You'll have to forgive my musings on this as it remains a mystery BUT could this be Brendan's approach to arriving at the fair price of gold? Perhaps you have a calculation for that yourself Leo?
Last edited:
You'll have to forgive my musings on this as it remains a mystery BUT could this be Brendan's approach to arriving at the fair price of gold? Perhaps you have a calculation for that yourself Leo?For quite a time bitcoin's price was closely correlated to Google search trends. More recently however it appears some may have been using this to affect the price in their favour.
I must say I didn't have tecate down for a communist being a proponent of a no government "currency" such as Bitcoin.
It's Friday so a joke springs to mind......"A communist walks into a bar with Bitcoin..."
Yes the article is very favourable to bitcoin. That is why I thought the selective quote which addresses directly the issue of medium of exchange vs store of value would be difficult for you to refute.The article in its entirety is a good writeup in the consideration of Bitcoin. Always the penchant to cherry pick, your Dukeness. The entire article can be found here. I’d encourage people to read the whole thing - not just Dukey’s highlights!
I am obviously very very bad at getting my point across. Absolutely Gold is royalty in terms of store of value. Real estate is not bad either. But one is as bad as the other as a medium of exchange. The key point about the extract from Kelleher is that he states that bitcoin's eventual status as a store of value stands or falls on its adoption as a medium of exchange. It is IMHO grossly misleading to refer to it as digital gold as it would be to refer to it as digital real estate.Once again, see above. There’s no delusion here…at least not on my part. As mentioned, you cherry pick from the article. Secondly, you disprove the point you are making as Gold doesn’t act as a medium of exchange yet it is very much a store of value.
Gold stands as the king in terms of store of value yet it’s not a medium of exchange. Does that answer your question?
You've picked out one benchmark from the eleven he lists Leo. My reading of it is that theyr'e all to be considered together - not isolating one.That's hilarious! So money must be smart / programmable or it's no good???
Insofar as it's peer to peer money - and doesn't involve an intermediary, then sure - it is.I'd also question anyone who thinks Bitcoin is easily transactable.
That's not what he's referring to. If you had Bitcoin and someone agreed to accept it as payment, they could setup a Bitcoin wallet in 10 minutes and receive it. You're referring to adoption - and he addresses that in the article.How many companies in Ireland accept Bitcoin? Certainly none that I deal with here or abroad will accept Bitcoin, so it fails the easily transactable test for me.
We're approaching the world of IoT and the machine to machine economy. You'll get your answer with that. You'll get your answer also with the onset of 'per-use' payment systems down to a per-second basis.I'd question the dollar only scoring a moderate for divisibility. How many times does anyone need to spend or transfer less than a cent??
By taking it out of context? I don't think so Dukey.Yes the article is very favourable to bitcoin. That is why I thought the selective quote which addresses directly the issue of medium of exchange vs store of value would be difficult for you to refute.
Indeed I have answered your question - or rather - Kelleher has - if you take his article in it's entirely. Gold is king as regards store of value yet gold cannot be used and is not used as a medium of exchange. Bitcoin is already formative in the role of digital gold (or a store of value in its own right). Further inroads as a medium of exchange will copper fasten its position. With a steady decline in volatility, major advances in usability and improved understanding and ever greater acceptability, I expect Bitcoin to make further progress as a medium of exchange in the future also.You seem to think that you have answered my question. If so, I take it that you believe that bitcoin can ultimately survive as a store of value even if it continues to flop as a medium of exchange. Just like gold. But in direct contradiction of the extract from Kelleher's piece which I posted.
You'll have to forgive my musings on this as it remains a mystery BUT could this be Brendan's approach to arriving at the fair price of gold? Perhaps you have a calculation for that yourself Leo?
Hmm...which equation precisely would this be? As NOBODY has presented one. As I write this, gold is at $1,737.75. I wonder is it a steal at this price? How am I to decide. Surely there is a nice neat little formula?Gold has utility, so I'd hope Brendan is factoring that into the equation.
Since gold has been used for centuries by people for storing wealth is there really any point anyway.....gold is the king and the incumbent.Gold has utility, so I'd hope Brendan is factoring that into the equation. I haven't put time into coming up with an equation myself, there are just too many irrational variables to come up with a reliable model.
That's an excellent point Firefly. What I would say is that it's a case of everything in its time and place. Gold has served us well and will continue to do so.Since gold has been used for centuries by people for storing wealth is there really any point anyway.
You've picked out one benchmark from the eleven he lists Leo. My reading of it is that theyr'e all to be considered together - not isolating one.
Insofar as it's peer to peer money - and doesn't involve an intermediary, then sure - it is.
That's not what he's referring to. If you had Bitcoin and someone agreed to accept it as payment, they could setup a Bitcoin wallet in 10 minutes and receive it. You're referring to adoption - and he addresses that in the article.
We're approaching the world of IoT and the machine to machine economy. You'll get your answer with that. You'll get your answer also with the onset of 'per-use' payment systems down to a per-second basis.
Hmm...which equation precisely would this be?
Your right though I struggle with recognising sarcasm and long form debates, I have mild autistic tendencies. So I'll be closing my account as to protect my over loading brain.
We're increasingly going toward an ever digital future Leo. Surely if those things present as sound characteristics for money, they should be included? Just because they didn't exist as characteristics back in the day shouldn't preclude their consideration.In fairness, I called out a few of the traits as problematic. They don't seem to correlate with most people's understanding of what money is and are more weighted towards the characteristics of bitcoin/ crypto.
Ok, but in what context is this being tackled? Kelleher is right that Bitcoin can be transacted simply from one party to another (without intermediation). That is a characteristic. That there is little adoption as a means of exchange is separate from the actual characteristic. Notwithstanding that, he addresses that lack of adoption as a medium of exchange. So have I here on many occasions. To me, it's store of value use case first - then means of exchange but only if innovators work on improving usability and second layer solutions like Lighning Network actually come through.Problem there is none of my peers use it, and I work in IT a group you'd think among the more likely to embrace crypto! Peer-to-peer is also a small share of total transactions.
Your point stands but bear in mind he's referring to a characteristic - so as a characteristic its valid too. He's looking at fundamentals.They could, but for many people that is not easy. Getting real money out of crypto isn't straightforward either with banks shutting down accounts or blocking transactions with exchanges. This seems to be focusing on what's theoretically possible then and not reality now or any time soon. For a large chunk of the world population it's about to get a lot more difficult as well if India pass the legislation they are working on to make it a criminal offence to trade in cryptos with a minimum 1 year jail term.
Well, right now, it's not cost effective to transact micro-payments. Visa/conventional means can't support that (largely due to fees). In fairness, it remains to be seen if Bitcoin can do any better as with LN, there will still be fees. It could be left to a truly fee-less cryptocurrency to tackle that.That doesn't make sense to me, and I work with IoT and microservices. Do you expect it ever to be economically viable for a company to invoice for a per-use service for less than 1c? If not where's the value here? Why is the current model of rounding to the nearest cent broken?
I guess it will be Christmas before we know it - who knows what gifts that might bring. I'm ever the optimist.I don't know, you'd probably need to ask Brendan....I haven't been peaking at his notes
The great silver lining of the 30s depression was the recognition that money did not need the backing of physical gold.
Apple Pay / Google Pay, Stripe, PayPal etc etc.We're increasingly going toward an ever digital future
Oh dear, you are back in politician mode. I don't see that as an answer. Do you agree with the following assertion by Kelleher, Yes or No?Indeed I have answered your question - or rather - Kelleher has - if you take his article in it's entirely. Gold is king as regards store of value yet gold cannot be used and is not used as a medium of exchange. Bitcoin is already formative in the role of digital gold (or a store of value in its own right). Further inroads as a medium of exchange will copper fasten its position. With a steady decline in volatility, major advances in usability and improved understanding and ever greater acceptability, I expect Bitcoin to make further progress as a medium of exchange in the future also.
Kelleher said:Bitcoin's utility as a store of value is dependent on its utility as a medium of exchange. We base this in turn on the assumption that for something to be used as a store of value it needs to have some intrinsic value, and if Bitcoin does not achieve success as a medium of exchange, it will have no practical utility and thus no intrinsic value and won't be appealing as a store of value.
Leo this is what Mr Kelleher says about "divisibility":That's hilarious! So money must be smart / programmable or it's no good???
I'd also question anyone who thinks Bitcoin is easily transactable. How many companies in Ireland accept Bitcoin? Certainly none that I deal with here or abroad will accept Bitcoin, so it fails the easily transactable test for me.
I'd question the dollar only scoring a moderate for divisibility. How many times does anyone need to spend or transfer less than a cent??
Jayz! You would think the divisibility of bitcoin was on a par with the invention of the microchip.Kelleher said:2) Divisibility
21 million Bitcoins is vastly smaller than the circulation of most fiat currencies in the world. Fortunately, Bitcoin is divisible up to 8 decimal points. The smallest unit, equal to 0.00000001 Bitcoin, is called a "Satoshi" after the pseudonymous developer behind the cryptocurrency. This allows for quadrillions of individual units of Satoshis to be distributed throughout a global economy.
One bitcoin has a much larger degree of divisibility than the U.S. dollar as well as most other fiat currencies. While the U.S. dollar can be divided into cents, or 1/100 of 1 USD, one "Satoshi" is just 1/100,000,000 of 1 BTC. It is this extreme divisibility which makes bitcoin's scarcity possible; if bitcoin continues to gain in price over time, users with tiny fractions of a single bitcoin can still take part in everyday transactions. Without any divisibility, a price of, say, $1,000,000 for 1 BTC would prevent the currency being used for most transactions.
Excellent point Wolfie. You're referring of course to the US having installed itself with the USD as global reserve currency and the entitlement that brings the US at a cost to all others. There's been a lot of pushback on this over recent years from the Russians, Chinese and Europeans. Ray Dalio referenced this recently in terms of his consideration of a new world order. Things go in cycles.I see tecate has already pulled you up on this so I wont elaborate too much. But this type of revisionism needs to checked in the context of the overall discussion.
The reality is that the US got used to a monetary system that facilitated exorbitant privilege for their economy. So much so that when the plundering indulgences of successive American administrations were called to task by emerging economic powerhouses like France, Germany and Japan, rather than buckle down and compete on a level playing field, the US simply abandoned the rules and changed the nature of the game.
As US economist Barry Eichengreen said "It costs only a few cents for the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to produce a $100 bill, but other countries had to pony up $100 of actual goods in order to obtain one"
In fairness to the Americans, it was only human nature how they acted. I suspect most countries in their position would have done much the same.
If only there was a monetary system available that was separate and trustworthy to all this political interference. Any ideas anyone?
Another valid point - but they're materially different. They all involve an intermediary. They also involve considerable fees. Bitcoin is peer to peer money. On the fees front, it's not at the races right now for a medium of exchange but that may change.Apple Pay / Google Pay, Stripe, PayPal etc etc.
Even the trusty tap&go at my local supermarket has this kinda covered has it not?
You have your answer - it's just that you don't like that answer.Oh dear, you are back in politician mode. I don't see that as an answer.
I don't agree with you taking things out of context. As has already been pointed out to you, Kelleher acknowledges that gold has established itself as a store of value without being (or being able to be) a medium of exchange. If gold can do it, why can't Bitcoin?Do you agree with the following assertion by Kelleher, Yes or No?
OMG you definitely missed your vocationI don't agree with you taking things out of context.
So the concept is simple but its foolish to dismiss it on that basis as it's also powerful. It's so powerful as to mean that gold cant be a medium of exchange. Bitcoins strength in terms of its divisibility means that as this progresses we might move from dicussion of the price of a Bitcoin as a unit to the discussion of the unit price of a Satoshi.Leo this is what Mr Kelleher says about "divisibility":
Jayz! You would think the divisibility of bitcoin was on a par with the invention of the microchip.
Compliments are hard to come by in this partisan corner of the interweb so I'll take that one for the win! Thank you your DukenessOMG you definitely missed your vocation
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?