convert it to euro to comply.


The point being that it will be very difficult for Revenue to audit transactions or profits in Bitcoin as you agree. Unless you think people are 100% honest the public coffers will suffer....


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Eh, bitcoin?
> 
> Or the Greek government and Goldman Sachs perhaps?


If the Greek government didn't want to cook their books there wouldn't have been any work for GS. Fault lies with the Greeks.


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> The point being that it will be very difficult for Revenue to audit transactions or profits in Bitcoin as you agree. Unless you think people are 100% honest the public coffers will suffer....


I don't disagree that it presents a difficulty but not the same level of difficulty as cash.


----------



## jman0war

Replaced all Fiat, Duke?
I doubt the most coercive nation states among the world could countenance something like that.
Not before pressing her boot firmly on her citizen's necks.

Let's see what Futurists have to say:


> “Cryptocurrency is very much here to stay,” said futurist and author Thomas Frey, noting that he’s speaking to the Federal Reserve in September on the topic. He predicts that “*cryptocurrencies are going to displace roughly 25% of national currencies by 2030*. They’re just much more efficient, the way they run.”
> 
> “When people like [International Monetary Fund managing director] Christine Lagardesay cryptocurrencies could displace central banks and international banking, that’s very significant,” Frey said.





> The rise of cryptocurrencies over the past couple years represents “the legitimization of a new asset class emerging alongside the traditional global economy,” according to Dr. James Canton of the [broken link removed]. “I’d say you can expect an exponential increase of new investment vehicles to come from cryptofinance.”
> The future of commerce will be shaped by the crypto supply chain, which will have less friction and more exponential value between buyers and sellers of all products,” Canton said.


http://time.com/money/5178814/the-future-of-cryptocurrency/


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> he thinks there is a non trivial chance that it will fail.  But it is clear from his doctrine that paradise on this planet would be in sight if bitcoin replaced all fiat.


FIAT currencies fail all the time...it's nothing new. Maybe some are more stable than others but none are invincible.  FIAT currencies are far from perfect.  That's where this discussion has taken us...although I've yet to see you embrace the fact.


----------



## TheBigShort

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I am referring to B/S. My read of his (apologies if it should  be her) position is that he thinks there is a non trivial chance that it will fail. But it is clear from his doctrine that paradise on this planet would be in sight if bitcoin replaced all fiat.



Oh dear, having already explained my views, with supporting articles from economists and financial journals in other threads, im pleased not to have to trawl through those pages to expose the spoofer doctrine above. Instead, this topic suffices.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> personally I prefer my currency to have the guardianship of a central bank like the ECB



To which I replied;



TheBigShort said:


> Me too,



I did query this following comment, asking to elaborate some;



Duke of Marmalade said:


> We can also see the attraction for some of a decentralised currency



...but alas, no response.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> The point being that it will be very difficult for Revenue to audit transactions or profits in Bitcoin as you agree. Unless you think people are 100% honest the public coffers will suffer....



Ditto with cash. But as far as I know Revenue still accept cash payments.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> If the Greek government didn't want to cook their books there wouldn't have been any work for GS. Fault lies with the Greeks.



Is there a point to this?


----------



## jman0war

Firefly said:


> The point being that it will be very difficult for Revenue to audit transactions or profits in Bitcoin as you agree. Unless you think people are 100% honest the public coffers will suffer....


Perhaps Firefly, it is Revenue's model of collection via  inserting themselves into contracting party transactions, using compulsion and coercion, that is being found out to be inadequate for current expenditure.

And the solution is probably to adapt it's business model.
That should probably include a major reassessment of expenditure.

Technology and the transmission of 'money', is outgrowing the traditional confines of national boundaries.


----------



## tecate

Whatever about incoming finances, perhaps it has a role to play in public expenditure in a limited way given its traceability through the block chain. It certainly is a no brainer when it comes to aid and charitable donations.  Might lead to a need for considerably less donations and taxes.


----------



## jman0war

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Oh no. Nobody has suggested a complete swap out.  Let's not be coy here.  I am referring to B/S.  My read of his (apologies if it should be her)  position is that  he thinks there is a non trivial chance that it will fail.  But it is clear from his doctrine that paradise on this planet would be in sight if bitcoin replaced all fiat.


Are you still banging your drum about that musing over the "Mises' Regression Theorem" discussion?
Where Satoshi invites a thought experiment about a boring, grey, base metal?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Is there a point to this?


The Greek government are responsible for their national accounts and it's not the fault of the currency (either their own or the Euro) nor the fault of a bank whom they employed to cook the books for them.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

TheBigShort said:


> ...but alas, no response. _(to why I saw an attraction in decentralised currencies)_


 Apologies for no response.  I did think about your question.  Alas, I see no attraction in cryptocurrency, so I withdraw my earlier comment and apologise for any offence taken.


----------



## Firefly

jman0war said:


> And the solution is probably to adapt it's business model.
> That should probably include a *major reassessment of expenditure.*



Whose expenditure? People who use Bitcoin or the government spending taxes ?


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> Whose expenditure? People who use Bitcoin or the government spending taxes ?


Perhaps taxes are not going where they should?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> The Greek government are responsible for their national accounts and it's not the fault of the currency (either their own or the Euro) nor the fault of a bank whom they employed to cook the books for them.



The fact that the currecy is open to corruption and manipulation by central authorities is the issue I have. 
My currency, the euro, is also open to manipulation through the greatest money printing scheme ever - QE. 

(I disagree that GS have no responsibilty. If I employ you, as an accountant, to cook my books then as an accountant you are acting fraudently and should at a minimum, lose their licence to practice).


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> Whatever about incoming finances, perhaps it has a role to play in public expenditure in a limited way given its traceability through the block chain. It certainly is a no brainer when it comes to aid and charitable donations.  Might lead to a need for considerably less donations and taxes.



That's a pretty important whatever though. If crypto currencies were to become mainstream, they would, by their design (the "crypto" part) make it very difficult for governments to collect taxes. 

Why I am convened though beats me....a cheaper government wouldn't be the end of the world


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> The Greek government are responsible for their national accounts and it's not the fault of the currency (either their own or the Euro) nor the fault of a bank whom they employed to cook the books for them.


I'm sure the bank didn't mind at all ;-)

FIAT are mandated by governments.  They're intertwined.  Bottom line here is that all FIAT currencies are flawed.


----------



## jman0war

Firefly said:


> Whose expenditure? People who use Bitcoin or the government spending taxes ?


Government spending taxes of course.
They can't spend what they can't compel you to hand over.

Well, unless they collude with a cartel of banks to print more Debt instruments like the current FIAT system allows for.


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> That's a pretty important whatever though. If crypto currencies were to become mainstream, they would, by their design (the "crypto" part) make it very difficult for governments to collect taxes.


Finally the opportunity to agree.  It's a difficulty..although who knows, maybe there's a way to overcome it (I don't have a solution).  In any event, we are not talking about a total switch.
I queried if you felt the same way about cash?

Duke and others suggest that crypto brings absolutely nothing to the table. Many others suggest it can do certain things better.


Firefly said:


> Why I am convened though beats me....a cheaper government wouldn't be the end of the world


not sure I follow but then I do have a cerveza in front of me.


----------



## TheBigShort

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Apologies for no response.  I did think about your question.  Alas, I see no attraction in cryptocurrency, so I withdraw my earlier comment and apologise for any offence taken.



No offence taken. Just somewhat tiresome to have to pull you up when you deliberately misrepresent viewpoints - im not the only one that has to do it.
Which is a shame, because as an self-proclaimed ABC you do at least put forward rationale points that give pause for thought, unlike some of the hot-air, con job, commentators.

Thanks for clearing up the earlier comment.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> (I disagree that GS have no responsibilty. If I employ you, as an accountant, to cook my books then as an accountant you are acting fraudently and should at a minimum, lose their licence to practice).



Do you have a link to the fraud committed by GS and a link to which law was broken?


----------



## Firefly

jman0war said:


> Government spending taxes of course.



That's my point. A wide-scale adoption of crypto currencies would lead to a massive reduction in the monies available for governments to fund public services. 

Just like what happened with gold, people would start to hoard bticoin and the whole economy would dry up.

Very interesting article here....

https://www.fastcompany.com/40537404/how-bitcoin-ends


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> Do you have a link to the fraud committed by GS and a link to which law was broken?


I don't in that specific instance but here's a link to the type of thing that brought bitcoin about in the first place.

https://newrepublic.com/article/132628/goldman-sachs-settlement-5-billion-sham


----------



## jman0war

Firefly said:


> That's my point. A wide-scale adoption of crypto currencies would lead to a massive reduction in the monies available for governments to fund public services.
> 
> Just like what happened with gold, people would start to hoard bticoin and the whole economy would dry up.
> 
> Very interesting article here....
> 
> https://www.fastcompany.com/40537404/how-bitcoin-ends


It's interesting, but they failed to take in account things like Layer2 solutions built ontop of the blockchain.
I'd also point out that bitcoin is divisible by 8 decimals so there is really not much of a shortage should it ever take over as the primary global reserve currency.


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> I don't in that specific instance but here's a link to the type of thing that brought bitcoin about in the first place.
> 
> https://newrepublic.com/article/132628/goldman-sachs-settlement-5-billion-sham



Hi tecate,

I wasn't asking you...I was asking TheBigShort 

Easy to confuse some posters around here isn't it?


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> Why are you replying for TheBigShort?????????


Big Short can reply himself - I'm not replying FOR him.  That doesn't preclude me from making a point.  This is a public discussion.  If you'd like to carry out a private discussion with Big Short, PM him.


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> I wasn't asking you...I was asking TheBigShort


See above.


----------



## jman0war

At current exchange rates.
.01 USD  (1 penny) is equal to   0.00000100 Bitcoin
It's more divisible than Fiat.

Just wait until .01 USD equals   0.00000001 Bitcoin
Then imagine if 1.00 USD equals  0.00000001 Bitcoin


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Do you have a link to the fraud committed by GS and a link to which law was broken?



I took it from this post that fraud was being committed.



Firefly said:


> The Greek government are responsible for their national accounts and it's not the fault of the currency (either their own or the Euro) nor _the fault of a bank whom they employed to cook the books for them_.



Here is another

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-17108367/how-goldman-sachs-helped-mask-greece-s-debt


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> I took it from this post that fraud was being committed.



The books were certainly cooked, but that is different to fraud. Fraud is breaking the law. Do you have a link to where and how GS broke the law?


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> Big Short can reply himself - I'm not replying FOR him.  That doesn't preclude me from making a point.  This is a public discussion.  If you'd like to carry out a private discussion with Big Short, PM him.


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> Do you have a link to where and how GS broke the law?


In the overall context of this particular discussion does it matter if he can or cannot? I've provided a link citing fraud by GS on an epic scale.  

The hypocrisy...Jamie Dimon says bitcoin is a fraud after what they did! 

The irony...when an internal report of theirs cites crypto as a threat...


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> The books were certainly cooked, but that is different to fraud. Fraud is breaking the law. Do you have a link to where and how GS broke the law?



My understanding of the term 'cooking the books' is to mean fraud. See here;

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cookthebooks.asp

If on the otherhand you are saying that no laws were broken, that what occured was perfectly legitimate then it only means that other countries, who may want to join the euro, can now aspire to do so by 'cooking the books' as Greece did. 
Which only adds weight to having your own private currency out of reach of central authorities. 

Time to buy some more bitcoin.


----------



## jman0war

FireFly i read some more of that article and it's got some inaccurate informaton.


> What happens when all the bitcoin is mined? Bitcoin transactions are authenticated by the thousands of people who dedicate their computers and electricity to building the blockchain. They’re not donating all this money and computing power; they are being paid in bitcoin. Mining for bitcoin and authenticating transactions is the same thing.


No they are not quite the same thing.
Infact some Miners try and game the system by not validating the transactions of the just-mined block.
They try to get a head start on winning the next puzzle.
In addition, the Full Nodes that people are running across the globe to validate transactions are not rewarded.


> What is the incentive for people to spend millions of dollars on computers and power once there’s no more kickback of coin? I have asked this question of the world’s leading blockchain investors, miners, and scholars, and none of them have offered a satisfactory answer. The best they can come up with is “we’ll figure out when the time comes.


This is not a new question and the solution is Transaction fees.

Here's a good read:  https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/the-three-economic-eras-of-bitcoin-d43bf0cf058a
Currently the network is essentially being paid for via currency inflation.
When that ends, the network is paid for by transaction fees.
Yes there will be attempts to change the rules but I am confident the greater network participants will see it down.


----------



## tecate

TheBigShort said:


> My understanding of the term 'cooking the books' is to mean fraud.


Meh, if you're involved in crypto, you're a criminal.  If you're GS, it's an 'acounting error'.


----------



## Firefly

jman0war said:


> Currently the network is essentially being paid for via currency inflation.
> When that ends, the network is paid for by transaction fees.


Thanks for that. I'll be honest and admit I  didn't understand it all. unless people start to use Bitcoin to actually buy stuff I think it will collapse long before transaction fees will support these miners.....


----------



## jman0war

Firefly said:


> Thanks for that. I'll be honest and admit I  didn't understand it all. unless people start to use Bitcoin to actually buy stuff I think it will collapse long before transaction fees will support these miners.....


Well we don't exactly need all those miners.
We just need enough of them to be censorship resistant.
That's an unknowable quantity, but the fact is:  fewer miners means lower difficulty which then reduces the 'cost' of the network.


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> unless people start to use Bitcoin to actually buy stuff I think it will collapse long before transaction fees will support these miners.....


It is being used in a limited way but I agree that it needs to push through the scaling issue.  Lightning Network is central to that.


----------



## jman0war

Stocks going down and crypto going up, coincidence?


----------

