Let me throw in ...that if you had a polished rock (other than gold), does it have the same value? They're used for personal adornment and home decor - but yet they don't have a value anything like gold. At some stage you folks will acknowledge the importance of scarcity in this dynamic. Cynthia Lummis does. As does Tom Fitzpatrick - MD of Citibank - in his recent report on bitcoin where he estimates price potential of $300k/btc within 12 months.
The Bitcoin threads could be interesting in the future
- Thread starter TheBigShort
- Start date
- Status
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,609
As usual you didn't answer the question. I will guess that your answer is that no matter how obnoxious and useless the base metal is, its scarcity is enough to give it store of value status. We'll have to agree to differ on that one.
Scarcity is absolutely essential to store of value status, I didn't think that point needed acknowledging. But scarcity on its own does not confer store of value as per Satoshi's thought experiment.
That wasn't my answer - you got my answer, Duke. It seems yet again, you don't like my answer - but so be it.
I'm not claiming that scarcity in and of itself is sufficient - and I've never claimed that. I do however claim that it is fundamental - and whilst you have just acknowledged that, there are a few others here who have not.
As regards your specific example, I get where you're going with that. However, we don't have to use your example. We can use mine - i.e. something other than gold that's not 'toxic'. That's a more reasonable comparison in my view. As per my point, there are other polished rocks used for personal adornment - but they don't come anywhere near golds price. That's not to say that they don't have their own natural aesthetic.
Last edited:
Except that is not his/her thought experiment.
You are deliberately subtracting another property....the special, magical property....."can be transported over a communications channel" and adding your own properties - toxicity and stinky, that when combined, serve the BOHA position well - but that is a wholly different proposition to bitcoin.
Point well made, Wolfie. There's never been an acknowledgement of the fact that bitcoin has its own positive attributes (over and above absolute scarcity) from the crypto-critics amongst us. It's these positive attributes that has an ever increasing number of commentators suggesting that bitcoin is superior to gold.
I'm sorry, but it appears you want to continue to make false claims and then start throwing out the accusations when challenged? This isn't Trump's twitter!
Why did you bundle me in with them?
Let's pretend I never mentioned Blockstream. You claimed it was currently possible to send bitcoin via satellite without the need for an internet connection. Please explain how that works and what service provider supports this?
I'd settle for a straight answer.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,609
Ahh we are making progress. It needs something else other than scarcity alone to bootstrap its value.
Being able to transfer it over long distances, being trustless, being censorship free etc. do not of themselves provide that magic ingredient. Satoshi suggested some candidates for the magic ingredient e.g. that it might become a collector's item. JK (apologies) more realistically posits that the only possible candidate for the magic ingredient was to make it as a medium of exchange. I agree (apologies) but where I disagree is that I don't think it ever will achieve the penetration needed to support current price levels.
Maybe you really see a 'false claim', Leo - but that's your issue, not mine. I threw out nothing except your disingenuous engagement in this discussion - and I'll continue to call you on it.
I'm not playing your games. You brought it up - now justify what you brought up ...or don't Leo - I honestly don't give a fiddlers.
Once again, you don't like the answers that you're getting - that's the distinction.
Firstly, we were talking about gold in that specific instance. If we're switching back to bitcoin, then be aware that bitcoin brings absolute scarcity into the frame - gold does not. As a store of value however, I do agree that all characteristics of a good store of value are important. You'll appreciate that we covered that previously.
Says who? You? With all due respect, that's your opinion and it's an opinion that I and many would take issue with. See Wolfies post above - there's never been an acknowledgement of other positive traits that bitcoin brings to the table. To my point, you've just trashed another one of them in your last post.
A complete understanding of satoshi's thoughts on the matter is speculative. Yes, you can cite a couple of statements but lets not assume that those isolated statements are/were his/her/their full understanding and belief. At the end of the day, the decision was taken to launch the bitcoin network.
JK's is an opinion - the same as Nouriel's is an opinion (when he stated the other week that bitcoin is a store of value).
Dukey, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing. What I've had an issue with over the course of these three years is an unwillingness on the crypto-critic side of the discussion to accept that bitcoin has the opportunity to continue to grow and expand. Not to believe that to be the case but to be open to it.
My current view is that it will continue to grow - but that's an opinion I have constantly under review.
Last edited:
I get it, you can't admit you're wrong.
Just in case anyone else is in any doubt, it is not possible today to transact bitcoin over satellite. Some have fallen for the Blockstream hype (they're well known for it).
Blockstream are leasing bandwidth on a number of geo-stationary satellites, and are simply broadcasting a copy of the ledger, their own material makes it clear you can't use it to send transactions.
Did I miss where you explained how to send a transaction via an existing satellite service without internet connection?
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,609
Satoshi. I don't think you really understood the thought piece.
And the proof keeps coming in buckets, Leo. This is the guy who proclaimed that he's here to learn - with a genuine engagement to the discussion with the inference that others (ergo, me) don't.
If that's the case Leo, you can explain to everyone why you couldn't simply explain the blockstream satellite proposition? It was after all YOU who brought them up. Can you explain why you had to badger me for that info over the course of a number of subsequent posts, holding back that information yourself? Clearly, it's the same 'gotcha' mentality that's your objective here as we see his Dukeness present with. I've maintained for quite some time that the nature of your engagement in these discussions has been disingenuous. This is just the latest installment.
It is possible to utilise that satellite feed in combination with other technologies like mesh networking and high frequency radio. Those are in early stages of development but it is something that is being worked on. Other than that, there is no technical obstacle that I'm aware of to 2-way satellite communication so should that nature of censorship come about, blockstream can deploy it.
I'm no fan of Blockstream but what 'hype' are you referring to? How have they been wayward in their communication about this project? Can you provide a link to demonstrate that claim?
What nobody has missed at this stage Leo - is the disingenuity of your engagement on the matter. You can scream blue bloody murder and expect someone else to entertain your disingenuous games but don't expect me to do so.
Last edited:
Incorrect. See my previous post. As I've mentioned to you before, I've listened to plenty of discussions surrounding Satoshi's thoughts - and nobody has presumed to know what they are. You're the first. Taking one musing because it fits your narrative doesn't qualify Duke.
The reality is that the qualities that bitcoin holds as a store of value you (and others here) refuse to acknowledge.
I mentioned the Blockstream option after you repeatedly failed to explain your claim that sending bitcoin via satellite without an internet connection was possible. I suspected you might have fallen for their false hype, so I mentioned it to try get any detail from you to back up YOUR claim.
But yet again you choose not to back up your claim when surely it would be much easier to do so, and prove my statement incorrect by simply backing up your original claim and providing evidence of a service that allows someone to send bitcoin via satellite without the need for an internet connection.
No, it's frustration at your repeatedly posting factually incorrect statements and then just trying to badger anyone who dares question you into submission. Several other posters have given up posting in this section because of your diversion and repeated refusal to accept when you are wrong.
You do know that asking you to back up a claim is not being disingenuous, right? I'm asking you to confirm your statement, there is no lie in that.
YOU brought up Blockstream - but you wouldn't expand on that when prompted.
You were asked to provide evidence of this 'hype' and again, nothing. The irony here is that you've tried to claim over the course of three years that I have not answered your questions. The reality is that you have conveniently ignored all manner of points put to you.
See that's where you're 100% wrong Leo. You were asked to explain why you brought the Blockstream project into the conversation - and you downright refused on a number of occasions when THAT information would have been much easier to supply. The motivations behind you holding that info back are disingenuous.
EH, no Leo - it's not. It's a response to blatant disingenuity on your part.
Firstly, people are free to post or otherwise. That has nothing to do with me - so don't suggest for a second that it has. That in itself is disingenous. You mean the attempts to drown me out haven't gone to plan.
As regards being 'wrong', I'm quite happy to learn and adjust my view as I go along. I'm currently vested in bitcoin on that basis. However, when people like yourself come on here attempting to nail someone to the cross, that changes the dynamic of the 'discussion' into something else entirely.
You do know that the nature of your engagement here isn't in any way conducive to a free and open discussion. As regards backing up claims, there's nobody here that has cited and referenced more external sources in backing up such claims.
The bottom line here Leo - is that whilst you claim that I'm 'wrong', we're three years down the road. In the space of that three years, the network effect of bitcoin continues to expand. It's eco-system continues to expand. Had I listened to any of your merry band of crypto-deniers, I'd have been down a considerable amount of $ from mid 2018 onwards. That's the extent to which I've been wrong.
Last edited:
I already expanded on that! Twice! Prior to that you claimed it was possible to send bitcoin over satellite in the absence of an internet connection. Why can't you explain how that works? Will you now?
Yet again, you just break a post into a long diatribe in an attempt to distract from your errors.
Your approach attacking any dissenting voices has killed off any hope of a conducive discussion. Most, myself included have long given up on any hopes for such a conversation. So now, I settle myself with calling out lies or misleading information where I see them.
You downright refused to do so initially.
Maybe you actually believe your own BS Leo - but I'm having none of it.
Double standards much, Leo? That's a bare faced lie.
And its just coincidence that we're talking about a group of crypto-deniers and AAM regulars like yourself, Leo? Tell me - how many anti-bitcoin (and that's what they are!) posters have you banned from this forum?
My, how fortunate we are Leo. Thank you for your service.
Greetings all, having fun I see!!
Bitcoin reminds me of peer-to-peer torrent sites that were all the rage a number of years ago. Those torrent sites were great for people who couldn't get programs from abroad, for those would didn't have the means, for those who didn't want to part with the fees or for those who were just interested in for the challenge. A lot of the content was illegal, e.g. pirated movies, but some content was perfectly legal...a bit like how Bitcoin is used today.
Netlix, Amazon Prime TV and others ultimately killed off torrent site...for a relatively small fee you could save yourself a lot of hassle and risk of the doorbell ringing.
I'm not saying that Bitcoin will go completely the way of torrent sites, but more likley, blockchain will be used by someone to offer something a bit better and then, who knows, people might actually use this new currency, to you know, actually buy stuff
Bitcoin reminds me of peer-to-peer torrent sites that were all the rage a number of years ago. Those torrent sites were great for people who couldn't get programs from abroad, for those would didn't have the means, for those who didn't want to part with the fees or for those who were just interested in for the challenge. A lot of the content was illegal, e.g. pirated movies, but some content was perfectly legal...a bit like how Bitcoin is used today.
Netlix, Amazon Prime TV and others ultimately killed off torrent site...for a relatively small fee you could save yourself a lot of hassle and risk of the doorbell ringing.
I'm not saying that Bitcoin will go completely the way of torrent sites, but more likley, blockchain will be used by someone to offer something a bit better and then, who knows, people might actually use this new currency, to you know, actually buy stuff
- Status