This is an excellent discussion of the topic by Caitlin Long via Forbes. If anyone is still on the fence as regards the utility of Bitcoin, this should go some way towards clearing things up.
Bitcoin, The Dollar And Facebook's Cryptocurrency: Price Volatility Versus Systemic Volatility
Amid bitcoin's wild price swings, it's worth remembering Bitcoin as a system was designed for systemic stability rather than price stability. In stark contrast, fiat currency systems were designed for price stability--at the cost of periodic instability in traditional financial systems.www.forbes.com
What's your point or do you have one?Quote,
"Most people that come from traditional finance struggle when trying to give bitcoin value because they try to use old measures that don’t apply."
Hmm so it's different this time.
So lack of systemic volatility isn't a feature/benefit, Leo? And in terms of the existing centralised setup, systemic volatility is a good thing? Do tell.I don't see anything new in that article. Is there really anyone who even had the slightest inclination that Bitcoin had price stability as a goal or in any element of the system design?
What's your point or do you have one?
So lack of systemic volatility isn't a feature/benefit, Leo?
And in terms of the existing centralised setup, systemic volatility is a good thing? Do tell.
There is nothing in there that goes anyway towards assigning Bitcoin value other than 'Bitcoin is valuable to you as an insurance policy. Only in retrospect will it become clear how valuable that choice turns out to be.'
The only other benefit they include is 'a choice to own financial assets outside of the traditional fiat-currency system.' That misses the mark I think.
It's not in the article, but bitcoin has big demand for use as a medium of exchange in illicit transactions. This means that bitcoin (or a better crypto if it comes along) will always be with us.
I can't see it being part of the investment strategy of a typical AAMer, but that doesn't mean that cryptos don't have long-term value.
I don't think its complete implications in terms of lack of systemic volatility are the thing of 'basic understanding' for most who are newly introduced to Bitcoin. Systemic volatility takes some consideration to grasp in and of itself.Not aimed at you, more the follow on comments that seem to think this is an endorsement of some intrinsic value. It's a nice comparison of an aspect of FIAT Vs Bitcoin, but it shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone with a basic understanding of how Bitcoin works, so I was surprised by the following enthusiasm...
Exactly the point. The article acknowledged Bitcoins issue in terms of price volatility. However, it championed its lack of systemic volatility (by comparison with the conventional systems which are in place). You rubbished the article but never mentioned or discussed the relevance of a lack of systemic volatility.You'll note I didn't state it was. I've worked in IT a long time, a lack of systemic volatility is a basic assumption in any of the systems I work with.
I don't think its complete implications in terms of lack of systemic volatility are the thing of 'basic understanding' for most who are newly introduced to Bitcoin. Systemic volatility takes some consideration to grasp in and of itself.Not aimed at you, more the follow on comments that seem to think this is an endorsement of some intrinsic value. It's a nice comparison of an aspect of FIAT Vs Bitcoin, but it shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone with a basic understanding of how Bitcoin works, so I was surprised by the following enthusiasm...
Careful with this. You'll recall the back and forth that ensued following similar semantics a while back. There's a question mark in the sentence of mine that you quote. It's as per my point above - you rubbished the article yet didn't even mention the primary point or assertion of the article.Care to point to where I said it was?
It's not in the article, but bitcoin has big demand for use as a medium of exchange in illicit transactions. This means that bitcoin (or a better crypto if it comes along) will always be with us.
Snowden did use it but equally has come out recently and stated that it is the one facet of the cryptocurrency that needs to be worked on. It's privacy is improving. Schnorr signatures and the consideration of zero knowledge proofs. The use of CoinJoin - which was recently implicated in a 100 person transaction (via the Wasabi wallet).True, though a lot of the bigger players in illicit trade have been moving away from Bitcoin as the anonymity of transactions has been tested and authorities such as Euopol have tools that have allowed them trace individuals behind transactions with some success.
Of the typical AAM'er no. But nothing ever stays the same. Jamie Dimon said it was a fraud and later they launched their own crypto. In recent days, news has emerged that Goldman Sachs are considering the same. Recent months have seen the first pension funds invest in crypto with Fidelity and many other institutions now getting involved. And on another thread in this sub-forum last week, I posted 2x links to Deutsche Bank and Invesco analysts who actively brought up the notion of Bitcoins use as a hedge (something they would have laughed at 12 months ago). Crypto/Bitcoin/Digital Assets may well be a part of an AAM'ers portfolio before they're conscious of it themselves (through their pensions, etc.).I can't see it being part of the investment strategy of a typical AAMer, but that doesn't mean that cryptos don't have long-term value.
I agree that crypto has far more utility in developing countries - exactly in terms of Caitlin Long's consideration of Stability Volatility. Will Bitcoin maintain its relevance? Difficult to say but right now, it seems to be embedded with a certain use case. Time will tell.I still agree with the Antonopoulos view that it has more function in dysfunctional or entirely corrupt states. I think crypto will move on, Bitcoin has too many fundamental issues challenging its development, so better solutions will prevail.
I don't think its complete implications in terms of lack of systemic volatility are the thing of 'basic understanding' for most who are newly introduced to Bitcoin. Systemic volatility takes some consideration to grasp in and of itself.
Exactly the point. The article acknowledged Bitcoins issue in terms of price volatility.
However, it championed its lack of systemic volatility (by comparison with the conventional systems which are in place). You rubbished the article but never mentioned or discussed the relevance of a lack of systemic volatility.
Careful with this. You'll recall the back and forth that ensued following similar semantics a while back. There's a question mark in the sentence of mine that you quote. It's as per my point above - you rubbished the article yet didn't even mention the primary point or assertion of the article.
And in terms of the existing centralised setup, systemic volatility is a good thing? Do tell.
Who said we're not talking about people new to Bitcoin. And other than that - new to Bitcoin or otherwise - you think most people have an appreciation of the inherent systemic instability in our current centralised systems? I really don't think so. In that respect the article is important as it gets that message out there and does so with some finesse.We're not talking about people new to Bitcoin, I was referring to some others who champion Bitcoin seeming to find that a lack of such volatility somehow attributes value. My point is that there should be nothing new in this article for anyone who is actively pushing Bitcoin.
Of course it calls it out.Well, it doesn't call it out as an issue, it just says recent instability has caused some people to conclude Bitcoin is unstable, and then goes on the discuss price Vs systemic stability.
By not even acknowledging the central point of the article, you rubbished it.I didn't rubbish it,
Your view of course but I definitely disagree.I would have liked to see them delve more into the perceived systemic stability issues affecting FIAT to make it a meaningful comparison, but they don't unfortunately.
I did no such thing Leo. I posed a question - that's why there's a "?" at the end of the sentence. To suggest anything else is just plain wrong.Careful? Perhaps you should stop putting words in my mouth and then just sticking a question mark after it. If you have a question ask it, no need for the doulbe speak...
I've had some involvement in systems procurement over the years, none of the major IT vendors pay on stability in their marketing material, it's assumed a a given.
Who said we're not talking about people new to Bitcoin.
Of course it calls it out.
By not even acknowledging the central point of the article, you rubbished it.
I did no such thing Leo. I posed a question - that's why there's a "?" at the end of the sentence. To suggest anything else is just plain wrong.
Quote,
"Most people that come from traditional finance struggle when trying to give bitcoin value because they try to use old measures that don’t apply."
Hmm so it's different this time.
I didn't rubbish it, I said 'It's a nice comparison of an aspect of FIAT Vs Bitcoin, but it shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone with a basic understanding of how Bitcoin works.' I also mentioned I worked in IT, systemic volatility is simply not tolerated in any of the systems I've been involved with over the years. So I see nothing remarkable about such stability, I've had some involvement in systems procurement over the years, none of the major IT vendors pay on stability in their marketing material, it's assumed a a given.
And since when do you set the parameters. Clearly that article is insightful for anyone that hasn't considered the aspect of systemic volatility. You'll note from my initial post, it was on that basis that I started this thread.I did in the post you responded to...
The headline refers to it - then she specifically says as much in the first line. We can go back and trawl through the rest of the article if you wish ...although I can't see how that is necessary.Can you quote that piece?
In this context, it certainly does. Everyone who has heard anything about Bitcoin knows that it suffers from price volatility. The insight came from the consideration of stability volatility. You said that the article didn't bring anything new - yet it did (with its consideration of stability volatility). You opened with that and proceeded not to mention anything about that main theme to the article.How so? My not commenting one way or another allows you to assume how I regard the material?
Respectfully, you now agree that it is a question and don't like the nature of the question?Why not ask a simple question then?
Subjective formatting and the correct use of roll eyes emoji's? This is getting obtuse. I suggest we focus on the actual discussion.Why not ask a simple question then? Suggestive formatting is generally an attempt to put forward an answer as fact. And why the need for the roll eyes if it's just a question? The accepted usage of the roll eyes emoji is to express disbelief. What is it you don't believe if you're just asking a question without suggesting where my thoughts on the matter lie?
And since when do you set the parameters. Clearly that article is insightful for anyone that hasn't considered the aspect of systemic volatility. You'll note from my initial post, it was on that basis that I started this thread.
The headline refers to it - then she specifically says as much in the first line. We can go back and trawl through the rest of the article if you wish ...although I can't see how that is necessary.
In this context, it certainly does.
Respectfully, you now agree that it is a question and don't like the nature of the question?
Subjective formatting and the correct use of roll eyes emoji's? This is getting obtuse. I suggest we focus on the actual discussion.
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?