"Comparing Bitcoin to Ponzi Schemes is unfair...

Duke of Marmalade said:
Still it is interesting that @tecate is in El Sal. S/he reminds of of the early evangelists.
Click to expand...
Yes, the religious and faith-based terminology is strong with you Duke. I suppose it makes sense what with the 'In God we Trust' paper money, complete with its religious and masonic iconography and your reveal that you'll just have to have faith in the central bank high priests. By contrast, those that see value in bitcoin put value in maths. The maths behind bitcoin's programmable money is open to anyone to inspect. Rules-based programmable money isn't open to political influence, mismanagement or corruption - unlike your 'In God we Trust' money.
 
Last edited:

You receive dividends for renting your assets by securing decentralised networks

Some people got a dividend to the tune of $25k in January by doing just that and taking part in the governance of the network, they could cash out if they wanted or wait until it's worth over $100k
Another dividend is dropping this month which should be 5 figures for a lot of people, they can cash out if they want.

The more people think like this, the better it is for everyone who doesnt in order to keep the APY's higher
 
Serious question. In El Sal are things really priced in BTC? Or is it just that BTC is accepted at the tills but converted to some more stable pricing medium at the going rate?
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
Serious question.
Click to expand...
I think your spellchecker swapped out 'rhetorical' for 'serious' - but no matter, I'll answer it anyway.

The fact that bitcoin isn't a unit of account in El Salvador doesn't in any way hinder me (or anyone else) in using it as a means of payment. That aspect is seamless with conversion in real time up to the point of transaction. I'm not in any way surprised you're hung up on unit of account though as from what I recall, you've always looked at this as binary i.e. either bitcoin or fiat. It's not binary, they will both exist alongside each other. And why shouldn't they - when was choice ever a bad thing?

So hang on to your unit of account, Duke - I don't mind in the slightest. I'll trade you unit of account for the inability of the government (or anyone else for that matter) to confiscate my money - as is happening in Canada right now. The lowest hanging use cases may be in the developing world for bitcoin but everywhere presents with one use case or another at times.
 
Last edited:
You're right that I can't get my head round this at all.
By unit of account I presume you mean the way that folk actually think in terms of price. Let us use € for sake of argument. So an El Sal housewife has in her head that a loaf of bread costs €1. She gets to the till and tosses up in her head "which way will I pay the week's shopping bill?", maybe she relishes the choice. She chooses bitcoin. When she gets home she keeps an eye on the internet to see if that was a good call for the week's shopping. It is no exaggeration to say that within the week it might turn out to be 20% good or 20% bad. I can't see this is as a step forward for humanity - ordinary economic life a perpetual roll of the dice.
 
Last edited:
Ah, so you don't have any issue with unit of account either - what you meant to bring up was volatility? Don't quote me but I'd wager that this discussion has been had already.

Yes, bitcoin is volatile and yes, that makes it sub-optimal as a means of payment. In the example you're giving, you're suggesting that the housewife should agonise over btc unit price after the fact? What's the point in that Duke? If you understand bitcoin and where it is currently re. volatility, and you can't live with that volatility, then don't use it.

All other things being equal, Gresham's Law applies - and you'd want to offload the melting ice cube that is fiat money first ( but people's circumstances vary and all other things aren't necessarily always equal). I'm pretty sure that you've been looking at this as binary - i.e. either we get to use one or the other and not both. My point is that there will be circumstances where it will be convenient to pay with one over the other.

Here's an example for you - one that I come across a lot. I've travelled around Latam extensively in recent years and I keep coming up against this. I arrive in Country X and I don't have the local monopoly money. If I withdraw from an ATM, I'll be hit with charges...so what I've tried to do is minimise the use of cash and use card. However, its quite common that when paying with card, the vendor will say yes you can pay with card but I'm adding 5%. If you had a bitcoin wallet on your phone Duke at that point and the vendor accepted bitcoin, you'd pay with bitcoin.

What many people want to see is choice - the ability to be able to spend either/or - not one winning out against the other. We've also established that there is another rationale entirely for holding btc (store of value, censorship-resistant/non-confiscatable money), then why should someone not exercise the right to spend btc that they're holding anyway if it suits their circumstances to do so? I've rarely seen a circumstance where choice is bad.

And the last point on volatility... this is all still very early. As adoption continues, as market cap expands and as the asset matures, it's reasonable to expect that the relative level of volatility in the price of bitcoin will diminish. The data shows this trend is already happening. Here's the latest report from Bloomberg Intelligence. It plots BTC volatility against that of the Nasdaq 100. In December 2017, it was 8x that of the Nasdaq 100. Today its 3x more volatile than the Nasdaq 100. It's reasonable to expect volatility to decline as adoption continues and market cap expands.
 
Last edited:
Duke of Marmalade said:
In fact it will finish at zero.
Click to expand...
. So on a scale of 1-10, how would you classify your level of conviction in that eventuality?

And to follow up, can you give a reasonable timeline for such an eventuality? Would three years be sufficient? So let's say by 1 March 2025, you accept that your thesis has been validated or invalidated at that point by virtue of btc trading at zero or otherwise.
 
On a scale of 1-10, 0.
I have been horribly wrong so far. My consolation is that I am in good company. Roubini, Stiltjes, Buffet, Fax Machine Man etc.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
On a scale of 1-10, 0.
I have been horribly wrong so far. My consolation is that I am in good company. Roubini, Stiltjes, Buffet, Fax Machine Man etc.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that makes sense though, Duke. Like @Brendan Burgess , you've confirmed that you think that there's ZERO possibility of bitcoin continuing to succeed. Surely that means you have a higher rate of conviction of bitcoin failing than 0/10?

Don't be like Larry, Duke.
 
Last edited:
The driver of adoption in financial institutions is profits. It is not because they suddenly believe in Bitcoin, financial leaders have dismissed it previously, e.g. Jamie Dimon, and Larry Fink, two of the most systemically important leaders in Finance. Their clients are demanding access to it or they will go to competitors, it is no surprise that crypto native companies are bulking out their institutional investment and family office teams.

Those clients are demanding access because they see an opportunity to make money, not because they want to disrupt the world order and undo central banks powers.

It comes down to money and greed.

Bitcoin is old news...it is all about Web3 now
 
@tecate Amusing video.
But of course history is also riddled with snake oil promises, cures for baldness, cures for dread diseases, the elixir of life or even turning base metal into gold. And now we have a claim of turning digital entries on a blockchain ledger into gold.
On a scale of 1 to 10 that bitcoin is BOHA: 10.
On confidence that the satoshi will drop any time soon 0.
 
Dublinbay12 said:
Those clients are demanding access because they see an opportunity to make money, not because they want to disrupt the world order and undo central banks powers.
Click to expand...
Have you come across claims that bitcoin will 'disrupt the world order'? I've not seen that. As regards undoing central bank powers, its likely to act as an incentive for CBs not to abuse their powers and act responsibly - not 'undo' their powers. However, the opportunity that you refer to doesn't come without the utility in bitcoin which underpins it.

Dublinbay12 said:
It comes down to money and greed.
Click to expand...
Money certainly makes the world go round but as above - that opportunity doesn't exist in a vacuum, void of the utility that makes bitcoin a prospect from the outset.

As regards bitcoin and web 3, the latter refers to a whole host of other utility not that closely related to what bitcoin provides for. I think that bitcoin is still at a very early stage in its development and adoption though.

All I'm sayin' Duke is 'don't be like Larry'.

Duke of Marmalade said:
On a scale of 1 to 10 that bitcoin is BOHA: 10.
On confidence that the satoshi will drop any time soon 0.
Click to expand...
So if I've understood you correctly, you're saying that you see no utility in bitcoin but that despite that, bitcoin will continue and you don't see it going to zero?

ClubMan said:
Yes, I'm sure that most people who have piled into BTC have studied the source code as part of their due diligence...
Click to expand...
BTC has emerged as a retail phenomenon. With that, market behaviour has been quite different by comparison to assets brought to market by Wall Street. However, that there may have been a more amateur approach to investing in the asset is not a stain on the asset itself or its transparent, in-built, rules and monetary policy.
There may well be a herd mentality associated with money that has flowed into the asset - but that doesn't mean that there are not also savvy and well-informed people who have done their due diligence and thereafter, invested in the asset. Over the course of 13 years, all manner of attempts have been made to compromise that source code and they've failed. Circling back to the original point, the in-built rules that provides for bitcoin's supply schedule, fixed cap supply and overall monetary policy is tamperproof and not open to manipulation by politicians and others.
 
tecate said:
So if I've understood you correctly, you're saying that you see no utility in bitcoin but that despite that, bitcoin will continue and you don't see it going to zero?
Click to expand...
I misinterpreted your original question. I have 100% certainty it will go to zero but 0 confidence on the time line.
 
Bitcoin was created with the intent to change the current world order. That world order is one in which we 'trust' central governments to provide effective monetary policy and manage the economy. The adoption of Bitcoin by financial institutions as an investment product is not because suddenly they believe in the need to move away from a trust based system, it is driven by the potential to make more money.

"What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party." (Bitcoin Whitepaper)
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
I misinterpreted your original question. I have 100% certainty it will go to zero but 0 confidence on the time line.
Click to expand...
Ok, so 3 years would be enough for you to determine that, right? I mean, we've been discussing it for the past five and bitcoin has only gone from strength to strength in that 5 years.
I think you're affixing phraseology that's of your own making here. I've not seen any claims re. changing a world order. My understanding is that Satoshi recognised deficiencies in the conventional system (in the aftermath of the GFC and emergence of Occupy Wall St., etc.) and devised a system that addressed those deficiencies. It's simply an alternative system - using the phrase 'changing the world order' suggests something different entirely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register