Topic: Are we delusional? - page 2. (Read 2896 times)

If the need were to arise, we could add one or more decimal places and work in fractions of satoshis. If we wanted we could even give it a name like 1 satoshi = 10 "finneys" (named after the late great Hal Finney). At some point in the past, people in the US used "mills" where 10 mills = one penny. Eventually people stopped using mills because 1/10 of a penny just wasn't worth the effort; but nothing fundamental changed when that happened. (The monetary base M_0 didn't suddenly change when we dropped the mill, for example.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mill_(currency)

EDIT: If someone were to suggest we change the 21 million bitcoin cap, basically everyone would oppose that. Once you pick a cap you have to stick with it. But if someone suggested adding an extra decimal place like in my 10 finneys = 1 satoshi example, that wouldn't be nearly such a big deal. Just like using versus not using the mill is not a major issue.

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.

Holy cow, from what I read, and inferring your thought process of like a hyperactive brain with many tangents like me. Uhmmm, I don't think 1 bitcoin would work ... 100,000,000 "satoshis" .... whats smaller than a satoshi??  Also money is taken into the government, destroyed , renewed, redistributed out ... Where as for bitcoin it is destroyed and destroyed and lost ... etc etc . Then you have the problem of facilitating trade... Please elaborate your idea of trade on 1 bitcoin or a currency without government-issue / backing .. lets use zimbabwe / Panama / somalia as a per se case value in this hypothetical ...


Side note: And in response yah my brain was figuratively melting to blood =[ ...

I think you mean "figuratively" bleeding. Not "literally." At least I hope so. 

Your objection is flawed. A single bitcoin is enough to host all the trade in the world. Let me expand just a little bit on that statement. If, hypothetically speaking, Satoshi had programmed an upper limit of 1 bitcoin instead of 21 million bitcoins, it would not have made any difference on how the whole thing functions. The total valuation of all circulating bitcoins in existence expands or contracts to whatever it needs to be. I suggest you ponder the basic idea of a unit of measurement and what it means to change units.

If you want to study the history of currency and banking, you should read about the history of economies that have run on privately-issued currencies without any government-issued currency at all. This is referred to as "free banking." Scotland had a pretty long run in the early 1800s (iirc) of free banking. My point is that currency does not necessarily imply formalized government-issue or government-backing.

Lols wait what how did I lose? I simply pointed out your scenario of  [1970's 45K Home is = money stability](obviously you stated it in sarcasm)  X_X ... I stated currency changes with business cycles  and governmental cycles in growth and recline etc etc .. anyways

6,000 to 10,000, bartering or coin, all distinctions that dance beside the fact you just got owned, about monetary inflation for benefit of state = necessary/good

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 ....


Also in answer to Cconvert,
past 6000 years you mean past 10,000 years well there was bartering then an evolution to kingdoms like an authoritarian where thousands of coined currency in silver and gold and bronze etc etc were used and if you have the spare time research of history of currency it'll brighten your day

Gold as a unit of official US currency value was only completely forgotten in 1971. We have another 6000 years of history you need to answer for.

At that point how would you quantify exchanges for imports and exports? "decentralization and immunity" is such a joke point of benefit for bitcoin in the modern ages of the IMF ... You can't have a decentralized currency ....we don't live in a utopian society that allows for such as business runs its course with society. It would be the wild west and dark aged era of life if it were decentralized with THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of different currencies ... just like with alt coins there is a crap ton like litecoin doge coin ripple etc etc... What is your point for decentralization and immunity?  What is the benefit that humanity will have? Will people abuse their status to create more of that currency and invest it to failure? what is the benefit you see and explanation for "decentralization and immunity".

Bitcoin is backed by its own protocol, based on mathematics (to be specific, cryptography). You need to solve equations in order to produce new coins, and solving those equations require computation in the form of miners, and miners require power and operational costs to run. The true value of the btc will be based on the costs to mine those coins. Without miners, you won't get bitcoins. And in within the mining world is another free market at play: operation costs, how fast miners can hash, electricity rates etc. All these would give btc its true value. Bitcoin as a protocol is a lot of things, being a currency is just one of its utility. It's fully independent of any control until a time one has more power than the rest combined, be it in the form of hashing power or having a huge bankroll to influence its natural progression.

All currencies in the world are currently backed by debt, controlled by the government, with full authority to print as much as needed and as when feel like it. This debt-based money system is illusionary and is not sustainable, as shown by the latest, biggest example of it all: A country, Greece, going bankrupt, and simply just walk away. And they should, it's money created out of thin air anyway.

You still just don't seem to understand.

It's not about "digital currency and payments".

It's about decentralization and immunity to outside meddling or control.

Oh god, you definitely need a lesson in economics, land is a non depreciated asset, land was here before you and will be here after you die for many millenia's to come. The population will increase and demand stays for that land and increases as well. While currency comes and goes with the tides of business cycles and governmental growth and reclines... Also you can not equate land to currency and you cannot equate that to a commodity etc etc...


side note: Standard of living and minimum wage and other variables also increase as years go on ...

additional tangent : also in fact in some parts of the USA you can still buy a home for 45,000 or even less , granted they might not be in great shape or other things but it still is a hosue...

Just like the house you bought in 1970 for $45k is still worth 45k. Fiat currency stability 4EVA.

You do realize he marked crypto-currency as non existent in future value right, due to many factors etc etc etc (do your research)
but he did in fact agree that future is for "Digital currency and payments are the future" Like Denmark is doing now. but that currency is backed by the government etc etc... Bitcoin can not be marked as a currency because its an "account" just like a commodity. when you put your money in bitcoin it fluctuated you hope that 1 bitcoin is still of the same value or greater than when you put it in just like when you bought a pig or a barrel of crude or even a gallon or barrel of maple syrup you hope your $100 investment into the "commodity/account" stays at $100 or greater value when you use it and (not $47,50,90) ...

"The system"?

It seems you're missing the point of Bitcoin.

It's not about USD, EUR. CNY or any other currency. It's also not about the existing banking system.

It's about a decentralized wealth transfer system immune to outside control and/or meddling by governments or other entities.

When someone paid 10k bitcoins for 2 pizzas he gave Bitcoin value beyond fiat currencies or the existing monetary system.

He made a point of saying that he didn't mind if the pizzas were homemade and listed ingredients he liked and didn't like.

The fact that the person acquiring the bitcoins used a credit card to pay for delivery of the pizzas is beside the point.

Barter is barter. Instead of pizzas and bitcoins it could have been alpaca socks or liters of maple syrup.

What caught my attention in the video was the shill-like anti-Bitcoin stance displayed by the commentator. It seemed typical of many in the financial community.

Of course bankers and others in financial service industries (including their media) are uncomfortable with Bitcoin.

Some governments are as well, obviously, because of taxation issues. Smarter governments realize that the open nature of the blockchain is actually a boon to tracing the movement of wealth. Here in Canada, income paid in barter is taxable, and Bitcoin is treated like any other commodity, be it chickens or barrels of crude.

(including my sidenote that was left out)
Side note: The reason for virtual currency(like in Denmark) is to essentially weed out those type of "wiring exchange houses" so you can send money like via venmo , where debit card to debit card transfers = 0 fees and practically "instantaneous", with bitcoin you have to go into another country that recognizes bitcoin, and then exchange it for their currency and itll be a different value than your home country(sometimes by losing money on the exchange), while if you were to wire transfer your money it would cost a base fee of 45$ to wire it and then if you have a card that waives international exchange fees = way less in cost than bitcoin and more secure.

extra side note: i guess unless you are extra anarchist type, that doesn't like taxes or government to hide your dealings welp, not much of an answer or excuse there i guess...
_____________________________________


Why did you leave out my Side note , it was the most essential part to helping you understand the value of other companies that provide a near peer 2 peer solution in hind sight of western union and paypal, also paypal has set up those flags to prevent money laundering and fraud, if you are a business or a consumer that has identified themselves as such what do you have to worry about, heck you can transfer 10's of thousand to even hundreds of thousands and they wouldn't bat an eye because they are making money by you transferring that money. It's also a lot more liquid in terms of steps to obtaining that money.


Extra tangent:
Bitcoin exchanges now a days require some form of identification and freezes your accounts when withdrawing a certain amount to your bank account so your reasoning is kind of flawed..

additional tangent: Bitcoins have fees as well =/

WU = Fees

Paypal = (3% fees arent that bad) They do 180 day balance freezes. No reasons necessarily supplied. They can also shut your account down. Just google it. Plenty of people are regularly screwed by them.

I have no clue what you are trying to point out?? ... out of all the points within bitcoin you point out regulation? ... you do realize to be recognized as a currency it has to be regulated right (who wants to utilize a system where the price can fluctuate so widely?).. you also didn't point out how bitcoin pricing works, money has to go into the system to give bitcoin a value. so bitcoin is more of an "account" where you hope that the value of 1 bitcoin stays or becomes greater than the value that was there when you originally purchased 1 bitcoin. The reason why you have money in your pocket is that you know when you use that 1 dollar to buy a soda it'll still be worth a soda , what if the bitcoin could no longer buy that soda?

Am I the only one here who thinks the guy in the video sounds like a carnival barker?

The word "shill" comes to mind.

He also speaks of regulation as if it were a good thing and ignores the decentralized ability of Bitcoin to resist control.

Did he really refer to the Winklevoss brothers as "kids"?  

LOL What a joke.