Whilst I'm quite happy to adjust my view as things progress, somehow I doubt that.
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 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:
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
See above - via layer 2, yes it can match visa/mastercard throughput.
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
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'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.
) I will come back tomorrow and get to it.