Bitcoin in a hyperbolic bubble

[WolfeTone]

BTC was meant to offer a solution to remove trusted third parts from the payment system, which it does.

I don't disagree with a lot what you say.
It is clear bitcoin has morphed into something else that was not envisaged in its whitepaper. Certainly, what is occurring today bares little reflection to what was in satoshis original paper.

But that is hardly unique in history? Take any amount of inventions, discoveries, ideas, and compare them to their original function, concept, design, etc to what they have become.
This is where there is disconnect between bitcoiners and no-bitcoiners. Putting away all the hyperbole (from both sides) it is my view that bitcoiners lean very much to what bitcoin may become or will be of use for, no-bitcoiners are generally stuck in what it is now, it's obvious limitations, with a lot of people in between who cannot make sense of any of it either way.

You only have to go back to satoshi's 8 page whitepaper to see that we are not talking about rocket-science. Nor are we talking about the done-deal here. It is apparent to me that what has occurred is an invention/discovery of digital scarcity that can function in a form as private money.
And as such the debate over what is/is not digital scarcity, what is/is not money (private or otherwise) rages, centering around primarily and understandably so its price action.
It appears to me that bitcoin whitepaper is simply the platform from which a private form of verifiable scarce digital money has been created. This has value. What becomes of it time will tell but I am in no doubt that bitcoin is here to stay, only to be replaced by better technology (which I imagine will be just #betterbitcoin).

 

[tecate]

Fair point. Although to be fair one should allow for the interest (that the central bank enable) to be earned on fiat cash. Since 1928 the inflation adjusted return on the dollar has been +0.35%. There is no equivalent of interest with bitcoin.
But for sure fiat held in your pocket is destined to lose 2% per annum. At that rate it will have lost 99% of its value in 228 years, as you rightly state. Even bitcoin enthusiasts admit a non trivial chance that it will go to zero. I certainly believe it will be zero long before 2250.
Of course the dollar might go to zero, it has happened to other fiat. However, I would think we would have other things to worry about if the dollar went to zero.

In 228 years? It might be time to swap out that calculator of yours.

Visualizing the Purchasing Power of the Dollar Over the Last Century​

There is no equivalent of interest with bitcoin.

Firstly. bitcoin is designed to retain its value over time. Secondly, over and above that, there is a yield curve emerging in crypto. Interest can be earned via crypto lending markets.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

In 228 years? It might be time to swap out that calculator of yours.

.98^228=.01; Calculators do sums, not history and not predicting the future.

Firstly. bitcoin is designed to retain its value over time.

Yes and fiat is designed to lose 2% p.a.

Secondly, there is a yield curve emerging in crypto. Interest can be earned via crypto lending markets.

I was talking about something different. I was talking about the no risk interest that is provided by the banking system (or at least in normal times). You are referring to interest payments by borrowers to compensate for the risk of lending. Not a monster point.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

That another crypto usurps bitcoin
That quantum computing dismantles the elliptic cryptography
That scalability is not satisfactorily addressed
That Central Banks act successfully to suppress it
That Elon Musk gets tired of it and moves on to another toy

This was me a month ago spelling out the risks to bitcoin's store of value. I didn't expect action on the last two in that list so quickly. Actually I am surprised at the robustness of the price given the much publicised divorce from Muskie.

 

[DublinHead54]

I don't disagree with a lot what you say.
It is clear bitcoin has morphed into something else that was not envisaged in its whitepaper. Certainly, what is occurring today bares little reflection to what was in satoshis original paper.

But that is hardly unique in history? Take any amount of inventions, discoveries, ideas, and compare them to their original function, concept, design, etc to what they have become.
This is where there is disconnect between bitcoiners and no-bitcoiners. Putting away all the hyperbole (from both sides) it is my view that bitcoiners lean very much to what bitcoin may become or will be of use for, no-bitcoiners are generally stuck in what it is now, it's obvious limitations, with a lot of people in between who cannot make sense of any of it either way.

You only have to go back to satoshi's 8 page whitepaper to see that we are not talking about rocket-science. Nor are we talking about the done-deal here. It is apparent to me that what has occurred is an invention/discovery of digital scarcity that can function in a form as private money.
And as such the debate over what is/is not digital scarcity, what is/is not money (private or otherwise) rages, centering around primarily and understandably so its price action.
It appears to me that bitcoin whitepaper is simply the platform from which a private form of verifiable scarce digital money has been created. This has value. What becomes of it time will tell but I am in no doubt that bitcoin is here to stay, only to be replaced by better technology (which I imagine will be just #betterbitcoin).

My stance is just that BTC is not the be all end all some protest it is.

Even Satoshis whitepaper was an amalgamation of preexisting technologies (p2p, hashing etc), in a clever way that solved the double spend issue without a 3rd part maintaining a central ledger.

Better Bitcoin may be a CBDC or it might just be regular cash. The question becomes will the average person trust an algorithm or a central bank? Bitcoin is even beginning to not be the main focus of the community. Look at below as an example.

Reddit - Dive into anything

www.reddit.com

 

[tecate]

.98^228=.01; Calculators do sums, not history and not predicting the future.

Then your 2% figure is an underestimation based on history - as the graphic above demonstrates.

Yes and fiat is designed to lose 2% p.a.

That's incorrect. Monetary policy is set by your CB high priests - we have no idea what tinkering they will do from one moment to the next. Bitcoin's monetary policy is hard coded in - and transparent. We know what it is right now and what it will be 50 years from now.

I was talking about something different. I was talking about the no risk interest that is provided by the banking system (or at least in normal times). You are referring to interest payments by borrowers to compensate for the risk of lending. Not a monster point.

How so no risk?

This was me a month ago spelling out the risks to bitcoin's store of value. I didn't expect action on the last two in that list so quickly. Actually I am surprised at the robustness of the price given the much publicised divorce from Muskie.

Your expectations were accurate as none of the items on your list have come to fruition.

 

[DublinHead54]

Firstly. bitcoin is designed to retain its value over time. Secondly, over and above that, there is a yield curve emerging in crypto. Interest can be earned via crypto lending markets.

This is a rehashing of the current financial market, to part take in crypto lending markets you need to trust a 3rd party like BlockFi and deposit BTC with them. BlockFi is not without its own issue (Link), and of course we all remember what happened with Mt.Gox.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Then your 2% figure is an underestimation based on history - as the graphic above demonstrates.

Rather than try and decipher one of the cult's Sacred Picture I sourced the following figures:
Rather than try and decipher the numbers from the cult's Sacred Pictures I sourced the following:

Total inflation from January 1914
to April 2021 is 2,570.54%
$100 after inflation is $2,670.54

This translates as 3.1% p.a. At this rate it will take 150 years to fall 99%. Definitely prepared to predict that bitcoin's price will be zero before 150 years are up.

 

[tecate]

Rather than try and decipher one of the cult's Sacred Pictures, I sourced the following:

I'm sure HowMuch.net's dollar bill graphic was upsetting to you and your CB high priests seeing as the 'In God We Trust' has been torn away off of it.

As regards the rest of your response, if there's interest to be earned on fiat there's risk in the same way as there is in crypto lending. And just to head your next point off, deposit insurance costs have to be built in somewhere.

 

[Sunny]

I'm sure HowMuch.net's dollar bill graphic was upsetting to you and your CB high priests seeing as the 'In God We Trust' has been torn away off of it.

As regards the rest of your response, if there's interest to be earned on fiat there's risk in the same way as there is in crypto lending. And just to head your next point off, deposit insurance costs have to be built in somewhere.

You seem to have an issue with 'in God we trust' as you brought it up before...you know it is just a motto dont you. They could put 'in Bitcoin we trust' and it would still mean nothing and have nothing to do with how something is valued...

You seem to be resorting to arguing design features at this stage......

 

[tecate]

You seem to be resorting to arguing design features at this stage......

We're a little selective in our criticism, aren't we?

Would it be fair to say that it's a religious statement? Taking that a step further, what's the difference between a religion and a cult?

So long as his Dukeness persists with the cult jibes, I'll direct attention at the real cult. The engagement of many on the subject is not borne out of pragmatism but cultish behaviour....as the Duke himself exemplifies when he tells us he's worried about the expansive money printing but that he has blind faith in the CB high priests to muddle through.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

From Wiki:

In the English-speaking world, the term cult often carries derogatory connotations. In this sense, it has been considered a subjective term, used as an ad hominem attack against groups with differing doctrines or practices. As such, religion scholar Megan Goodwin defined the term cult, when it is used by the layperson, as often being shorthand for a "religion I don't like."

I suppose that does sum up my use of the term in the context of ideological believers in bitcoin, of which I would think @tecate proudly identifies himself. If that is his belief then it follows that he has the same view of my trust in the monetary order that Western society in particular has so successfully developed.
@tecate sees it as analogous to Christians vs Muslims which I suppose explains his focus on the caption on the back of the greenback, but I would like to assure him that that caption is not relevant to my trust in the system. I would think that if there is a god she would find it somewhat presumptuous that we would expect her to get involved in the operation of mammon.

 

[tecate]

I suppose that does sum up my use of the term in the context of ideological believers in bitcoin.

Time for some self reflection, Dukey. Let me highlight a particularly poignant part of wiki's explanation:
"the term cult often carries derogatory connotations. In this sense, it has been considered a subjective term, used as an ad hominem attack against groups"
That's it right there.

of which I would think @tecate proudly identifies himself.

Current 'believer' insofar as I've repeatedly stated that I accept that bitcoin could still fail; and I've repeatedly acknowledged bitcoin's shortcomings. Many here can't be objective enough to acknowledge a single redeeming feature of bitcoin (including yourself) - so it's a bit rich to go on with this 'cult' nonsense.

If that is his belief then it follows that he has the same view of my trust in the monetary order that Western society in particular has so successfully developed.

There is a very important distinction. Bitcoin was developed in consideration of the need NOT to trust the existing system - in addressing or providing an alternative to - its failings. The mantra in crypto circles is 'don't trust, verify'. Compare that with your stance - where you explicitly told us that you were concerned about CB monetary expansion but that you'd simply have to place blind faith in CB'ers. Which of these two approaches is more akin to cult-like behaviour?

@tecate sees it as analogous to Christians vs Muslims which I suppose explains his focus on the caption on the back of the greenback, but I would like to assure him that that caption is not relevant to my trust in the system.

Religion -> Cult . There is no difference. You are a devout believer in the conventional monetary system where its leading fiat currency is peppered with religious and cult-like symbolism. So I suppose the original CB'ers thought - these are worthless pieces of cotton - what sort of nonsense can we stick on these notes to convince the huddled masses that they have some sort of value.

You insist on the disingenuous taring and feathering - and so, I'll call you out on it. Or you can be reasonable and drop it - but I don't mind either way - on we go.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Current 'believer' insofar as I've repeatedly stated that I accept that bitcoin could still fail; and I've repeatedly acknowledged bitcoin's shortcomings.

By ideology I am not referring to its technical achievement of Satoshi's relatively modest ambitions as an alternative currency. I am referring to the whole Libertarian thing; bankers are bad; can't trust the elite; make a break for freedom etc.

Many here can't be objective enough to acknowledge a single redeeming feature of bitcoin (including yourself) - so it's a bit rich to go on with this 'cult' nonsense.

I have stated that if bitcoin had intrinsic value I would fill my boots with it.

"the term cult often carries derogatory connotations. In this sense, it has been considered a subjective term, used as an ad hominem attack against groups"

Oh, you give as good as you get. Big Banking friends?

 

[WolfeTone]

My stance is just that BTC is not the be all end all some protest it is.

That's my stance also. I think the concept of bitcoin is brilliant. Private money whose value, issuance, etc is not determined by a centralised authority of bankers who decide how much, when, where and what the rules are, and when those rules are applicable or not applicable, when those rules can be changed or when they cannot be changed.

Don't get me wrong, such a system can have enormous benefits. But having the option to step outside that system is a brilliant concept. The option to dissent is critical for the development and advancement of humankind.

Better Bitcoin may be a CBDC or it might just be regular cash.

CBDC or regular cash cannot be #betterbitcoin.

 

[tecate]

By ideology I am not referring to its technical achievement of Satoshi's relatively modest ambitions as an alternative currency. I am referring to the whole Libertarian thing; bankers are bad; can't trust the elite; make a break for freedom etc.

That changes nothing relative to your 'cult' tarring and feathering. Having said that, I'll add that stakeholder groups relative to bitcoin are many and varied at this stage.

I have stated that if bitcoin had intrinsic value I would fill my boots with it.

I recall going through a series of endless discussion where you couldn't/wouldn't bring yourself to acknowledge a single positive characteristic of bitcoin - culminating in the above - which is a 'it would be great if it wasn't so crap' statement.

Oh, you give as good as you get. Big Banking friends?

Absolutely - if those are the rules of the game.

CBDC or regular cash cannot be #betterbitcoin.

Agree completely, Wolfie. They offer different options to people but in no way are they the same thing.

 

[tecate]

Opinions on crypto and bitcoin keep evolving. These comments from David Rubenstein of The Carlyle Group are relevant given that some believe that crypto will just be shut down:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1395354887966412801

 

[presidenttttt]

One issue in these debates is the entanglement of 3 things; protest or mistrust against current system, crypto and block chain as a technology, and BTC. The first two can also be large factors in assessing values of other current or future coins. Some arguments or attitudes seem to see BTC as the only game in town, and therefore "to the moon". If only markets, investments, gambling were that simple....

 

[tecate]

Some arguments or attitudes seem to see BTC as the only game in town, and therefore "to the moon". If only markets, investments, gambling were that simple....

If you'd like to discuss another crypto/coin/Blockchain project I'd imagine you can open up another thread. If it's a project you think that challenges or has the potential to challenge bitcoin, by all means introduce it to the discussion.

 

[letitroll]

US Treasury wants cryptocurrency transfers over $10,000 to be reported to the IRS​

US Treasury wants cryptocurrency transfers over $10,000 to be reported to the IRS

It’s part of a larger proposal of new rules for tax enforcement.

www.theverge.com

"The agency says cryptocurrency ‘facilitates illegal activity broadly including tax evasion"
“Cryptocurrency already poses a significant detection problem by facilitating illegal activity broadly including tax evasion,”

Like I said.......the powers that be, agree with me......who.....just the US Treasury.....i.e. the White House......the CCP & China's leadership......next move is European regulatory authorities / commission to do something BTC hostile in response to Colonial/Ireland bitcoin denominated attack.......Europe is a little slower to get things done my guess is next week or week after something drops.......as I've said previously this all occurring a couple of weeks after Colonial....weird, so weird......