Topic: Are we delusional? (Read 2930 times)

You don't think the relative value of foreign exchange rates is based on speculation? If so then why is 90% of FX volume speculation related?

Global fiat currencies and the international banking system are backed by nothing except money printing and perceived value, most financial institutions are technically bankrupt since 2008 and the whole system is very vulnerable to intermediary insolvency. The only reason banks remained as the international value ledger system after the GFC is because everyone is running on their closed source cartel API and they will destroy the ledger if they go bankrupt. Central banks have printed (electronically) in excess of US$15 Trillion in the last 7 years just to keep the current system running. Their own trust in fiat currencies is actually so low that they also hold 10,000s of tonnes of a relatively useless yellow metal to barter with. This is very heavy and hard to move around.

In contrast, cryptocurrency is an open source public value ledger, trustless and almost instant in comparison. Bitcoin has it's own technical problems, yes, so it won't go on to replace the global financial system, but crypto is, in my opinion, very likely to, so this is the start of a very positive move by the global economy.

I was just having a little debate with my husband about this last night.  He thinks people are losing interest.  I think that we have just plateaued a bit but there are so many uses in the development stage right now that we cannot see the outcome of that from this side yet.  It will take a little time.  The "need" might be caused by more situations like what is happening in Greece, more people being informed about how much they can save with international transfers, ease of use, etc. . .  The next time we bubble and more people are interested in this "niche market" we will be in a much better position to keep the ball rolling than we were in 2013.

essentially he is talking about adoption rate being very slow, and it's true nowaday you need to catch up fast or you will be forgotten quickly, we aren't in the 1800, where new tech were embraced and supported for decades

there is the risk that if bitcoin will not skyrocket let's say in 10 year at max, it will remain only a nice niche market and nothin else, even satoshi predicted such a thing but in a more catastrophic view

This video made me smile.  He can't really find any fault with the brilliance of the blockchain.  The only reason for it not being "successful" is that there are only about 250,000 holders of BTC!?   For us holders that is music to my ears!  

We are still so early in this game.  People just have no idea.

Just think of it rationally and logically ... Bitcoin uses a base standard currency = USD / EUR / CNY .... now think of it, those currencies alone account for 80% or more of the worlds GDP with established economies and backing of those currencies with the IMF and in net imports and exports to account for their value. How ever Bitcoin is based on backless speculation of a realized "Value" ... How is this value determined?? a ledger? value in property? value in its source code? backed by debt? ... There is only one way to increase "bitcoins value" currently its low volume and an influx of increase of buyer side = short term DELTA of a sellers market instead of a "buyers" market... just think of it as wanting to buy candy and the candy maker was not expecting for an increase in 100% of volume so he has to increase the price to decrease the volume. This is easy to manipulate when there are very small key players in the market. So to the question of delusional... it is up to you to understand the economics and viability of bitcoin. It is only valued as people pump real currency into it and this money is held by your Exchanges... Remember what happened when MT Gox? that is just a reminder.

Edit and addition to my post.
Jeffrey Robinson is quite correct about virtual and digital currency as the future path for currency as its more efficient and is the only measurable answer for the future. Example is Denmark, how ever it is not a "Crypto" system of money its more of a standardized system like using your debit card. This way they can deter fraud and account for various aspects of the system.

I know I'm not. I don't do delusions or illusions. The glass is not half empty or full, it's completely full. Half with water, half with air. 

Reality is my guide.

Will we have to make impassioned pleas for these belevolent early hoarders to exchange some of their precious hoard with the common folk for "worthless" fiat currencies, or will they only take property such as real-estate?   Those early hoarders sure are nice people.  Without them, the Bitcoin economy couldn't function.

Or, is that the 1% in a fiat-based society?

Will we have to make impassioned pleas for these belevolent early hoarders to exchange some of their precious hoard with the common folk for "worthless" fiat currencies, or will they only take property such as real-estate?   Those early hoarders sure are nice people.  Without them, the Bitcoin economy couldn't function.

Or, is that the 1% in a fiat-based society?

. For every price increase, some of the early hoarders pull the ripcord, this distributes the coin in the fairest way possible.

 

I don't understand your objection. Why would only ultra net worths be able to liquidate my $100,000 bitcoins?

In reality, anyone who (today) owns (let's say) 100 bitcoins will probably convert many if not most of them into other assets (USD, stocks, commodities, etc), a little bit at a time, as the price goes from $308 to $100,000. If your portfolio was 99.99% in one asset [which will happen if your $30,000 in bitcoin becomes $10,000,000 in bitcoin in the coming months/years] it just makes sense to diversify.

And some of it would be "liquidated" by spending it, on things like bedsheets on Amazon and olive oil from Greece and whatever they export from Zimbabwe and whatnot.

TPTB = The powers that be?? if thats correct??
IRA = Individual retirement account ?? (or irish republic army??) lols...

If those acronyms are correct then ... IRA's are not fully tax immune they are tax immune up to a very small precentage = approximately 8000 USD ... for any amount over you are taxed so it really isn't a saving as much as stimulating the markets etc etc =]

additional note: In Response to btctrader71 , at that point you are expecting millionaires and ultra high net worths and banks to only be able to exchange and liquidate your $100,000 bitcoins?? lols in reality I don't get how that would logically and realistically play out X_X and that is scary.

An inflationary currency is (so the argument goes) a good thing because it promotes spending, and spending encourages economic growth, and economic growth is A Good Thing. Therefore, TPTB target some low level inflationary rate. Then they turn around and write IRAs into the tax law because they want to encourage savings, and savings is (so they say) A Good Thing. So they encourage spending with one hand, encourage the opposite [savings] with the other hand ... they can't even get their reasoning straight. My God, and people fall for this sh*t.

I understand how the money system works well enough, but you have to explain why do you think a deflationary currency is a flawed one? Even money needs to be printed, so why is Bitcoin having had to be mined bad? and what has lost coins got to do with anything? And since you brought up Germany and Zimbabwe, you just provided 2 real world cases of why debt-based, inflationary currency will always adjusts its value according. It's a proven that creating more money to cover past debt incurs even more debt, not only not solving the problem at hand but decreasing the already depreciated value of current money even more.

Whatever fancy words you use to term it, it's still the same. Quantitative Easing is but a fancy word for "let's print more money and inject it into the economy". Those retained debts you speak about were still created from nothing ever since the money system went off the gold standard.  It's even worse, using debt to create new money is mathematically illogical and unsustainable. It should be very, very obvious by now.

and response toe btctrader71 ... ehhh 1 usd = 330,000 satoshis ... so in the future if 1 dollar = .000001 of a satoshi then what happens ?

Holy cow,you need to also take a lesson in economics, O_O My brain is literally bleeding from your statement, ( not meaning to offend you) ... The fact that bitcoin has to be mined and depends on coin hashing is in itself flawed also a deflationary currency doesn't work as with the case scenario of lost coins etc etc... viable coins will be to limited to host enough trade, also bitcoin is not a currency its an "account/commodity" per definition of its act its more of an m3 account than anything. Also currency values aren't just magically printed to kingdom come. Just like with Germany and Zimbabwe and many other failed currency and governments, they only retain value by what they produce and other countries seek price value exchange in the fair market etc etc (research this topic on your spare time) ... Also Greece's debt has to do more with its reliance on Germany and what happened after ww2 .. (again research this on your time) ... and the money isn't just created out of thin air. It's a retained debt that has to be paid off through some sort of liquidation ex. IMF , Government resources etc etc....

side note: money isn't just created out of thin air ....

Are we delusional?  Well, maybe. But this dude didn't do a particularly good job of making that case.  So he claims that the people who believe that Bitcoin is "going to take over the entire planet," i.e. become the dominant global currency, are "delusional."  He also says that "virtual currency is the future. There's no doubt about that. Digital payments are the future.  Bitcoin is not that. Bitcoin is a step along the way. It will eventually disintegrate and atrophy. But yes, digital currencies and digital payments are the future" and that "the original genius of Satoshi is the blockchain."  

Ok... so there's "no doubt" that "digital currencies are the future" and Satoshi is a "genius"... but Bitcoin is still destined to fail for ... reasons.  

So what actual arguments does he advance in support of his claim that Bitcoin will not succeed in becoming a major world currency?  Well, his primary argument for why Bitcoin won't become a major world currency in the future is that Bitcoin is currently relatively small with only a few hundred thousand users worldwide.  Do I really have to explain why that argument is not terribly persuasive?  

And then in response to the question "where did it [Bitcoin] go wrong?" he replies: "the get-rich-quick kids, they got into it and everybody saw a huge profit. You've got people like the Winklevoss twins who are pumping this thing because they're now holding 1% of all the bitcoins.  And they're pumping it and saying '40,000 dollars a coin.' Well, the theory of the greater fool comes in here. If you've been fortunate enough to buy that many, the only way you're going to get out is to find greater fools to buy it from you. That's where it went wrong."

Huh? So the problem with Bitcoin is that people are speculating on its future value? I guess every financial asset in the world (including every currency) is fatally flawed.  And this bit about the "greater fool" suggests that he fundamentally misunderstands the nature of money.  As I've written before:


So, to summarize, Bitcoin is doomed to fail because it hasn't yet succeeded in taking over the world and because some people are speculating on its future value.