The Bitcoin threads could be interesting in the future

[Duke of Marmalade]

And every time you try and drown the discussion out with this, I'm forced to refute it. We can go the long way round with this or the more expedient way - whichever is your preference, Duke. I think at this stage, everyone is aware of your/John's view on this. I'm not sure John was banking on this level of fame.
So once again, that's your/John's opinion. It's not one shared by plenty...including the worlds most foremost bitcoin hater - Nouriel.

It is fundamental to my belief that bitcoin ultimately will not survive. I don't really have any other objection. I am sure I am in agreement with Nouriel. I am not saying bitcoin will make it as a moe, it will not. What I am saying is that the only way it can get utility value and therefore hang store of value on that hook is to make it as a moe. It may be boring, but to drop my central point eliminates me form the discussion and I know you don't want that my dear @tecate

 

[tecate]

It is fundamental to my belief that bitcoin ultimately will not survive.

And I respect your opinion. However, my suggestion is that there's no need to trot out a paragraph about your buddy Johnny Keleher on each occasion. Buy hey, play it as you see it, your Dukeness.

I am sure I am in agreement with Nouriel. I am not saying bitcoin will make it as a moe, it will not.

Actually, no. I think there's a lot of confusion about what Nouriel believes and to what extent you agree with Nouriel. After all, Nouriel believes that bitcoin is already a store of value. ...as per his recent interview.

It may be boring, but to drop my central point eliminates me form the discussion and I know you don't want that my dear @tecate

I mean, it's just a suggestion (for the sanity of readers) but surely that can be done in short hand - without trotting out Johnny Keleher's musings each time? Totally up to yourself, your Dukeness.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

"Once the political donor class owns it as well, which they increasingly do, the game is basically over for banning it. Trying to ban it would be an attack on the balance sheets of corporations, funds, banks, and investors that own it, and would not be popular among millions of voters that own it. "

So Lyn Alden foresees some sort of pandemic effect whereby it becomes impossible to stop it. I don't see it being banned as a "store of value", no reason to do that. But if bitcoin was seriously threatening the dollar as the nation's medium of exchange and interfering with monetary policy it would be extremely easy to shut down its mass use as a medium of exchange. And as John Keller (apologies) argues it would then fail to achieve the utility value needed to underpin its store of value.

 

[tecate]

So Lyn Alden foresees some sort of pandemic effect whereby it becomes impossible to stop it. I don't see it being banned as a "store of value", no reason to do that. But if bitcoin was seriously threatening the dollar as the nation's medium of exchange and interfering with monetary policy it would be extremely easy to shut down its mass use as a medium of exchange.

I would say it becomes harder to shut down at that point. Isn't it a case of critical mass? I'd imagine if usage levels got to the point you're talking about, then there would be habitual use of bitcoin and bitcoin in active circulation.
At that point, people will earn it directly. Furthermore, its the availability of bitcoin that would be under attack - not the ability to transmit it - as that is impossible to shut down. Here's another item to consider. If it gets to that point - and then governments go full on with prohibition, how do you think that will play out politically?

I continue to maintain that you are looking at this the wrong way round. Rather than viewing bitcoin as a threat, how about viewing bitcoin as an incentive for governments/central banks to get their .... together? How about viewing it as a parallel system that helps keeping the primary system in check? I rarely meet anyone these days who thinks competition is bad.

If fiat/sovereign currency fails its because of mismanagement or corruption - it won't be because of bitcoin.

And as John Keller (apologies) argues it would then fail to achieve the utility value needed to underpin its store of value.

And as John Keller Nouriel Roubini (apologies) argues it would then fail to achieve the utility value needed to underpin its has already achieved the status of store of value.

 

[WolfeTone]

if bitcoin was seriously threatening the dollar as the nation's medium of exchange and interfering with monetary policy it would be extremely easy to shut down its mass use as a medium of exchange

Perhaps, but you would have to define what constitutes a serious threat. Personally, I think the serious threat to dollar and global monetary system is emanating from monetary policy of the global monetary system itself. The Fed, ECB, BoE, BoJ are all engaged in co-ordinated efforts to drive up asset prices in the attempt to induce some form of an inflationary effect.
It's not working very well so far. This is the biggest threat, not bitcoin.

Bitcoin is simply emerging as an asset class benefiting from this monetary policy. There is no real indication that it will be used broadly as a medium of exchange anytime soon and in the narrow pockets where it is being touted, say on PayPal, I don't think there is any intention on their part to use bitcoin to evade their responsibilities under the financial regulatory system? In other words, they will declare their holdings and transactions in Bitcoin and will be subject to the appropriate tax regulation etc.

My own view is that, because of the internet and the digital age that we live in, bitcoin is asset class for anyone and everyone. It offers an opportunity for everyone with an internet connection to obtain a degree of economic and financial autonomy that the prevailing banking system has failed to achieve in 300yrs.

As I'm prone to say on occasion, "If the men of property will not support us, they must fall. Our strength shall come from that great and respectable class, the men of no property."

In the context of bitcoin, the prevailing order of money printing for the "too big to fail" classes versus austerity for the rest is coming to an end.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

@tecate @WolfeTone Forget banning it, it was never a big part of my argument as I never see it remotely threatening mainline monetary management. It's just that Lyn has it as one of her magnificent seven and it was the "if bitcoin succeeds" intro to that section which was a bit of a gotcha IMHO.

 

[tecate]

it was the "if bitcoin succeeds" intro to that section which was a bit of a gotcha IMHO.

Because of the unhealthy way that you approach this discussion? Dukey, if your approach is 'winner takes all' and a consideration in a 'gotcha' sense, then sure - the nature of your posts on the subject doesn't surprise me.

The exchange of value is the cornerstone of civilisation and human activity. To fundamentally change current practice in that regard by offering a unique parallel/standalone approach fit for the digital era is quite the accomplishment. Nobody can take that away. We've had naysayers here who have suggested that its achieved nothing in a whole lot of time. I couldn't disagree more with that - they have no idea of the task at hand if they think that.

Bitcoin can achieve different levels of success. Think about this - if there's supreme confidence that this is a nothing burger - then why have you invested countless hours here posting about it? How do you square that?

Think about this - bitcoin doesn't give a rats ass about your precious centralised system. That's precisely the point. It has nothing to do with it. Wolfie is dead right in his post above. If central banks and governments screw up, that's on them. Don't go blaming bitcoin. BTC was inspired by bad practice in that world - it's not responsible for it.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

@tecate I see you have personalized bitcoin. Is btc male/female; black/white; LGBT? Anyway I see that s/he is notching it up as a minor success that the Duke has wasted countless hours posting about it.

 

[tecate]

@tecate I see you have personalized bitcoin. Is btc male/female; black/white; LGBT? Anyway I see that s/he is notching it up as a minor success that the Duke has wasted countless hours posting about it.

surely you're much bigger than 'minor' successes your Dukeness?..........unless......??

In any event, this newly elected senator (and former state treasurer) seems to see a healthy life ahead for bitcoin:

"Our own currency inflates. Bitcoin does not. "

It's hard to work out where the enemy is with this stuff, Dukey.

 

[DazedInPontoon]

The logic is that they wouldn't ban it *because* companies like MicroStrategy hold it

That is probably what she meant. I don't see people ever wanting bitcoin as a medium of exchange in preference to their own fiat currency. If it did show signs of happening it would threaten monetary policy and the more institutional involvement the easier for the authorities to control or even ban it.

As a follow on to this, apparently Cynthia Lummis has just recently been the first bitcoin holder to be elected to the US Senate.

In her own words here: "I do hope to bring bitcoin into the national conversation. I'm a former state treasurer. I invested our states’s permanent funds, I was always looking for a good store of value, Bitcoin fits that bill, our own currency inflates, Bitcoin does not"

I don't think Cynthia will be trying to ban bitcoin.

 

[Leo]

Wrong. Page 23. They refer to the Middle/Far East being ground zero for the bulk of the worlds gold jewelry purchases. Within that, they refer to the basis behind it - the passing on of inheritances. They speak of family assets. It's referred in that context because its viewed in that context. You think if gold wasn't scarce, it would have any greater value than an ornate polished rock? Think again!

What sentence or sentences on that page do you suggest specifically mean that 100% of the motivation for purchasing jewellery is as a store of value?

Note you have repeatedly backed up your original statement on 'the motivation', that implies all, and not some or a percentage of the motivation. That report, in talking of 57% of the demand coming from four countries, does not talk of all demand. It goes on to clarify that:

Each market is driven by a different set of socio-economic and cultural factors.

That doesn't suggest they're all seeking a store of value. Hindus liking displays of gold as a symbol of wealth and prosperity is far removed from a store of value. Indeed, the entire section on jewellery doesn't even mention store of value.

Also note that it starts the section on jewellery with the tell-tale 'jewellery demand is driven by desirability'. Chocolate cake is desirable, doesn't make it a store of value.

 

[Leo]

Then people can transact over satellite (right now) or mesh networks (to come). How do people get round China's 'great firewall'? Why can't transactions be routed over tor?

OK, so I've no internet service, can you explain how I would send bitcoin to someone using a current satellite service? I'm assuming you're not talking about Blockstream.

I also think you misunderstand the potential range of mesh networks.

 

[tecate]

What sentence or sentences on that page do you suggest specifically mean that 100% of the motivation for purchasing jewellery is as a store of value?

Go back and read my post Leo - I've referred to the specific phrases from that page that tie in with a store of value use case. And just to short cut matters as I've been down the road of semantics with you over the course of three years, you can interpret that as you wish - you can claim the opposite (and that's fine but I won't be agreeing with you).

Hindus liking displays of gold as a symbol of wealth and prosperity is far removed from a store of value.

Thanks for making my point for me. If it was a polished rock that wasn't a symbol of wealth, then there wouldn't be anywhere near as much fuss.

Also note that it starts the section on jewellery with the tell-tale 'jewellery demand is driven by desirability'. Chocolate cake is desirable, doesn't make it a store of value.

If its being viewed as 'wealth' and a 'family inheritance', then its already a store of value. The scarcity of gold has a large part to play in that.

OK, so I've no internet service, can you explain how I would send bitcoin to someone using a current satellite service? I'm assuming you're not talking about Blockstream.

Why am I not talking about Blockstream?
Other than that, successful tests have been carried out via high frequency radio. In Venezuela, transactions have been facilitated over cell networks via text message.

I also think you misunderstand the potential range of mesh networks.

Only because they're not prolific right now. That's likely to change.

 

[Leo]

Go back and read my post Leo - I've referred to the specific phrases from that page that tie in with a store of value use case. And just to short cut matters as I've been down the road of semantics with you over the course of three years, you can interpret that as you wish - you can claim the opposite (and that's fine but I won't be agreeing with you).

So again you choose to redefine elements of the language to try back up a false statement.

Thanks for making my point for me. If it was a polished rock that wasn't a symbol of wealth, then there wouldn't be anywhere near as much fuss.

Are you now saying that something attracting a lot of fuss means it is a store of value?

A fancy car is a symbol of wealth, are you suggesting cars are a good store of value?

Why am I not talking about Blockstream?

I thought that would be clear if you knew the scope of their offering. Using Blockstream then, can you explain the steps required for me to send bitcoin without the need for an internet connection.

 

[tecate]

So again you choose to redefine elements of the language to try back up a false statement.

I do NO such thing - and I couldn't care less if that's what you think. That's your problem.
Here's the bottom line, Leo. Under this 'alternative investments' sub-category - bitcoin is being accessed as such. Over the course of 3 years, your assessment has been as far out as a lighthouse.

Are you now saying that something attracting a lot of fuss means it is a store of value?

You can go out of your way and contrive to miss the point as much as you want, Leo. Again, that's your own issue.
People like to display wealth - as you said yourself. It's the wealth part that's the attraction.

A fancy car is a symbol of wealth, are you suggesting cars are a good store of value?

I'm saying that gold has long since been proven as a store of value. It's in that context, the report referred to people using it for inheritance purposes and holding it as an 'asset'.

Using Blockstream then, can you explain the steps required for me to send bitcoin without the need for an internet connection.

YOU brought up Blockstream. Now you explain what the point of your comments were.

 

[Leo]

You can go out of your way and contrive to miss the point as much as you want, Leo. Again, that's your own issue.

Again, I'm just pointing out that your statement was factually incorrect, and the report that you cited to back up your point contained no such claim.

People like to display wealth - as you said yourself. It's the wealth part that's the attraction.

Yes, that's my point exactly, thanks!! Display of wealth is one element of the motivations behind jewellery purchase. Of course, display of wealth is not the same thing as a store of value.

I'm saying that gold has long since been proven as a store of value. It's in that context, the report referred to people using it for inheritance purposes and holding it as an 'asset'.

Getting closer, the report says that using it for inheritance purposes is indeed a factor in societies where the prevailing religion prohibits fathers from leaving anything to their daughters. That's not so much a store of value than a mechanism to bypass what we consider to be archaic laws. Jewellery vendors there like everywhere else charge a margin of (up to ~20% in India), so in many cases you're looking at loss.

The report clearly says that as one of the motivations behind the purchase of jewellery in a small sector of the market. That's a long way removed from 'the motivation'.

YOU brought up Blockstream. Now you explain what the point of your comments were.

How about you answer the question I posed first, then I will address that. With no internet access, how do I use an existing satellite service to send bitcoin?

 

[tecate]

Again, I'm just pointing out that your statement was factually incorrect, and the report that you cited to back up your point contained no such claim.

And again, I'm pointing out that's your OPINION - that's not fact. I don't agree. We can park it up there or keep going round in this merry circle - as you see fit, Leo.

Yes, that's my point exactly, thanks!! Display of wealth is one element of the motivations behind jewellery purchase. Of course, display of wealth is not the same thing as a store of value.

The display of wealth - of course. The 'wealth' in gold has been an established store of value since the year dot. You lot claim that gold derives its value simply because it has an ornate use. Why don't polished rocks have the same value? Answer - because gold is scarce - and with all that, it's value takes the form of store of value.

Jewellery vendors there like everywhere else charge a margin of (up to ~20% in India), so in many cases you're looking at loss.

So its not the most savvy purchase in the context of a store of value. That in NO way disproves its use in that context. The less well off and the less savvy are using it as such.

The report clearly says that as one of the motivations behind the purchase of jewellery in a small sector of the market. That's a long way removed from 'the motivation'.

I disagree entirely with your statement.

How about you answer the question I posed first, then I will address that. With no internet access, how do I use an existing satellite service to send bitcoin?

YOU brought up blockstream - YOU - not me. So you can just drop it in there or articulate your thoughts fully. That's up to yourself.

 

[Leo]

And again, I'm pointing out that's your OPINION - that's not fact. I don't agree. We can part it up there or keep going round in this merry circle - as you see fit, Leo.

I don't think I'm alone in holding the opinion that the word 'the' is singular. 'The motivation' can only infer a single source of motivation. You took a piece describing multiple factors that motivate the purchase of gold and tried to pass it off as meaning all gold jewellery purchases are motivated by use as a store of value.

You lot claim that gold derives its value simply because it has an ornate use.

What lot? Where did I state that?

YOU brought up blockstream - YOU - not me. So you can just drop it in there or articulate your thoughts fully. That's up to yourself.

It was you who brought up using satellites to send bitcoin in the absence of internet service. You've ignored multiple requests to explain how that works. Does this mean you finally realise it's not possible to send bitcoin via a one way service that just broadcasts a copy of the ledger as a publicity stunt?

 

[tecate]

I don't think I'm alone in holding the opinion that the word 'the' is singular. 'The motivation' can only infer a single source of motivation. You took a piece describing multiple factors that motivate the purchase of gold and tried to pass it off as meaning all gold jewellery purchases are motivated by use as a store of value.

You can persist with this nonsense all you want, Leo. I understand that's your belief - but I won't be buying what you're selling here. Others can make up their own minds.

What lot? Where did I state that?

AAMs crypto-deniers.

It was you who brought up using satellites to send bitcoin in the absence of internet service. You've ignored multiple requests to explain how that works. Does this mean you finally realise it's not possible to send bitcoin via a one way service that just broadcasts a copy of the ledger as a publicity stunt?

This is the guy who claims that he's here to learn - but the nature of your engagement here time and time again Leo proves otherwise. It's completely disingenuous. YOU brought up blockstream - if you'd like to expand on that (rather than just drop it there) - then fill your boots. Either way, I don't give a fiddlers. You've long since used up any goodwill in these discussions.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

As a thought experiment, imagine there was a base metal as scarce as gold but with the following properties: - boring grey in colour - not a good conductor of electricity - not particularly strong, but not ductile or easily malleable either - not useful for any practical or ornamental purpose...

Let me throw in that this base metal was highly toxic and stank to high heaven. @tecate would it achieve store of value status?