Andreas' current use of BTC | Bitcointalksearch.org

Shenzou

sr. member

Activity: 1400

Merit: 283

Quote from: superbotolo on October 30, 2021, 10:34:52 AM

I love Andreas Antonopoulos. Having said this, he recently said something in one episode of his podcast that surprised me. He was talking about living on Bitcoin and he said that he HODLs his BTC and basically spends only USD. He gets paid in all different fiat, and he spends this fiat for his daily life. When he can, he buys more BTC and HODL.

While I understand that many of us HODL, isn't this just wrong for the future of BTC. First, Satoshi created BTC as a currency. It is intended to be spent. Second, if everyone HODL and nobody spends BTC, isn't this becoming just a pyramid scheme?

Although bitcoin has been created to be a replacement for current failing and ever so inflated finical system that has been always controlled by the government, but that idea has been started to fade away little by little ever since bitcoin started to reach some high prices, bitcoin has become just an asset and a way to make some quick and big profit for the majority of the new people who are investing it, and i am sure the majority of them if asked about what is the concept of bitcoin is they will just say its a digital currency and yet they don't use it as a currency and they don't even know the reason behind its creation.

o_e_l_e_o

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 18711

Quote from: Lucius on November 05, 2021, 06:11:34 AM

Being elected to Congress does not necessarily mean being intelligent, but that is the way it is everywhere in the world

You don't need to be particularly intelligent, but rather just have a little bit of common sense, to realize that passing laws and regulations on something you don't understand will not be effective and will just lead to more confusion and issues further down the line. But yet, that's exactly what they are doing. The US government is trying to apply laws which were written to regulate wheat, Irish potatoes, and concentrated orange juice to bitcoin, as if these things are in any way comparable.

Every member of Congress has an army of staff who are supposed to research and advise on issues like this. This is as much their failings as it is the member of Congress themselves. They propose these ridiculous laws, and then it is up to us to contact and educate them and change their minds or try to force amendments. Which will last for a few months until the next ridiculous proposal. The whole thing is a mess.

Lucius

legendary

Activity: 3234

Merit: 5637

Blackjack.fun-Free Raffle-Join&Win $50🎲

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on November 04, 2021, 09:05:15 AM

Partly. I would bet that only two or three Reps or Senators could even give you a definition of a cryptocurrency, let alone explain what they are or how they work.

Being elected to Congress does not necessarily mean being intelligent, but that is the way it is everywhere in the world - because recently journalists in my country have asked politicians in my country to try to define Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies, and they have all heard about it but cannot give any meaningful answer. However, it seems that those at lower levels still understand a little better what it is about, because the state post office has been providing the service of a physical crypto exchange for a long time.

I am lucky to live in a country where politicians have no idea what Bitcoin is, but I can sell or buy a cryptocurrency for cash without KYC up to approximately 2000 EUR per transaction with a fairly reasonable fee (around 3%).

o_e_l_e_o

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 18711

Quote from: Lucius on November 04, 2021, 06:07:57 AM

It seems to me that the US authorities understand cryptocurrencies very well, but that such laws are in place to deter people from using Bitcoin as a means of payment

Partly. I would bet that only two or three Reps or Senators could even give you a definition of a cryptocurrency, let alone explain what they are or how they work. But even then, they are quite happy to pass laws or regulations regarding it, not understanding the implications or ramifications of these laws. See, for example, the infrastructure bill which tries to make everyone collect the tax information of everyone else they trade bitcoin with.

Quote from: germsite on November 04, 2021, 07:44:51 AM

Ok, that is quite good then already, but correct if I am wrong, that wasn't always the case was it?

You misunderstand my post. I'm saying that they should at least treat it that way, not that they already do. The tax situation here is a complete mess, with every trade between fiat and crypto or crypto and crypto generating a taxable event.

NelfiNovita

full member

Activity: 640

Merit: 104

Quote from: superbotolo on October 30, 2021, 10:34:52 AM

I love Andreas Antonopoulos. Having said this, he recently said something in one episode of his podcast that surprised me. He was talking about living on Bitcoin and he said that he HODLs his BTC and basically spends only USD. He gets paid in all different fiat, and he spends this fiat for his daily life. When he can, he buys more BTC and HODL.

While I understand that many of us HODL, isn't this just wrong for the future of BTC. First, Satoshi created BTC as a currency. It is intended to be spent. Second, if everyone HODL and nobody spends BTC, isn't this becoming just a pyramid scheme?

Not everyone who does HODL, on the other hand traders often use Bitcoin to transact. We know that at this time Bitcoin has several uses such as trading and as a means of payment for countries that have legalized bitcoin.
Bitcoin was created as a currency but over time the demand for someone to buy bitcoin is increasing so that the price of bitcoin continues to rise from year to year, therefore many people use the HODL strategy.

germsite

sr. member

Activity: 1009

Merit: 261

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on November 04, 2021, 05:40:20 AM

Quote from: _Miracle on November 03, 2021, 03:36:53 AM

It's interesting that anyone could think of introducing a "solution" like that into the bitcoin protocol? It wouldn't be bitcoin anymore.

Not only that, but the proposal doesn't actually solve the problem of people not spending their bitcoin - it only incentivizes people to move bitcoin around between their own addresses and clog up the network with unnecessary transactions.

Quote from: germsite on November 03, 2021, 04:52:31 PM

It might also change more towards Bitcoin being used a currency when there are more favorable tax laws all around the world.

Agreed. In the US, at least treat it the same as any other foreign currency in which there is no tax for any purchases under $200. Unfortunately our legislators don't understand the first thing about bitcoin or cryptocurrency.

Ok, that is quite good then already, but correct if I am wrong, that wasn't always the case was it? Has that regulation officially been applied to crypto recently? The European Union is much more complex in that regard.

Oh and the under $200 rule, is that nationwide or does it depend on the state?

Lucius

legendary

Activity: 3234

Merit: 5637

Blackjack.fun-Free Raffle-Join&Win $50🎲

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on November 04, 2021, 05:40:20 AM

Agreed. In the US, at least treat it the same as any other foreign currency in which there is no tax for any purchases under $200. Unfortunately our legislators don't understand the first thing about bitcoin or cryptocurrency.

It seems to me that the US authorities understand cryptocurrencies very well, but that such laws are in place to deter people from using Bitcoin as a means of payment, and the impression is that this affects most of those who would otherwise have such intentions. I might expect a misunderstanding from a third-world country ruled by a dictator, but I would not agree that politicians and institutions are more intelligent in El Salvador than in the US.

o_e_l_e_o

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 18711

Quote from: _Miracle on November 03, 2021, 03:36:53 AM

It's interesting that anyone could think of introducing a "solution" like that into the bitcoin protocol? It wouldn't be bitcoin anymore.

Not only that, but the proposal doesn't actually solve the problem of people not spending their bitcoin - it only incentivizes people to move bitcoin around between their own addresses and clog up the network with unnecessary transactions.

Quote from: germsite on November 03, 2021, 04:52:31 PM

It might also change more towards Bitcoin being used a currency when there are more favorable tax laws all around the world.

Agreed. In the US, at least treat it the same as any other foreign currency in which there is no tax for any purchases under $200. Unfortunately our legislators don't understand the first thing about bitcoin or cryptocurrency.

YinShuiSiYuan

hero member

Activity: 1680

Merit: 505

Quote from: superbotolo on October 30, 2021, 10:34:52 AM

I love Andreas Antonopoulos. Having said this, he recently said something in one episode of his podcast that surprised me. He was talking about living on Bitcoin and he said that he HODLs his BTC and basically spends only USD. He gets paid in all different fiat, and he spends this fiat for his daily life. When he can, he buys more BTC and HODL.

While I understand that many of us HODL, isn't this just wrong for the future of BTC. First, Satoshi created BTC as a currency. It is intended to be spent. Second, if everyone HODL and nobody spends BTC, isn't this becoming just a pyramid scheme?

We cannot talk about a financial pyramid (scheme) because no one has guaranteed profits. We all know that this is a free market and anything can happen there. After all, Andreas will also start trading Bitcoin normally on the market. He will just do it after a longer time than most of HODLers.

germsite

sr. member

Activity: 1009

Merit: 261

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on November 02, 2021, 03:45:30 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

That's my issue. If BTC has value because it can be used to buy goods, what happens where everyone is HODLing and nobody is using it to buy goods?

We will never reach a point where nobody is using it to buy goods. There will always be at least some people like me who use bitcoin primarily as a currency. And indeed, I think the number of people using it at least partly as a currency is increasing - certainly I personally know of far more merchants accepting it and I spend it in a much wider variety of places than I did 5 years ago. But I still think those people are very much in the minority and are growing at a slower rate compared to the percentage of people that are only here to make fiat profits.

Quote from: ?? on ??

And now that I think about this, one solution could be to introduce a system in the Bitcoin protocol where a small, but increasing portion of BTC that are not moving from an address are transferred automatically to a "community address" for other users to buy, or maybe it goes to active nodes as a way to incentivize network security. The more you hold, the more BTC are transferred to this community address or to nodes.

I would be against this proposal 100%. One of the basic principles of bitcoin is that you can be your bank, hold and secure your own money, without any intervention from third parties. As soon as you start effectively stealing other people's coins for any reason, then you have violated this principle and bitcoin is little better than seizable and freezable fiat.

It might also change more towards Bitcoin being used a currency when there are more favorable tax laws all around the world. Right now using Bitcoin can lead to capital gains taxation if the BTC you use increased in value. That makes it quite cumbersome for all the accounting requirements if you have to list buy and sell/use prices for every coffee you purchase or every package of chewing gum. I think that is one major aspect that would have to change in a number of countries in order to see Bitcoin circulate much more as a currency at least for everyday purchases (Lambos and stuff, you know...) Wink

_Miracle

hero member

Activity: 912

Merit: 661

Do due diligence

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on October 31, 2021, 11:05:45 AM

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on October 31, 2021, 10:40:32 AM

There'll always be people willing to use it as a currency. This is the fact where most of us rely on. We see it as a store of value, but the only value it stores is its future usage as a currency.

And if more people used it as a currency, then it would fuel adoption, would fuel growth, would fuel demand, and would fuel a rise in price. It is a shame that the majority only want to use bitcoin as a means to increase the amount of fiat they have, especially when we see rampant money printing, endless inflation, and Quantitative Easing Round 9001. We could be on the way to a monetary revolution, but instead we see centralized exchanges turning themselves in to crypto-banks, and legacy banks and financial institutions offering bitcoin ETFs and other products, creating more centralized control which most people seem absolutely happy to buy in to as long as they can make some fiat profit.

Bitcoin is a decentralized, peer to peer, currency. Not a centralized, third party, investment vehicle, which is sadly what it is turning in to.

It can be and is all of those things which goes to show the adaptability of bitcoin (another added value)

Quote from: superbotolo on November 01, 2021, 04:50:14 PM

And now that I think about this, one solution could be to introduce a system in the Bitcoin protocol where a small, but increasing portion of BTC that are not moving from an address are transferred automatically to a "community address" for other users to buy, or maybe it goes to active nodes as a way to incentivize network security. The more you hold, the more BTC are transferred to this community address or to nodes.

This would solve the hoarding issue and would also re-appropriate tons of lost BTCs.

It's interesting that anyone could think of introducing a "solution" like that into the bitcoin protocol? It wouldn't be bitcoin anymore. Do you have any btc?
You realize there are fees to move coins from wallet to wallet and that plenty of coins from the early days haven't moved--if they want "the community" to have it: they could choose to give it.

Create your own coin that functions that way.

P.S.
I also hold as much precious metals as I can afford---I'm a guilty little gold bug
Some of gold's value is in our perception of it (beyond its utility) for thousands of years
Homes and property also have value and their prices are subject to speculation and market whims as well

MariaWang

newbie

Activity: 9

Merit: 0

Quote from: superbotolo on October 30, 2021, 10:34:52 AM

I love Andreas Antonopoulos. Having said this, he recently said something in one episode of his podcast that surprised me. He was talking about living on Bitcoin and he said that he HODLs his BTC and basically spends only USD. He gets paid in all different fiat, and he spends this fiat for his daily life. When he can, he buys more BTC and HODL.

While I understand that many of us HODL, isn't this just wrong for the future of BTC. First, Satoshi created BTC as a currency. It is intended to be spent. Second, if everyone HODL and nobody spends BTC, isn't this becoming just a pyramid scheme?

I think there is not right and wrong, and no one way. Any of us have a way to do things, and it depends on our circumstances (country, job, income, family, ...).

Best wishes

buwaytress

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 3684

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

He's actually said quite a bit on this, as he frequently gets asked on podcasts and interviews about the rumour (or myth or whatever) that he lives chiefly on Bitcoin and crypto, and he says quite forwardly that he doesn't because it's simply not possible to.

It's not wrong for the future of BTC -- he encourages use, he has a shop that accepts it and uses Lightning, and he teaches people how to use it as an alternative.

Remember, he didn't actually have significant BTC holdings for a rather long time, think it was a few years back that someone kicked it off by sending him BTC. Think he's more than "paid" his dues as an educator.

o_e_l_e_o

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 18711

Quote from: ?? on ??

That's my issue. If BTC has value because it can be used to buy goods, what happens where everyone is HODLing and nobody is using it to buy goods?

We will never reach a point where nobody is using it to buy goods. There will always be at least some people like me who use bitcoin primarily as a currency. And indeed, I think the number of people using it at least partly as a currency is increasing - certainly I personally know of far more merchants accepting it and I spend it in a much wider variety of places than I did 5 years ago. But I still think those people are very much in the minority and are growing at a slower rate compared to the percentage of people that are only here to make fiat profits.

Quote from: ?? on ??

And now that I think about this, one solution could be to introduce a system in the Bitcoin protocol where a small, but increasing portion of BTC that are not moving from an address are transferred automatically to a "community address" for other users to buy, or maybe it goes to active nodes as a way to incentivize network security. The more you hold, the more BTC are transferred to this community address or to nodes.

I would be against this proposal 100%. One of the basic principles of bitcoin is that you can be your bank, hold and secure your own money, without any intervention from third parties. As soon as you start effectively stealing other people's coins for any reason, then you have violated this principle and bitcoin is little better than seizable and freezable fiat.

witcher_sense

legendary

Activity: 2450

Merit: 4414

🔐BitcoinMessage.Tools🔑

Quote from: ?? on ??

That's my issue. If BTC has value because it can be used to buy goods, what happens where everyone is HODLing and nobody is using it to buy goods? It will most likely see a continuous decrease in adoption and, as a consequence, a decrease in value because at that point you own a digital coin that is completely useless.

The main thing to realize is that money is useless for people if not used for exchange for goods or services. It is nonsense to assert that people will hold their bitcoin until they die. What's the point?

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on November 01, 2021, 09:00:13 AM

I'd say the exact opposite. As they observe their asset skyrocket in the long-term, they're discouraged to spend it, because they can accumulate more purchasing power in the future if they do. This is the problem with deflationary currencies. You're not incentivized to spend them, but rather keep them safe or as we've modernized it, to HODL them. This slow downs the economy.

How do you know this will slow down the economy? We haven't had deflationary currency yet. In my view, deflationary currency incentives people and businesses to be more productive, offer better services, build better houses so that they can obtain more of scarce money.

superbotolo

jr. member

Activity: 56

Merit: 5

Quote from: pooya87 on October 30, 2021, 11:55:04 PM

Stop hanging out in "speculation forums" where everyone only talks about price and how they HODL to become rich and start going into the real world and look around for merchants whether online and offline and see how adoption (as a currency) has grown so much in recent years.

That's my issue. I live in Los Angeles and I have never seen any store displaying a BTC sign. Wait, I might have seen one, and it was a sketchy jewelry store.

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on November 01, 2021, 03:24:24 PM

Bitcoin has value because it can be used to buy goods or services. If no one could ever use it to buy goods or services (i.e. it failed to function as a currency) then it would be worthless.

That's my issue. If BTC has value because it can be used to buy goods, what happens where everyone is HODLing and nobody is using it to buy goods? It will most likely see a continuous decrease in adoption and, as a consequence, a decrease in value because at that point you own a digital coin that is completely useless.

And now that I think about this, one solution could be to introduce a system in the Bitcoin protocol where a small, but increasing portion of BTC that are not moving from an address are transferred automatically to a "community address" for other users to buy, or maybe it goes to active nodes as a way to incentivize network security. The more you hold, the more BTC are transferred to this community address or to nodes.

This would solve the hoarding issue and would also re-appropriate tons of lost BTCs.

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

o_e_l_e_o

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 18711

BHC summed up my point pretty well. The price of gold is absolutely driven by hoarding and people using it as a store of value, but people hoard it and use it as a store of value because they know in the future there will be a demand for gold from various industries. If there was no demand from anyone anywhere for gold, then there would be no point hoarding it as a store of value.

People hoard bitcoin and use it as a store of value because they know they will in the future they will be able to use it to buy goods or services, either directly or indirectly (by selling it for fiat to someone else who will use it to buy goods or services). If there was no one anywhere who would accept bitcoin in exchange for goods or services, then there would be no point hoarding it as a store of value.

Bitcoin has value because it can be used to buy goods or services. If no one could ever use it to buy goods or services (i.e. it failed to function as a currency) then it would be worthless.

Scarcity only makes an already valuable or useful asset more valuable - it does not create value out of nothing. There are trillions of completely unique objects in the world, none of which are valuable in the slightest.

NeuroticFish

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 6382

Looking for campaign manager? Contact icopress!

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on November 01, 2021, 11:57:19 AM

Quote from: NeuroticFish on November 01, 2021, 11:48:56 AM

The price of gold has nothing to do with its usefulness, it's more related to the hoarding of gold by banks, states, ...

What he's telling you is that the price of gold and its usefulness are implicitly connected. Yes, the price isn't directly related with it, it's a matter of supply and demand. But, if it wasn't useful, why would it be demanded? People evaluate goods by their utility. If they all had the properties of a store of value asset, they could also be used similarly by the belief that they will be used essentially in the future.

Gold does have these properties and is, thus, stored with the conviction that someone will use it to either create jewelry or experiment with it in chemistry, or use it into electronics etc.

Sorry, I disagree. I think that the price and the hoarding are more related to the (perceived) scarcity than usefulness.
And that's what I try to express, but maybe I'm failing to do that, or maybe I'm wrong. I guess that we have to agree that we disagree on this and just move on Wink

Thanks for the attempt to clear it up though. Wink

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: NeuroticFish on November 01, 2021, 11:48:56 AM

The price of gold has nothing to do with its usefulness, it's more related to the hoarding of gold by banks, states, ...

What he's telling you is that the price of gold and its usefulness are implicitly connected. Yes, the price isn't directly related with it, it's a matter of supply and demand. But, if it wasn't useful, why would it be demanded? People evaluate goods by their utility. If they all had the properties of a store of value asset, they could also be used similarly by the belief that they will be used essentially in the future.

Gold does have these properties and is, thus, stored with the conviction that someone will use it to either create jewelry or experiment with it in chemistry, or use it into electronics etc.

NeuroticFish

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 6382

Looking for campaign manager? Contact icopress!

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on November 01, 2021, 11:29:09 AM

Gold has other uses - jewelry, electronics, chemistry, healthcare. Even without it being used as a currency, there will always be demand for gold for these reasons. Now, if bitcoin could not be used as a currency and could not be spent anywhere, why would there be any demand for it? It cannot be used for anything else (or at least, any other purpose for it is exceedingly inefficient).

The price of gold has nothing to do with its usefulness, it's more related to the hoarding of gold by banks, states, ...
And I see this similar with bitcoin too: I don't think that those hoarding it as a store of value would care much whether bitcoin is used as a currency or not, as long as they can use it as an asset, even if not traded so often (and bitcoin price is also a result of hoarding more than actual usage).

And with the rise of LN, with far too many keeping their coins in custodian wallets, the users who want to spend may soon not even use bitcoin, they may use IOUs without knowing it.

Topic: Andreas' current use of BTC (Read 504 times)