Bitcoin in a hyperbolic bubble

[joe sod]

I think maybe the point I was trying to make above was lost on you. So rather than fight against the laws of physics/thermodynamics, why not embrace bitcoin mining and harness it for the betterment of all? Here's an example. Lets say you are the proposer of a renewable energy project. You run the numbers and its not feasible (due to the irregular nature of the energy capture/production). You lobby central government to subsidise the project but they don't have the $ to do so. You decide to partner with a bitcoin mining co. to utilise at source the excess energy that is being produced at times. This is your subsidy - and now when you run the numbers, the project is viable.

No I understand perfectly well your point, that the Tesla shareholders and the green lobby are cherry picking narratives to suit their viewpoints and that now bitcoin falls outside of that due to the energy consumption . However I don't subscribe to your view that excess energy created from renewables from time to time should be used to produce bitcoins. I think trying to come up with a technology to store energy on the scale of what power stations produce continuously is enormously difficult and maybe impossible, I think your suggestion that excess renewable energy should be used for bitcoin is a sideshow. The central effort should be concentrated on energy storage not on bitcoin.
I dont want to get into this argument again by the way I was focussing on the hypocrisy of possibly Tesla shareholders and the green lobby

 

[tecate]

No I understand perfectly well your point, that the Tesla shareholders and the green lobby are cherry picking narratives to suit their viewpoints and that now bitcoin falls outside of that due to the energy consumption .

I wasn't necessarily speculating on Tesla shareholders specifically. When I refer to 'this cherry picked narrative ' , I'm referring to the singling out of bitcoin mining above and beyond all other energy uses. Musk knows that it can be used to facilitate green energy capture/production - but him knowing this isn't enough due to the ill-intended and lazy narrative that is being pushed and perpetuated.

However I don't subscribe to your view that excess energy created from renewables from time to time should be used to produce bitcoins.

So you acknowledged that battery technology doesn't cut the mustard right now and that it may never cut the mustard. On the back of that, you'd sooner have excess energy from renewable schemes remain untapped and have taxpayers money pay for that privilege. That speaks volumes.

I think your suggestion that excess renewable energy should be used for bitcoin is a sideshow.

I guess what you're saying is that you are vehemently opposed to bitcoin and that serves to cloud your judgement. You've been presented with a clear case where bitcoin mining can provide the subsidy to make so many currently unfeasible renewable projects viable and you'd rather pass up on that due to your overall objection to bitcoin generally.

I was focussing on the hypocrisy of possibly Tesla shareholders and the green lobby

I'd encourage you to have a look at a clear case of hypocracy much closer to home. We have people singling out bitcoin above and beyond all other users of energy on environmental concerns. Then when a clear case is set out in how bitcoin mining can be utilised positively for the further development of renewable energy, that's of no interest and it's 'a sideshow'.

When time and time again, we see people in this debate sooner see stranded or untapped renewable energy escape into the ether rather than be utilised via bitcoin mining (as the energy user of last resort), it's evident that their opposition to bitcoin generally is what grounds their view and not environmental concerns. That's before we consider the reduction in environmental damage that can be brought about in the longer run due to shrinking the environmental effects of the gold industry and conventional banking as Mark Cuban alludes to ->

https://twitter.com/x/status/1392611938983632896

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I see. So what's important to you Duke is not that the bitcoin mining algorithm should provide the most robust network security on the planet but that it should only dare to do so in a manner you deem to be 'intellectual'. Sit with that notion for a while - hopefully you will see how obnoxious a view it is. If you can't, then I'm lost for words.

@joe sod referred to "complex mathematical equations". It is not a question of what turns me on. I am referring to the seductive language associated with the horrible entrails of crypto. My very first read up on bitcoin (only about 4 years ago) used this sort of language. And my initial thoughts were that here was a technology that is actually creating something - solving complex mathematical equations, advancing human knowledge and somehow creating value in that way. I knew terms like "mining" were mere metaphor but I thought (hoped) that here was something that actually created something of value using mathematics. I was excited to learn more - hence I purchased Antonopolous. What a disappointment I was in for, possibly explains my distaste for the whole cult. But my main objection is that I think many millennial type folk are seduced by the imagery of "mining" and "solving complex mathematical equations". It is all hype.

Your metaphor is wayward. You're suggesting that there's no need for network security. That's the whole point of the algorithm.

I knew that was wrong when I said it. But now I have the opportunity to make the correct statement. Satoshi surely never envisaged that within 12 years there would be $10bn settlements per day. It has surely reached a maturity point where the network security can be sustained by transaction fees as was the original ultimate destination. This would greatly reduce the difficulty level, which has gone through the roof as a result of the enormous unanticipated profits to be got from "mining".

 

[tecate]

I am referring to the seductive language associated with the horrible entrails of crypto.

Not just a Duke but the chief of policing for the use of metaphors and analogies? The general public find bitcoin difficult to understand to begin with. You object to the use of a description that makes it much easier to understand? There's nothing else I have to say on this Dukey except that in no way do I agree with you.

I thought (hoped) that here was something that actually created something of value using mathematics.

It seems to me that you can't see the wood for the trees, Duke. At the end of the day, the purpose of the algorithm is to secure the network. The fact that it hasn't been breached in its 12 years of existence stands testament to the robustness of the network security that the algorithm provides for. That you're not satisfied with it securing a trillion dollar asset is an issue that you yourself have to come to terms with.

possibly explains my distaste for the whole cult. But my main objection is that I think many millennial type folk are seduced by the imagery of "mining" and "solving complex mathematical equations". It is all hype.

See post # 620 for the reason you and others persist with the 'cult' references and your objection to a very intuitive and instructive manner of explaining away the bitcoin algorithm and bitcoin itself.

I knew that was wrong when I said it. But now I have the opportunity to make the correct statement. There is no need for this game any more. Satoshi surely never envisaged that within 12 years there would be $10bn settlements per day. It has surely reached a maturity point where the network security can be sustained by transaction fees as was the original ultimate destination.

I don't think that there is anyone who would agree with you as regards bitcoin the asset or bitcoin the network having reached a point of maturity. However, $10 billion in settlements a day suggests that it is progressing and it's instructive that its network effect continues to grow and has grown over the course of these discussions.
Other than that, you've read the white paper so you know perfectly well that reliance on transaction fees rather than the issuance of new bitcoin has been scheduled from day one - and that progression will finalise in 2140. It's set out for all to see.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Other than that, you've read the white paper so you know perfectly well that reliance on transaction fees rather than the issuance of new bitcoin has been scheduled from day one - and that progression will finalise in 2140. It's set out for all to see.

I have corrected my original post. The "open the box by guessing the combination key" will be the mode of securing the system even when there is nothing in the box for the combination key guessers. But the huge incentive represented by the surely unanticipated value of new bitcoin locked in the box has caused the difficulty level to be 21 trillion times higher than originally required. That's right folks, the number of combination key guesses is 21 trillion times greater than the original difficulty level which was itself in the billions.

 

[tecate]

I have corrected my original post. The "open the box by guessing the combination key" will be the mode of securing the system even when there is nothing in the box for the combination key guessers. But the huge incentive represented by the surely unanticipated value of new bitcoin locked in the box has caused the difficulty level to be 21 trillion times higher than originally required. That's right folks, the number of combination key guesses is 21 trillion times greater than the original difficulty level which was itself in the billions.

So in summary, you've taken to ridiculing a network security model that has proven to work effectively over the course of 12 years whilst a litany of centralised financial networks have been compromised within that timeframe. That makes a lot of sense for sure.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

So in summary, you've taken to ridiculing a network security model that has proven to work effectively over the course of 12 years whilst a litany of centralised financial networks have been compromised within that timeframe. That makes a lot of sense for sure.

This particular rabbit hole arose from my highlighting the hype in the imagery surrounding bitcoin. "Solving complex mathematical equations" sounds a lot sexier than "guess the combination key zillions of times". It is not a monster point and I have never questioned the security of the platform.

 

[tecate]

This particular rabbit hole arose from my highlighting the hype in the imagery surrounding bitcoin. "Solving complex mathematical equations" sounds a lot sexier than "guess the combination key zillions of times".

This particular rabbit hole has arisen due to vehement opposition to the notion of decentralised cryptocurrency. You want to re-write the description to reflect your deep-seated prejudicial view with deep-seated prejudicial language.

It is not a monster point and I have never questioned the security of the platform.

That's not correct. Time and time again you've ridiculed the bitcoin algorithm (and with that bitcoin's network security) - including on this occasion when you've repeatedly stated that its not sophisticated. This view is absurd when you're forced to concede that it is evidently plenty sophisticated when it competently secures a trillion dollar asset.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

You want to re-write the description to reflect your deep-seated prejudicial view with deep-seated prejudicial language.

Jayz, tecate chill out. My language can be provocative I know, but we are only talking about crypto. It almost seems that I am insulting your religion. I would never insult anybody's religion, honestly.

 

[tecate]

Jayz, tecate chill out. My language can be provocative I know, but we are only talking about crypto. It almost seems that I am insulting your religion. I would never insult anybody's religion, honestly.

You can't come out with this nonsense Dukey and later say 'chill out' when you can't defend it. As regards religion, that's something that you would know a lot more than me about seeing as you belong to the "in God we trust" cult.

 

[WolfeTone]

But it really sticks in the craw this metaphor of "mining" and "solving complex math", the former creating a gold illusion and the latter sounding very sophisticated and even productive. All part of the cult mythology.

This is silly Duke.

The adoption of everyday terminology and words as metaphors for new products, processes, concepts etc is as old as the hills. Not least in the financial and tech industries.

Everyone knows that when someone buys a Microsoft 'Windows' product that it is not actual physical world windows you get. Its the concept behind explaining the product.

Similarly in the financial world. The terms 'liquid' 'solvent' 'currency' 'bubble' 'crash' 'overheating' are all terms adopted from their meaning of origin to explain abstract concepts and processes applicable to money and within the financial system. So good are these words at explaining the concept that they are now definitively financial terminology.
Ditto 'mining' for the concept of 'unearthing' new bitcoin.

 

[letitroll]

Pretty clear now that post the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack and now the HSE/Health Service one - both denominated in bitcoin…….the EU/USA and the rest of the G7 are in my opinion going to take a wrecking ball to this space in the next 12 months.

Crypto nonsense might get all the headlines - but its like at best 0.01% of GDP………when an activity thats 0.01% of GDP endangers 100% of GDP + lives………..I know what I’d do…..easy choice……crush it

If i was holding BTC - I’d be dumping……its gonna be a bloodbath

 

[WolfeTone]

when an activity thats 0.01% of GDP endangers 100% of GDP + lives………..I know what I’d do…..easy choice……crush it

How does it endanger 100% of GDP? And how is it to be crushed?

 

[tecate]

Pretty clear now that post the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack and now the HSE/Health Service one - both denominated in bitcoin…….the EU/USA and the rest of the G7 are in my opinion going to take a wrecking ball to this space in the next 12 months.

So lets consider this logic... Somewhere in the world today someone or other is planning on committing a crime whilst using a car in the process. According to your logic, we should ban cars.
Secondly, you can't prevent people from using a decentralised cryptocurrency - you can only slow down its proliferation - nothing more.
Thirdly, ban crypto and all the innovation that goes with it will up sticks and take itself overseas overnight.

Crypto nonsense might get all the headlines - but its like at best 0.01% of GDP………when an activity thats 0.01% of GDP endangers 100% of GDP + lives

Like Wolfie, I'm fascinated to hear how it threatens 100% of GDP but even more fascinated to hear how crypto threatens lives!

..I know what I’d do…..easy choice……crush it

I can see how much thought you've given this. Anything that's ever described as an easy choice usually has far reaching consequences.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

@WolfeTone Another one of your heroic tries. So do you think that it is fair to describe gazillions of trials at a combination lock as "solving complex mathematical equations" even with the licence of metaphor?
Here’s an example of one of those trials:
SHA256(Wolfe Tone)=9b061076849fe24e9a1b6cc514530e05e473d3f46a42232a9b28736c1cbbf4bb
After gazillions of these trials a lucky “miner” gets a hit (lots of leading zeros) opens the box and pockets $300k
No clever programming, nothing clever at all. But I presume you know all that.
Have a go yourself. SHA256 is downloadable by anyone. You don’t need any mathematical background whatsoever.

 

[WolfeTone]

After gazillions of these trials a lucky “miner” gets a hit and pockets $300k

Well let's break down the terminology - Solving complex mathematical equations.

Would it be reasonable to suggest that "solving mathematical equations" is ok with you? And that the offending piece is the word "complex"?

complex
[ˈkɒmplɛks]

ADJECTIVE

1. consisting of many different and connected parts.
"a complex network of water channels"
synonyms:
compound · composite · compounded · multiplex


I'm starting to think that you perhaps you are conflating the word "complex" with "complicated"?

Clearly your descript of 21trillion key 'guesses' would suggest that the maths is complex. But your references to 'clever' and 'sophistication' infer an interpretation of 'complicated' as well.
As the dictionary definition above demonstrates, it would be appropriate to describe the Amsterdam canal network as complex, but not very complicated to understand.

As I understand it, there are new bitcoins 'minted' (another metaphor for adoption by crytpo) every ten minutes.
Awarded to the miners that verify all the transactions in a block.

Compare that to the euromillions. You can gain a jackpot reward in the millions, far in excess of any bitcoin reward, if you buy tickets with every single possible combination of numbers.
It is not very complicated, but it is very complex as there are 139,000,000 different combinations. Surely beyond the capacity of any one individual or group of individuals to manaully achieve this?
Perhaps a simple computer program could be devised to purchase tickets for each combination of numbers?
But at €2.50(?) a line, the jackpot would have to be €347,500,000 just to break even. I think €200m is the highest is has ever got. Worse, if you spent €347,500,000 on euromillions tickets, I think only 50% of that goes to prize money.
Even then, anyone attempting to win the jackpot this way would have to factor the double-spend problem (rather, one or more persons picking the same combination of numbers for the same draw).

It is fair to say that the Euromillions have established a robust, fool-proof system to ensure the integrity of the euromillions. It's not very complicated, but it is complex.

As for bitcoin, the maths are far more complex ensuring the integrity of the network.

 

[letitroll]

So lets consider this logic... Somewhere in the world today someone or other is planning on committing a crime whilst using a car in the process. According to your logic, we should ban cars.

I can see how much thought you've given this. Anything that's ever described as an easy choice usually has far reaching consequences.

I've clearly given it more thought than you @tecate . Your car example is a new one.....the standard cyrpto speaking point response you should have used.... is should we blame the internet, mobile phones, email, text messages..why not ban them all..........it misses the very nub of the argument and shows how little YOU have thought about it I'm afraid.

Let me explain - and I hope you understand it and if you disagree with me I would like to understand with reasoned argument where my logic has failed me.

The reason why bitcoin is different than the computer that was used for the ransomware attack, the car that drove the man who did the attack there, the internet connection over which the ransomware software was deployed is twofold:

(1) Bitcoin - is not an incremental improvement for society or a demonstrable improvement on what went before (blockchain the underpinning technology is possibly, I admire it but I have yet to see it solve any real world problems at scale yet.But i think it might). Bitcoin has not improved ANYONES lives that I know personally nobody not a single person (except for those gambling on it that have made money and are happy - so gamblers maybe?)...., I dont use it to pay for things, i send my friends money using revolut instantly and for free (you've seen coinbase fees right?)......we have a digital and analogue currency already, a high volume, low cost payments system with low energy consumption.

Bitcoin FAILS the incremental human society/technology improvement test (with the downside that its so useful for extortionists and kidnappers). Cars, the internet, mobile phones, computers...............all PASS this test. No? Explain to me why? Bitcoin has higher fees than fiat, cant process transactions at the scale of visa/mastercard, is more volatile than currency/gold so is a poor store of predictable long term value for people. It FAILS the improved currency, payment mechanism AND store of value VERSUS what we have already. The argument that it somehow cant be diluted/devalued like fiat has been utterly destroyed by the literally 1000's of competing coins - Dogecoin for one.....that have been created to compete with it for the store of value/transaction function. Is this not fiat currency printing-esque in its nature?No? Explain how I'm wrong?

(2) Bitcoin itself is not just an adjunct tool in the carrying out of a crime (like your car example, mobile phone, computer, internet).......it is the object /the aim of the crime itself....the motivator.......the vehicle in which the reward from the proceeds of that crime is housed. Its attraction is that it provides a superior risk/reward dynamic embedded in it than cash/bank transfers do for the criminal. These crimes would be pointless if the perpetrators asked for cash or bank wire they would almost certainly get caught. Bitcoin provides the greater probability that they wont. If I'm wrong on this - why have the two largest ransomware crimes been denominated in it in the last two weeks? It therefore by extension an incentive for such crimes. Its existence all things being equal - INCREASES the frequency of these crimes. If you add this to my point no. (1) failing the incremental improvement technology test while (2) making serious crime easier for the criminals while increasing the frequency of such crime. Why should society tolerate its existence? If the net benefit is negative?

That is my logic. Please take each point separately @tecate and explain how I'm wrong. Please also at this point declare conflicts of interest. The old phrase - who's bread I eat, his song I sing springs to mind. I own no bitcoin and I'm not short it. This is my opinion with no directional benefit on the rising or falling of bitcoins price. Do you @tecate hold or have held bitcoin? I suspect you do. Multi-level marketing schemes like bitcoin turn owners into promoters. I get a sense of you being a promoter in this instance but perhaps I'm wrong?

I reserve the possibility, always, that I'm a moron and you are a man that has seen the future and I stand ready to have my mind changed.

 

[WolfeTone]

Bitcoin has not improved ANYONES lives that I know personally nobody not a single person

(except for those gambling on it that have made money and are happy

So it has improved lives. Gamblers are people too!

 

[letitroll]

So it has improved lives. Gamblers are people too!

I was waiting for @tecate .............but glad to see you couldn't tackle any of my points on merit @WolfeTone.......but could only jokingly ridicule, a sign that perhaps my points have merit & stung somewhat?.....if this wasn't a joke and your point is that Bitcoin is an improved gambling sardine.....it also fails the incremental technology test benefiting human society that might, just might make increased kidnappings and extortions a reasonable trade off

 

[tecate]

I've clearly given it more thought than you @tecate .

Whilst I'm quite happy to adjust my view as things progress, somehow I doubt that.

Your car example is a new one.....the standard cyrpto speaking point response you should have used.... is should we blame the internet, mobile phones, email, text messages..why not ban them all..........it misses the very nub of the argument and shows how little YOU have thought about it I'm afraid.

The point is valid. I'm not in favour of kneejerk reactions - throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The same 'logic' was pushed about before the internet reached critical mass - the call back then was that it was the tool of pedo's and criminals and was of little use to society. Articles were published saying that the internet was a load of hype. Someone or other once said that it would have the impact of the fax machine and nothing more. Apparently they give out Nobel Prizes for that sort of thing. You want - and actually expect - that the G7 is going to ban bitcoin on the basis of the HSE succumbing to a ransomware attack? How about the HSE sharpening itself up and improving its network security?
I haven't missed the nub of any such 'argument'. It's one that has been brought up here before and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If you disagree - fine - but that's not my view on the subject.

Bitcoin - is not an incremental improvement for society or a demonstrable improvement on what went before (blockchain the underpinning technology is possibly, I admire it but I have yet to see it solve any real world problems at scale yet.But i think it might). Bitcoin has not improved ANYONES lives that I know personally nobody not a single person (except for those gambling on it that have made money and are happy - so gamblers maybe?

Bitcoin offers individuals the ability to self custody wealth, to store it and to transmit it digitally without an intermediary. You'd do well to acknowledge that as a basic improvement and another choice that people otherwise haven't had available to them. I haven't heard the 'blockchain not bitcoin' mantra for a couple of years. It's what the banking set tried to claim - they've long since given up on that. Explain to us please how 'blockchain' has potential yet bitcoin doesn't? Over a number of years there has been a theme here where people will not concede to recognise a single positive facet of what the bitcoin network brings to the table. Blockchain technology as a whole has been advanced by the developer(s) behind bitcoin solving the double spend issue - but sure - lets give it credit for nothing. I draw my own conclusions from that.

As regards bitcoin not improving the lives of anyone you know - are you suggesting that this is the vital metric in determining the efficacy or otherwise of bitcoin? If bitcoin is so useless to society, why do people like civil liberties advocate Edward Snowden think it's a great advancement? When the US government leaned on visa/mastercard to prevent Wikileaks from receiving donations from the general public, the organisation turned to bitcoin - as it's one opportunity to continue to fund the organisation.

Why are people like Alex Gladstein of the Human Rights Foundation such proponents of bitcoin in terms of its value to society going forward?

In a tweet and accompanying article earlier this week, Gladstein spelled out precisely why your metric (i.e. none of my friends have had their lives improved as a result of bitcoin ) is flawed:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1392510479541563395

I dont use it to pay for things,

That doesn't prove anything. And of those that don't use it for such a purpose today, that in no way means that this is the case as we progress. Secondly, you're running with either the convenience or misunderstanding that if it doesn't do what you expect of it today, then that's it - we write it off. I couldn't disagree with that view more. What if we applied that logic to the development of the internet, its origins going back to the development of ARPANET in the late sixties. Lets say you passed judgement on it when it had scaling issues at the dial-up internet stage? You may be prepared to pass judgement on it today but I certainly won't do that.
The ability to pay for things with it firstly is still developing. You realise that we were all born into a world that already had fiat money - and accompanying systems and financial infrastructure in place from the get go? Further still that unlike bitcoin, use of those currencies is insisted on by force? With that backdrop, you think that with the flick of a switch, the ability to pay with bitcoin for anything can happen just like that? The internet faced scaling issues and overcame them. I believe bitcoin will also (not on the base layer but on layers built on top of the bitcoin network). But you want to write it off today because your peer group thinks its a load of rubbish - good luck with that but it's not an opinion I share.

i send my friends money using revolut instantly and for free

Whilst neo-banks like Revolut are proving to be incredibly popular, the vast majority of people transfer funds via their bank account - for which there are banking fees.
On Revolut, sure you can but if all Revolut customers utilised the service without an ATM card, they'd have to start charging fees. The vast majority of people use the service with an accompanying ATM card - and you pay €30 stamp duty on that per year for starters. You chose transferring money to friends as your example rather than paying for goods and services with Revolut - a process through which they make money on - and said process builds in the cost into the price of the item you're buying already - ergo such a transaction isn't free. If you withdraw funds from an ATM via Revolut, you'll also pay fees at a certain point. If you do so abroad, you'll incur FX fees and local bank transaction fees.

(you've seen coinbase fees right?)

So against a very specific example, you contrast that with Coinbase fees in particular? I have a Coinbase account that I don't use because I don't like their high fees or their customer service. Their high fees are well known - which it seems is why you use that specific example. You could use the example of switching up from a regular Coinbase account to Coinbase Pro where the fees are lesser. You could take it a step further and use Binance where fees can be as low as 0.02%. In an industry that's only getting started, it's not so unusual to have higher fees to begin with. There will always be downward pressure as such markets expand. The documents that accompanied the Coinbase direct listing acknowledged that downward pressure on fees going forward.

But lets not do any of those things. I can transfer bitcoin to my friends from my Breez Wallet to their Breez Wallet for a fraction of a cent regardless of what jurisdiction they're in or where they are in the world. That already makes it cheaper than Revolut. Furthermore, I or they don't necessarily have to have an associated bank account or complete/submit paperwork, etc. Added to that, there are plenty of jurisdictions where Revolut or the likes of it simply isn't available.

we have a digital and analogue currency already, a high volume, low cost payments system with low energy consumption.

Bitcoin in its current form as a base settlement layer - without any further development - can match the capacity of Fedwire. Lightning network - running on top of the bitcoin base layer - can match the visa/mastercard network in terms of thru-put - with significant savings to be made for vendors/consumers over visa/mastercard.
All the while you are assuming that in every part of the world, its hunky dory to have an intermediary involved. I guess that's because you're using your peer group as a metric of bitcoins efficacy. There are many parts of the world where this is a major issue. You're also assuming that neo-banks or even bank accounts are available to everyone - they're not. I live in a country where it's incredibly difficult to get a visa/mastercard or any form of card that will work internationally. That's the norm in said country. That country also mismanages its currency and enforces unruly capital controls. I managed to extract my funds thanks to crypto - just before the currency managed to nosedive in valuation over and above all the other fiat currencies (there's a lot of competition right now in the race to the bottom).
As regards the low energy consumption, that is a complete and utter falsehood. And just to head this off before you come back on this, Visa or Revolut are not base layers. They don't get to exist without all the rest of the banking and currency infrastructure. Bitcoin is a base settlement layer and an entire monetary system in its own right.

It FAILS the improved currency, payment mechanism AND store of value VERSUS what we have already.

It does no such thing. The removal of intermediaries is an advancement. It decreases settlement risk and third party custodian risk. It prevents governments from taking a haircut to your hard earned savings or in many jurisdictions, simply confiscating your funds. It prevents banks disposing of your life savings - of which there are many examples. And by the way, whilst you're so comfy back in Ireland, we came within a hairs breath of the very same thing. That sort of event only has to happen once!
It can act against the stealth tax that is imposed on citizens worldwide via inflating fiat currencies...or in cases of countries that have totally mismanaged their currency to the point where they've destroyed the local currency. Pick from a list of examples in any given year.

Bitcoin FAILS the incremental human society/technology improvement test

Because your peer group told you so? That's a complete falsehood - as I've set out above. Read Gladstein's tweet and accompanying article. Pay heed to the fact that it is wayward to pass judgement on an innovation that has yet to mature.

(with the downside that its so useful for extortionists and kidnappers).

Cash is the currency of choice of criminals - hands down. Credit card fraud is rampant - the bill for it in the US alone comes to around $6 billion per year. Meanwhile, banks have paid out $330 billion in fines related to fraud and market manipulation since 2008. They still carry on with facilitating money laundering at the highest level because they're only paying cents on the dollar in fines - it's still very much worth their while.

Bitcoin has higher fees than fiat

No it doesn't. See above. If you're talking micro-transactions, bitcoin can be transacted via the lightning network for fractions of a cent. That makes it cheaper than fiat.
When it comes to larger international transactions, then transactions on the bitcoin base settlement layer are more cost effective than moving fiat. And if we want to get in to very large sums, then its more cost effective again. It also allows for direct settlement with no counterparty risk. Have you ever carried out an international wire transfer? How much did it cost and how long did it take?

it cant process transactions at the scale of visa/mastercard

See above - via layer 2, yes it can match visa/mastercard throughput.

It's more volatile than currency/gold so is a poor store of predictable long term value for people.

It is volatile because it has yet to mature as an asset. As a store of value over the longer term, its proven to be an excellent store of value. If you're presenting with a low time preference right now, sure - it could have shorter term issues as a store of value. However, you've opened on the payments angle. If you're going to go into store of value use case and comparisons with gold, then we'll have to go through everything - not just certain points that you pick out because bitcoin has several advantages over gold and its going to pull market cap away from it on that basis.
Once it matures, I expect it to be just as boring as gold in this respect. You should also note that in its not too distant past, gold also presented as being just as volatile yet nobody seems to mind.

The argument that it somehow cant be diluted/devalued like fiat has been utterly destroyed by the literally 1000's of competing coins - Dogecoin for one.....that have been created to compete with it for the store of value/transaction function. Is this not fiat currency printing-esque in its nature?No? Explain how I'm wrong?

Absolute rubbish. Others before you have presented with this and it doesn't wash. Firstly of the gazillions of projects, very few of them have anything to do with store of value / currency use case. Beyond that, go out and do it then. Go out and start letitroll-coin and see how far you will get. You realise that bitcoin is a trillion dollar asset? You can ignore network effect all day long but I certainly have no intention of doing so.
As regards Doge, it was started as a meme - not for use as a currency or store of value. Even if it gains some traction for payments it in no way detracts from bitcoin. I'm open to bitcoin still being usurped but at this stage, it can only be by something that is 10x better than it - not something that may have the upper hand on one single characteristic whilst failing the others.

Bitcoin itself is not just an adjunct tool in the carrying out of a crime (like your car example, mobile phone, computer, internet).......it is the object /the aim of the crime itself....the motivator.......the vehicle in which the reward from the proceeds of that crime is housed.

See above. Analogue cash and digital cash are used for the vast majority of crime and fraud. There's nothing that you can say to refute that.

These crimes would be pointless if the perpetrators asked for cash or bank wire they would almost certainly get caught. Bitcoin provides the greater probability that they wont. If I'm wrong on this - why have the two largest ransomware crimes been denominated in it in the last two weeks? It therefore by extension an incentive for such crimes. Its existence all things being equal - INCREASES the frequency of these crimes. If you add this to my point no. (1) failing the incremental improvement technology test while (2) making serious crime easier for the criminals while increasing the frequency of such crime. Why should society tolerate its existence? If the net benefit is negative?

So tell me - how is it that at a high level the banking system caters for money laundering? Explain to me how cash is used extensively in the narcotics trade? How is it that we all have to cover the billions in costs when it comes to credit card fraud?

Please take each point separately @tecate and explain how I'm wrong.

Please let me know if I've left any point unaddressed. I'm still keen to understand how bitcoin threatens 100% of GDP but even more fascinated to hear how crypto threatens lives! Can you expand on that please?

Please also at this point declare conflicts of interest. The old phrase - who's bread I eat, his song I sing springs to mind. I own no bitcoin and I'm not short it. This is my opinion with no directional benefit on the rising or falling of bitcoins price. Do you @tecate hold or have held bitcoin? I suspect you do. Multi-level marketing schemes like bitcoin turn owners into promoters. I get a sense of you being a promoter in this instance but perhaps I'm wrong?

Over the course of nearly 4 years here, I've made no secret of the fact that I've held bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. My views have been consistent over that time period. Please note that over that duration, I also didn't hold crypto/bitcoin for extended periods. If you're suggesting what I think you are, then would I not talk down the market during these times?
What you should note is that if I was thinking of myself, I should be actively encouraging what I consider to be wayward beliefs as regard bitcoin. So long as there are objectors, they serve to lengthen the adoption process. A lengthening of the adoption / maturation process means more volatility and more opportunity from a speculative point of view.
Now my turn. If there is some assumption that anyone presenting here who doesn't hold bitcoin and thinks that its just plain wrong has clean hands in these discussions, I don't agree. For many, the notion of bitcoin goes against their world view and they're against it from a political point of view or they dislike the great unwashed who brought it to the fore or that it challenges an inequitable financial system - inequitable for many yet one that they are quite happy with in that they have learned to navigate it better than most or are in a privileged position to do so.

I reserve the possibility, always, that I'm a moron and you are a man that has seen the future and I stand ready to have my mind changed.

I've long since clarified that I accept that bitcoin still has the potential to fail. As its network effect expands, that likelihood lessens but I still recognise it as a possible outcome.