As you well know, your comment was in your non answer to my request of instances of honesty on the behalf of bitcoin. You dismissed that question as defying logic. I firmly agree with you, but it was not my logic, it was PTJ who claimed btc was honest.As you well know, the comment I made relates to your wayward claim that Bukele is trying to move El Salvador out of the USD. He's confirmed that he's not doing that.
I'll humour the notion that you're having comprehension difficulties with this just for sport. Bitcoin is a protocol and as a protocol it hasn't been designed to be dishonest. It's clear what its monetary policy is today, tomorrow, next week/month/year, etc. It provides complete transparency and it can't be tampered with. In that respect it's all of the things that PTJ mentioned -> reliable/consistent/honest/100% certain.As you well know, your comment was in your non answer to my request of instances of honesty on the behalf of bitcoin. You dismissed that question as defying logic. I firmly agree with you, but it was not my logic, it was PTJ who claimed btc was honest.
but if the marginal purchaser/seller on most days are criminals and speculators it can move in a very dramatic fashion…..
people like @WolfeTone who are convinced the world economic system is no more than 6 months away (always!) from inevitable collapse…………
The only thing that matters in the end of the day for a currency is its purchasing power or its price, if you like. You yourself keep excusing the poor honest fledgling of being on a voyage of price discovery. You just don't seem to understand (it's Leaving Cert stuff) that price is a function of supply and demand. Having a reliable/consistent/100% certain supply is easy peasy (2,000 cryptos manage it) but absolutely useless if demand is all over the shop.it's all of the things that PTJ mentioned -> reliable/consistent/honest/100% certain.
Because we don't know form one second to the next the level of demand for a currency in the economy. When it comes to bitcoin, demand is so terribly unpredictable that its price can move by over a third one way or another in a matter of weeks and has done so several times in this year alone. It is not helped that demand is influenced by the latest sneeze from El Musk. How anyone can describe any currency with these wild price fluctuations as "reliable/consistent and 100% certain" is beyond me. Taken with the fact that they have a skin in the game I would suggest that such assertions are far from "honest".Now on the other hand, with your central bank high priests, we don't know from one second to the next what they're likely to do.
So in other words, you're moving away from the feigned criticism of PTJ as you knew well what he meant - you just didn't like the sound of it. That's bad faith argument your dukeness.The only thing that matters in the end of the day for a currency is its purchasing power or its price, if you like.
From post no. 942:You yourself keep excusing the poor honest fledgling of being on a voyage of price discovery.
On many occasions - over the course of four years - I've acknowledged that bitcoin's volatility is far from ideal. However, I understand why it needs to be volatile until such time as it matures as a digital asset and a digital currency. On the other hand, you know well why its volatile but try and pass it off as if there's no logic to it. That's more bad faith argument.tecate said:@dukey : So I asked you how it could have been designed so that it doesn't have to go through a transitory phase of high volatility and you have no suggestion. Understood.
You knew that statement was disingenuous before you even wrote it. From post no. 938:You just don't seem to understand (it's Leaving Cert stuff) that price is a function of supply and demand.
How about this one from last year?:tecate said:explain to us how there can be any other route to its maturity other than a multi-year process of price discovery that is directly related to adoption - and thus, demand?
Is this where I don't understand that 'price is a function of supply and demand'?tecate said:Price is a function of supply and demand.
tecate said:How are commodities valued? Is it less scientific than the assessment of the valuation of an equity stock? Is it based on the supply and demand dynamic? To me it's the latter - and it's the very same for Bitcoin as a digital asset. It has designed in scarcity. If it has NO utility, then that won't make a difference. There has been (and it seems will continue to be) a debate on here as regards whether it has utility. My view is that it has. My view is that whilst that utility is still coming forth - it will eventually drive pricing through that supply/demand dynamic.
That statement is factually incorrect. It is in no way easy to provide for a fixed supply currency. The originators of the bitcoin project have been lauded in cryptography and computer science for solving the double spend issue - and thus providing for a tamperproof, fixed supply digital asset and currency. For that reason, it's the most finite financial asset that exists in the world today - nothing comes close.Having a reliable/consistent/100% certain supply is easy peasy (2,000 cryptos manage it) but absolutely useless if demand is all over the shop.
See above.Because we don't know form one second to the next the level of demand for a currency in the economy. When it comes to bitcoin, demand is so terribly unpredictable that its price can move by over a third one way or another in a matter of weeks and has done so several times in this year alone.
I agree. However, you'll find that said gentleman is reaching the law of diminishing returns where influence related to bitcoin is concerned. Furthermore, it's all just a part of the development of the digital asset and currency. As we move from 100 million people to a billion people, the 'influence' of individuals will have far less effect on bitcoin.It is not helped that demand is influenced by the latest sneeze from El Musk.
And I'll take you to task on this statement. You know perfectly well that PTJ was talking about the monetary policy of bitcoin where everyone knows whats set out from today until the year dot - vs - the 'who the hell knows what the central bank high priests will do' - monetary policy of the USD, euro, etc. It's clear to anyone what PTJ was referring to - when you watch the interview (which I linked to in that previous post). The whole conversation revolved around a discussion on monetary policy relative to inflation.How anyone can describe any currency with these wild price fluctuations as "reliable/consistent and 100% certain" is beyond me.
That won't do, your dukeness. I would suggest it is your assertions that are 'far from honest'. See above. If not, then prove to us how bitcoin's monetary policy isn't certain/reliable/consistent/honest by a straight up comparison with fiat currency without rambling off into areas that don't implicate monetary policy.Taken with the fact that they have a skin in the game I would suggest that such assertions are far from "honest".
I didn't like the sound of it at all. We all know that it's supply is fixed. But words like "reliable", "consistent" and "100% certain" are pure hype.So in other words, you're moving away from the feigned criticism of PTJ as you knew well what he meant - you just didn't like the sound of it.
To please you I will let you have that this is the greatest break through in technology since the fax machine. If Satoshi was not so shy s/he would surely be the owner of several Nobel Prizes - Economics, Physics, Peace you name it. But by return I would hope you would allow me that with 2,000 kopykats and offshoots it is not exactly rare.That statement is factually incorrect. It is in no way easy to provide for a fixed supply currency.
Am I wrong about those 2,000? For example does Bitcoin Cash not come close?reason, it's the most finite financial asset that exists in the world today - nothing comes close.
The whole point of a fiat currency is that it can be managed for optimal impact for the economy. The idea that we would have the same supply of sterling now as in, say, 1690 is simply batty.Name ONE fiat currency that achieves a 'certain supply' - just one? You can't because such a thing doesnt exist, has never existed and will never exist.
He was referring to its monetary policy of which - fixed supply and transparency re. issuance from now up until 2140 and beyond are central to. You can in no way claim this to be hype as its stone cold fact. Is bitcoin's monetary policy known today, tomorrow, next month/year/decade/century - yes it is. Do we know what your central bank gurus will do re monetary policy from one minute to the next? No we don't. There is no hype in respect of a comparison on the grounds of monetary policy.I didn't like the sound of it at all. We all know that it's supply is fixed. But words like "reliable", "consistent" and "100% certain" are pure hype.
To please you I will let you have that this is the greatest break through in technology since the fax machine. If Satoshi was not so shy s/he would surely be the owner of several Nobel Prizes - Economics, Physics, Peace you name it.
You've trotted that out over four years Duke - and its wayward. The bitcoin codebase is open source - you can copy it and spin up marmalade-coin within a couple of hours. What you can't do is replicate the network. As per the analogy I gave you yesterday, you can copy google or facebook today - you may have their offering replicated to a tee - but you won't be able to copy their actual network. The same with google, twitter, etc. ,etc.But by return I would hope you would allow me that with 2,000 kopykats and offshoots it is not exactly rare.
Am I wrong about those 2,000? For example does Bitcoin Cash not come close?
That's a totally unreasonable request Dukey. I'm not aware of anyone - proponent or naysayer - who would even begin to suggest that this sector (and all the projects within it) is anywhere near maturity. You know that price discovery continues whilst adoption continues. Adoption only accounts for a couple of per cent of people.Can you name one, just one, crypto that has successfully completed its voyage of price discovery?
I can see a certain logic to the need to have a currency that's flexible in terms of supply. However, this is not binary. If you can drop your flat rejection of btc for a second, maybe you might see that one could benefit the other. The issue with flexible supply currencies is that we can't trust the folk who are taking those supply decisions 100% of the time. Having btc in the background could act as an incentive to central bankers and governments to act equitably and responsibly. Because if they can't, a flexible supply currency is the 'battier' of the two options - as it is today in Lebanon - and a host of other countries.The whole point of a fiat currency is that it can be managed for optimal impact for the economy. The idea that we would have the same supply of sterling now as in, say, 1690 is simply batty.
"Hype" does not mean false it comes from "hyperbole" and refers to describing things in exaggeratedly favourable terms. "stone cold fact" okay I will allow him to use "100% certain" to express that but on top of that we have "reliable", "consistent" "honest" :mad: . The guy is a cultist - this is hype.He was referring to its monetary policy of which - fixed supply and transparency re. issuance from now up until 2140 and beyond are central to. You can in no way claim this to be hype as its stone cold fact. Is bitcoin's monetary policy known today, tomorrow, next month/year/decade/century - yes it is.
So leaving aside the cult's obsession with supply I take it from this that the price of bitcoin for the foreseeable future will be none of reliable, consistent, 100% certain or honest:mad:.I'm not aware of anyone - proponent or naysayer - who would even begin to suggest that this sector (and all the projects within it) is anywhere near maturity. You know that price discovery continues whilst adoption continues. Adoption only accounts for a couple of per cent of people.
Rubbish! He expressed his view - and having started by suggesting that his viewpoint was inaccurate - now you're resorting to saying that its correct but he's making too much out of it. If something is hard-wired/programmed in, explain to us how it can't be reliable, consistent and honest - without veering away from the topic at hand - which is monetary policy as it relates to bitcoin."Hype" does not mean false it comes from "hyperbole" and refers to describing things in exaggeratedly favourable terms. "stone cold fact" okay I will allow him to use "100% certain" to express that but on top of that we have "reliable", "consistent" "honest" :mad: .
Essentially, anyone who disagrees with you and states anything that is remotely positive re. bitcoin is a cultist - right Duke! PTJ couldn't possibly be described as a bitcoiner - he's a seasoned wall street suit....that you're now calling a cultist. These guys don't get sentimental - but bitcoin doesn't discriminate in terms of who gets to use it - its decentralised and so its available to him or anyone else on the planet to use.The guy is a cultist - this is hype.
You mean you don't want to acknowledge one single positive characteristic of bitcoin and when you can't stomach the thought of it, you resort to the 'cult' tar and feathering? Understood.So leaving aside the cult's obsession with supply
I take it from this that you won't engage in honest discussion on the topic. Not that you didn't know already, you have been told that PTJs comments were in the context of a discussion of inflation and monetary policy - relative to the USD and bitcoin. Nothing beyond that.I take it from this that the price of bitcoin for the foreseeable future will be none of reliable, consistent, 100% certain or honest:mad:.
And yet the Miami Bitcoin Love-in cheered to the rafters the imposition of this monetary weeping gelignite on the poor people of El Sal.
In those prejudicially inaccurate terms, we certainly don't. As I acknowledged four years ago and a gazillion times in between then and now, bitcoin will remain a volatile asset and means of exchange for some years to come.@tecate we agree on one thing anyway. The price of bitcoin will be incredibly unreliable, inconsistent and uncertain for a long time to come.
Eh, no - I dont sugar coat anything. You've been invited to explain in what other way the pricing of bitcoin as a fixed supply currency would be achieved in a scenario where it isn't pegged to the USD (and of course, it isn't because that would defeat the whole purpose) or backed by a physical asset (again, it would defeat the purpose). You declined to go there. You can't have it both ways. What would be a rational and reasonable take would be to say that yes, I understand it - but it's a major impediment. I can live with you opposing the volatility - but not to acknowledge the rationale behind that volatility is bad faith argument. Unless of course you have some other insight into how bitcoin could arrive at a settled price - but over the course of four years, we haven't heard any such explanation from you.You sugar this reality by calling it a "voyage of price discovery". Heck, I'll let you away with that.
Incorrect. Bitcoin remains a sound store of value over the longer haul. Shorter term volatility doesn't disqualify it on that basis. You cannot deny the fact that bitcoin has been the best performing asset of the past decade and most of its years of existence - with perhaps the exception of two of those twelve years. Shorter term volatility doesn't in any way rule out bitcoin as a store of value. Gold was just as volatile in the '70's and I don't hear a squeak from anyone complaining about that. How about 2011 to 2015 when it fell from $1,875 to $1,000? Not a word, right?Until that "voyage" finds its destination bitcoin is entirely unsuitable as a medium of exchange, as a unit of account or as a store of value.
What imposition? The imposition where they now have the choice between using USD and BTC? That's one hell of an imposition alright! I don't for one second believe this is anything but faux-concern on your part - based on a contrivance.And yet there are those that cheer the imposition of this on the poor people of El Sal.
Benevolence starts at home. I gave you yet another explicit opportunity to acknowledge that the banking system has screwed the El Salvadorans - and yet, you can't manage it. Pitiful.And they don't look like the sort of folk who would give a damn for poor people anywhere.
You are consistent Wolfie. Go on poor people of El Sal, have a punt on bitcoin, it could be you.All I seem to hear now when it comes to poor people - you are poor, you shall remain poor, do not do anything that risks taking you out of poverty.
You are consistent Wolfie. Go on poor people of El Sal, have a punt on bitcoin, it could be you.
I could never match the sincerity of your concern for the poor not only of El Sal but the world
Maybe they might not agree with your assessment that they have nothing to lose, which might just seem to them a tad patronising.
I think @tecate made the point earlier - they (the poor of El Salvador) now have a choice
When it's programmed-in and hard wired in to a digital currency and can't be tampered with.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?