The Bitcoin threads could be interesting in the future

[tecate]

The issues may be external to the codebase of BTC, but they make up an important part of the overall system. So, they should not be ignored, the political, social and infrastructure issues are as important as the codebase of BTC.

Insofar as external issues (political, social and infrastructure issues) shouldn't be ignored, I agree completely. I'm just making the distinction between those externalities and the question of systemic trust.

With every system, there are positives and negatives. In the current Fiat world, the average Joe can earn fiat through work and the average Joe trusts the system. In BTC, there are only a small percentage that can earn BTC, there are the issues also related with the distribution of BTC. I am not sure if this still holds true but 99% of BTC holders hold less than 1 BTC.

So manipulation will not dissipate as market capitalisation expands, as an increase in market capitalisation does not change the ownership breakdown.

Distribution is an issue but I don't think there was any way of avoiding it in designing and setting out bitcoin. With regard to manipulation, you're right to say that market cap expansion in and of itself won't be sufficient to counter market manipulation. However, market cap expansion as a symptom of much greater active adoption will.

I have said this on the other thread, the technology is a nice novel concept, but technology is not the only factor on whether something should be adopted.

Technology is a tool - nothing more. Mileage will vary based upon specifically how its deployed. There's no question but that Satoshi attempted to harness technology to solve existing issues with regard for the political/social/infrastructural. That's a fine art though. To your point, every system does have positives and negatives - and it's for that reason that a range of crypto's / digital assets will serve a range of needs as we move forward.

 

[tecate]

I note from yesterday's court case that the judge was particularly moved by the couple who lost their life savings in bitcoin. The mind boggles.

With ownership comes responsibility. Bitcoin has to be stored securely.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

With ownership comes responsibility. Bitcoin has to be stored securely.

What was boggling my mind was that a couple would have their life savings in bitcoin. Even the most enthusiastic hedge fund goes no further than 1%.

 

[WolfeTone]

I'm a simple soul.

Aren't we all? This is actually an important point.

I have a fair bit of trust that my €X in my bank account won't lose too much of its purchasing power or at least that if I see hyper-inflation looming I can take corrective action.

Yes, in general terms that is of course the case. But it should be mentioned that it only takes one event, or one sequence of events that can rapidly change things, far quicker than most of us simple souls could possibly contemplate.
If you had filled your oil tank last December you might be cursing your luck following the subsequent rapid decline in the price oil?
And there is a reason why, despite the impending election of Joe Biden as POTUS that his appointment is meeting resistance in betting markets at 1.05/1.06.

The truth is, it very hard to see hyper-inflation (or hyper-deflation) looming, or more accurately, near impossible to time its occurrence. In all probability, it will happen before you have enough time to adequately respond to it.

How anybody can have any trust on bitcoin's purchasing power a month ahead never mind a few years absolutely escapes me.

And that is a valid point, which if I'm not mistaken has been addressed many times before?
Is anybody advocating for others to place large sums of personal resources into bitcoin? I certainly am not.
I hold a small amount, which by this stage has already paid for itself. I buy small tranches either monthly or bi-monthly, or not at all.
To date, the present growth in value of my holding is light years ahead of any deposit savings account or shares that I hold.
I state that BTC is worth $34,500. When that price will be reached, if ever, I do not know. And of course, I'm open to real possibility that I could be wrong or that an unexpected events occur that changes my view.

In the end, other than its current levels of volatility, it is no different to any other asset class - Property, stocks, oil etc, which have all gone through, and still do, periods of volatility to lesser and greater extents. Those asset classes are established hundreds of years. Bitcoin is only through its first decade.

 

[WolfeTone]

What was boggling my mind was that a couple would have their life savings in bitcoin.

How much are we talking about here?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Wolfie, it was more this question of "trust" that I was trying to tease out rather than replay the whole debate. I see two aspects to "trust". Trust that you do indeed own the digital entry (whether on a blockchain or on a bank accunt). With the latter there is the need to trust the bank. The former doesn't have any central authority to dispense that trust. Hence the need for the blockchain "trustless" infrastructure. This is not a plus point, it is a necessity. In any event it is not a big deal.
Much more important is trust in its purchasing power. You have made its excuses, fair enough, but I can't see how anybody can have any great trust in bitcoin maintaining its purchasing power. It may be a great speculation and I suspect that is its main attraction but we've covered that ground before.

 

[Leo]

Just once? Leo, how many of my questions do you think you've ignored or left unanswered?....because I can tell you, there's plenty of them. I just haven't been mr. pedantic about trying to nail you to the cross in that regard.

You're right of course, there are way too many to count, but as I've said, that appears to be your approach to distract from having to answer a key question.

If you'll just tell me how I might send bitcoin via an existing satellite service without the need for an internet connection, I'll answer any question of your choosing.

 

[Leo]

Also, I think Bitcoin's price fluctuates too much to be used by the general public. Sure it may claim to protect against inflation, but only in extreme cases does inflation cause too much bother for people.

Agreed, it's purely speculative demand driving that at the moment so for most it's a poor choice for day-to-day use or as a store of value. It's not causation, but there's a tight correlation between bitcoin price and the volume of google searches on the subject.

 

[tecate]

that appears to be your approach to distract from having to answer a key question.ht of course, there are way too many to count, but as I've said,

AAAhhh....so YOU ask the questions around here Leo. The audacity on my part to dare to ask a few questions to advance the conversation. As regards this 'distracting' charge - it's a complete contrivance but continue on with it if it makes you feel better.

If you'll just tell me how I might send bitcoin via an existing satellite service without the need for an internet connection, I'll answer any question of your choosing.

Go back and re-read. I addressed the topic. Again, maybe you'd prefer to write my posts for me so that they're to your liking.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Even Davy has caught the bug

THE DAVY VIEW




Against a backdrop of growing interest, in this thematic report we undertake a deep-dive on the economic and technological principles of Bitcoin. Software is eating the world and reshaping the architecture of the monetary system – one inclusive of digital assets. The pandemic has accelerated monetary easing and digitisation, driving a growing interest in cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin is the king of the crypto jungle, a technology prodigy with a dominant market position. Its technological and monetary properties arguably rank it senior to gold as a non-sovereign store of value. Recent corporate investment is also helping to legitimise bitcoin’s use case as a treasury reserve asset.

 

[Leo]

AAAhhh....so YOU ask the questions around here Leo. The audacity on my part to dare to ask a few questions to advance the conversation. As regards this 'distracting' charge - it's a complete contrivance but continue on with it if it makes you feel better.

You chose to reply to a post I wrote responding to another poster. You made a claim in that post that something I wrote was untrue. I'm just asking you to back up that claim. You may feel otherwise, but I think if you accuse me of telling a lie or making a false statement that I should be allowed ask you to back up your assertion.

There is plenty of evidence here that anyone can ask questions, it just appears you have a difficult time answering some of those directed at you.

Go back and re-read. I addressed the topic. Again, maybe you'd prefer to write my posts for me so that they're to your liking.

In which post did you clarify how I might go about sending bitcoin over a satellite service without need for an internet connection? I've been looking hard, but I don't see it.

 

[tecate]

There is plenty of evidence here that anyone can ask questions, it just appears you have a difficult time answering some of those directed at you.

The point put to you is that it seems your questions are more important than mine. Secondly, you were (and are) the one whinging about answers to questions - when in reality it's that you don't like the answers. I didn't whinge about any such thing - but we're on the subject now - perhaps you can clarify why there's a whole host of questions you've left unanswered. Carry on with this nonsense Leo and you'll be held to the very same standard. It's just a shame people have to read through your nonsense.

In which post did you clarify how I might go about sending bitcoin over a satellite service without need for an internet connection? I've been looking hard, but I don't see it.

Just like you were looking hard for that report I linked to last week? I answered it - you can't find it - that becomes your problem Leo. And you can scream bloody blue murder - I don't give a fiddlers. You can claim that I haven't answered the question - and I'll come back and correct you on it. How long have you got? Because you won't be drowning me out.

 

[Leo]

The point put to you is that it seems your questions are more important than mine. Secondly, you were (and are) the one whinging about answers to questions - when in reality it's that you don't like the answers.

No, not at all. It's clear I have already answered a number of other questions you have posed in this thread since you accused me of of being wrong there. Why can't you just answer that question and prove me wrong?

 

[Firefly]

I agree that its too cumbersome for regular joe's to use. The difference is that you don't seem to think that this can evolve.

Source please

Again, like Firefly you're not open to the consideration that usability can be improved upon

Source please

As Wolfie pointed out to you, they've been proven to be corruptible. So - others have gone with digital currencies as @Firefly proposes.

Source please

 

[Leo]

Source please


Source please


Source please

Ha! Good luck with that!

Perhaps you should read the Gold Council report, if you can't find it in there, well then you're obviously thick!

 

[tecate]

No, not at all. It's clear I have already answered a number of other questions you have posed in this thread since you accused me of of being wrong there.

On the back of that, here comes my next question. Ready?
Have you conveniently not answered a whole host of questions I've put to you over the course of three years here?

Why can't you just answer that question and prove me wrong?

Because I did answer your question - and beyond that, your social capital with me is sub-zero. This was never supposed to be about wrong/right - but you and a couple of others here moulded it that from the outset. So seeing as that's what we're left with - I'll point out what I pointed out to you a couple of days ago. You were wrong about the proposition that is bitcoin a few years ago - and you continue to be proven wrong.

Source please

As per previous discussions (and as I know you're being disingenuous here and trying to add fuel to the fire, I'm not going trawling through previous posts to find them). If you'd like to correct me on it, go on ahead - perhaps you've had a change of heart.

Ha! Good luck with that

This is all that's left for the embittered to go on with - pathetic.

 

[WolfeTone]

I can't see how anybody can have any great trust in bitcoin maintaining its purchasing power. It may be a great speculation and I suspect that is its main attraction but we've covered that ground before.

I don't have great trust in bitcoin maintaining its purchasing power, if I did I would be more inclined to go all in.
I accept it is not without its flaws, that it is does not yet have mainstream appeal or is not user friendly in the sense of how we use other technologies.
But what I do accept is its concept, and its prospect to develop mainstream appeal, and for user friendly applications to be developed for it.
I could be alone in thinking that way, but clearly I am not.
So while there is a great deal of speculation (limiting the € amount anyone should put into it) that speculation is not a blind-throw-a-dart-over-your-shoulder-see-where-it-lands levels of speculation that, with respect, the BOHA camp may be inclined to proclaim it to be. There may be elements of that, but enough to induce a several hundred billion market over 12yrs? In my opinion, no.

The speculation is based on the technology fulfilling its promise, or even part of, the mechanics of it, and crucially for me, the time being invested in it by reasonable and intelligent people.
None of that amounts to a fire-proof endorsement of bitcoin, but they are strong indicators of its intrinsic value.

It is mentioned elsewhere that something else, something better than bitcoin will emerge and that will be the end of bitcoin.
Indeed it might, or maybe it will just make what is there now better?

Did the colour TV replace the B&W TV, or did it just make TV better?

For now, the BOHA argument is dead. It has zero value. It is worthless.

 

[Leo]

Because I did answer your question - and beyond that, your social capital with me is sub-zero.

No you didn't. Now, everyone reading this knows if you had answered the question, all you have to do to prove me wrong is just quote the post where you explained how it is possible to send bitcoin via satellite without the need for an internet connection.

Please, prove me wrong.

 

[tecate]

No you didn't.

Yes, I did - and if you were a character with even a modicum of respect, you'd act with a bit of courtesy. You weren't owed an answer - you got one - and that's where it ends.
And again with the double standards. WHERE is the answer to the question I just put to you Leo? Where? Where are the answers to the questions I asked you in posts from earlier today?

Please, prove me wrong.

You've been proven wrong consistently on bitcoin since 2017 - it seems you haven't gotten over that yet.

For now, the BOHA argument is dead. It has zero value. It is worthless.

precisely.

 

[Firefly]

Fruitfly? Now, now...Wolcate

I know you're being disingenuous here and trying to add fuel to the fire

I posted an observation about Bitcoin. You made 3 references to viewpoints I did not make. When I asked you to back them up, you accuse me of being disingenuous. It looks the other way round to me..

As per previous discussions ..I'm not going trawling through previous posts to find them).

So that's a no then? Make assertions about people without backing it up....how do you honestly expect people to take you seriously then??

If you'd like to correct me on it, go on ahead - perhaps you've had a change of heart.

You are the one asserting 3 times in the past 24 hours things I have not said. The onus is on you I'm afraid.