Topic: Can you answer a couple of questions to a potential bitcoin buyer? - page 6. (Read 1782 times)

But I'm telling you in my answer why you would buy Bitcoin (as opposed to gold, as one of the examples you gave).

Since we're not going to discuss whether or not gold or Bitcoin would be more "valuable", how easily you can USE it (or in the case of gold, stocks, or oil or any other type of security, to liquidate it) actually becomes a very valid reason to buy Bitcoin.

As I mentioned, I couldn't even easily buy gold even if I wanted to. I also probably wouldn't easily be able to buy most types of securities because of my own rather flexible (even vague) nationality and jurisdiction. Possibly harder for others living in other jurisdictions. None of this matters in the case of Bitcoin.

I'll give one very present use case fleeing war refugees who have to survive weeks at sea -- why would they preserve their wealth with gold, wheat, oil, or sunset picture which they have no means of transporting or protecting on a long dangerous journey (not to mention finding someone to buy it off them), when they could instead ensure if they were to arrive at their destination of refuge/asylum, Bitcoin?

Once they pay their loans, the debt is repaid, but the money supply remains the same. Isn't it? Anyway, I think we're missing the point here. You're asking me why wouldn't I want the dollar, I'm telling you that it's constantly inflated from the near-zero limit of required reserve. You then ask me why would I want a currency that is used by anonymous people, I'm telling you that it's a hedge to inflation.

You asked why would a person buy Bitcoin; you've already gathered a lot of answers. Why can't you admit there are valid?

Their definition would definitely contain the following: Is there a law which will enforce you to use it? That's capital.

you as a dollar holder are not obligated to give him your dollar for him to pay it back to the bank
you as a dollar holder are not contracted with him to request dollar from him to settle the banks debt
you as a dollar holder are not secured to receive a dollar from him when he pays the bank
if he fails to pay and the bank gets in trouble. your not guaranteed a $10 cheque from the government insurance

the bank does not use your dollar to pay him in a loan. thus he does not owe you.
banks CREATE new money for loans, not swap old money around

he can pay the bank via many means. but that contract is between him and the bank. not you
he can go abroad. and work on an african gold mine. and get paid euros. and a euro bank can convert that to dollars to pay his loan..
meaning never interacting with you, meaning he does not need to touch a dollar to repay

he can become a bitcoin miner, mine some rewards and go to an exchange and then pay off the bank loan.. again nothing do to with you
he can get a job or manufacture something, charge payment in many forms or such. again nothing to do with you.

---

maybe big numbers are too big to imagine.. lets simplify it

if you have $10 bank note. there is no insurance. if you lose it or have it stolen banks wont reimburse you. its your loss

if you deposit it. the bank keeps $1 bank note in a vault. puts $10 into a digital balance,.
and separately due to a contract THE BANK has with government and other private banks. the bank can also create another balance account for someone else for another $9 (meaning upto $30 in circulation in different forms)
.. this loan creation charter is not a contract between you and the bank. nor you and the government nor you and the borrower

your bank note has no contract where by you are part of the $10 deposit balance + $1 bank note vault part
your bank note has no contract where by you are part of the $10 deposit balance + $1 bank note + $9 loan account part

your bank agreement is that you put in 10, you can get out 10
crumpled note 10:10 crisp note.. that is all (and in many cases they can charge you for that service)
...
lets say from this separate $9 allotment 2 people (a, b) takes a loan for $5 and $4 respectively.
a. interest is 5% meaning after a year he pays THE BANK  $5.25
b. interest is 5% meaning after a year he pays THE BANK  $4.20

the bank cancels out the $5 and $4(that was in circulation) so that it can reuse it as $9 for new loans
and the bank keeps the $0.45
with this though.
the bank owes another private bank insurer an insurance premium on the $9 allotment(separate from deposits) its allowed to play with
the bank has also obligations with the FDIC to pay an insurance premium on deposits
the bank also wants to pay you something for not withdrawing your deposit.
but these 3 things are not contracts with you.

these three things do not bind you to the loan account via the 3 contract path.
they are separate contracts for separate services the bank has with separate entities
banks are not obligated to pay you interest. they can change the terms of accounts conditions as they please
its why banks used to be generous with a 5% incentive a couple decades ago but now only pay silly 0.05%
you have no security/guarantee of getting interest. because the agreement allows them to change the terms
..
to incentivise you to not withdraw your 10 the bank will put limits on daily spending. charge you if you spend too much, too often,  and also offer a bit of a bonus if you keep it in for a year(if they chose to)

this is not security to you. this is just a way that if they can keep your money. it allows them to profit with the new balance in the other account they created(out of nothing)

if the bank was to fail. the government wont send you a cheque instantly for $10 or send 4 loaves of bread(value rate at deposit)
what they do instead is shift the failed banks accounts to other banks. so you simple get Bank A 10:10 bank B

whereby the cost of the swap ends up that your buying power diminishes from 4 loaves of bread to less loaves of bread.

the 2008 banking crises shown millions of people lost out directly and all americans value diminished due to the inflation caused by the bailout

if $10 could buy you 5 loaves of bread in 2008.. i can guarantee you now. withdrawing $10 now wont get you 5 loaves now. and i guarantee you you wont get 4 loaves in the near future. and also.. if your bank fails. the chances of you filing a claim to get a FDIC cheque is super small. they would prefer to get the country to pay more tax and just shift balance sheets around to other banks. than pay out the insurance

so dont think that you will get a guaranteed cheque from the FDIC if your bank fails.
and dont think you can still buy 4 loaves(todays value) with your future $10 in a different bank account that took over yours

I think that this just shows how ignorant and ill-informed you really are. Bitcoin numbers are nothing but proof of capital ownership.
How do you define capital, anyway?

---

The problem is that the OP probably does not even know where those countries are on the world map, let alone be familiar with their monetary systems. And hyperinflation may as well be science fiction to him.

screw it i wont wait for antithesis to rattle off "fiat is secure/liable to loans"

ill explain the insurance
imagine all us banks had a combined $1.48trill of savings deposited
$1,148,000,000,000 ($3580  X 328m pop)

pets say there are 10 main banks.
and lets imagine
9 banks had $116.44b deposited (+104b loan allocation) each
1 bank had $100b (+90b loan allocation)

and lets say its this 1 bank of $100b that was going to fail(just not yet, they simple sent the warning).

account depositors are not guaranteed to get a cheque sent out within 2 days of the bank failing.

the bank cannot just put its hand up and say to the FDIC "i give up, pay our customers"

first the failing bank need to find its own ways to 'make money' to cover any losses. this usually means going to other banks direct and asking for loans to cover deposits. to then separately be able to create its own contracts to its own loanees to try to get profit to pay back the failing banks loan to the other banks

if this fails and the other banks refuse to loan to the failing bank.. then the failing bank can approach the FDIC.. as a last resort

the government can instead
'bail out' the bank (via treasury(aka tax))
sell the bank to one or more of the other 9 banks
and if both those fail.. then third option is that deposit account holders can get a cheque via the FDIC insurance
but this third option NEVER happened in 2008

what actually occured in a couple examples of 2008 was:
A) the treasury would create a contract(bond) offering $105b back over 7 years for $100b upfront ($15bill each year for 7 years)
this contract(bond) allows the 9 banks to buy up some of those bonds. where the 9 banks collectively can use their ~loan allotment. to 'print'  collectively $100b. where the treasury then hands that $100b to the failing bank. to become viable again.
leaving the treasury with 0 for itself. meaning it has to charge more tax on citizens to find $15b a year to pay the 9 banks back

B) the FDIC organised with the 9 other banks to take on the deposit accounts of the failing bank
where by if evenly split, each of the 9 banks became:
9 banks had $127.55b deposited (+114b loan allocation)

im over simplifying here
but the point is
the dollar is not as secure as you think
the chances of you actually getting a viable cheque from the FDIC in the mail is not really a feature that is used.
what actually happens is just digital shifting of 1:1 numbers from one bank to another

the bank or the FDIC will not hand you bread if a bank fails.
firstly bank deposits of 1148 are not worth 1148, because people pay tax, meaning even before you get to spend your bank balance your already at a loss of 20% meaning(229.6b) means the buying power(value) people have was become 918.4b of 1148b
yep if your employer says you have a salary of $1,148 a month. you can only spend $918.4 of it because the taxman took his cut

then if a bank fails:
(ignoring how the 20% tax is spent and just for simplicity say it just re-enters population deposits later via public spending)
because now the government need $244.6b to cover usual public spending(229.6) and the $15b loan payment
thats a change from 20% tax to 21.4% (1..4%($15b) goes to the banks not back to population)
after the bailout becomes
y1 903.4 of 1148 because now the government need $244.6b to cover public spending(229.6) and the $15b loan payment
y2 888.4 of 1148
y3 873.4 of 1148
y4 858.4 of 1148
y5 858.4 of 1148
y6 843.4 of 1148
y7 828.4 of 1148

meaning a 8.7% of deposits bailout(1148-100) causes inflation of 10.86% (100/828.4 x 918.4) over 7 years

where by the 'banks' have a combined balance sheet of
$1148b deposited +1027b loan allocation + 114.8 bank note =2289.8 on the books(in circulation)
but people can only spend 828.4 of value = 37.157% VALUE of that combined circulation

if that 2.29 trillion on the bank books(in circulation) could be 916billlion bread loaf value pre bailout (2.29t / $2.50 a loaf)

meaning. you are not going to get combined full population cheques for 916b bread loafs if the dollar failed (2.296t (all $ in circulation))
meaning. you are not going to get combined full population cheques for 459b bread loafs if the dollar failed (1.148t (just deposit balance))
you are not guaranteed a cheque for combined full population of just value of 331b bread loaf if the dollar fails (828.4b value of deposits)

peoples 'money' they can actually spend post bailout would still APPEAR as 1.148t still in bank deposits but:
 only buy 331billion bread loaf value even though there is 2.29t 'in combined circulation'
 only buy 331billion bread loaf value even though the deposits alone was 459b bread before the bailout

you are not going to get a cheque. instead going to get a new account for combined population 1148 deposit accounts with a different bank. where everyone can only enough deposit/cash to maybe buy 331b bread loaves, instead of 459b if the bank fail didnt happen

in short.
account balance swapped 1:1 from failed bank to viable banks. but the value of that 1148b deposit has declined to 828.4b spending power after tax.

---

and thats why in 1900 a $1 could buy 26x more things than a $1 can buy now. because the insurance does not work to protect value. governments and banks even avoid using the insurance, to instead make people more unvalued.

Who needs an entire universe?  I can name countries as adequate examples:

Bolivia, Bosnia, Georgia, Nicaragua, Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe, etc.  

Legal enforceability did nothing to stop their national currencies failing.  You were not able to live off those currencies.  They all became worthless due to hyperinflation.

The whole point of this topic is the question why would I buy bitcoin in the first place and why would I pay the ask price, and not whether I can sell it.

Look, I'm not one of those super pro Bitcoin evangelists that say Bitcoin is everything and then some. It's definitely got its limitations but you're really not being creative if you think you can't use Bitcoin for anything other than to hold and look at (I don't even open my wallet to look at it, I just know roughly how much it holds and then only see its amount every now and then when I'm adding to it).

I've never owned gold before (to use the example you used) but that's less because I wasn't interested and more because of access. Now if you had gold right now, tell me how soon do you think you'd be able to use it for the specifics you mentioned? How soon and how easily would you be able to find a buyer to liquidate your gold too, in the specific amount you had?

With Bitcoin, I could do all this in mere minutes, either directly with my BTC or selling it right away to someone local (also in mere minutes), if I needed to:
- pay for bills
- make a purchase
- send emergency money
- convert my assets

I want aesthetics? In my last post before this, I explained how I bought a pretty gold-plated wallet to store a bit for someone to hold and admire (again, not my thing but hey, whatever rocks your Bitcoin boat).

If they haven't borrowed anything then you have zero $ numbers on the market.

Regarding the first. Cars are also regulated by the regime, houses also. Ever heard of construction-related laws? But what that has to do with our discussion? What is your point? I am simply saying that in bitcoin all you have is faith in unknown people. You hope that once you give up the things you can live off of, these people will voluntarily return you the equivalence of such things. With fiat you have the whole banking system and legal enforceability to ensure you get such things back. In what universe is the former better than the latter? How rational is to think that a complete stranger will just voluntarily give you a car for a worthless number just because, in the past you also voluntarily gave your car for such a number? How long do you think this system can last?

Consider quote a part of my message and not the entire message. It'd be less annoying.

Which is regulated by the regime. I can't setup a federal reserve system as that'd be illegal. It's legal for the banks, because the government says so.

I'm taking an example where they haven't borrowed anything. I own every cent of all the banks and I'm ready to lend to anyone who'll ask for new loans. This is what you're doing too with the BTC.

no no and no
thats not the banks charter, thats not the banks contract. thats not the banks job

if you go to a bank they dont give you bread. they just ask for your crumpled bank notes. and give you back crisp bank notes for the same number(if you meet their conditions).

'savings accounts' is where you give them crumpled bank notes. and they store the number in another form(electronic). they dont need to keep X% of paper bank notes on hand at any time, but some do.
meaning to stop bank runs of everyone asking for a withdrawal at once. they limit, question or delay requests.
its why ATM's have limits of $500. its why if you do more then 6 bank note withdrawals a month from a savings account the banks charge you for it.
they question the reasons if the amount is above a certain level. they say you have to make a pre-arranged request taking days to finalise if its above a certain level. to pressure and give you headaches to not withdraw it all in one go.

banks in america are not obligated to instantly pay you on your demand. the charter actually does the opposite. it allows the banks to delay, limit or deny instant demands

savings account is NOT where they "USE" your deposit amount as a loan to someone else. instead they have a separate charter where a charter allows a bank to 'create new money' for the person getting a loan as a separate charter (nothing to do with your savings account terms and conditions.) based on how much volume a bank holds.

EG say a bank has $100billion savings account deposit balance on its books.
a bank has to hold $10bill as bank notes.
but can create upto $90bill of new money
this mean while all savings account balance still appears as $100bill digitally.  loan accounts of other customers can go upto $90b digitally. and the bank has $10b in bank notes physically ($200b savings'balance'+loan 'balance'+paper bank notes)

they are not actually giving away your savings balance to a loan recipient. a loan recipient is not liable to you.
your deposit balance still appears as $100b even when 90bill loans are created
if a loan defaults. it does not affect the savings account holder. it just means the bank loses out on its potential future profit from the terms of the $90m loan allotment

anyway
the bank can do many things with the $90m separate loan allotment amount
1. split up and offer parts of this $90b loan allotment to other customers in the forms of bank branded overdraft, bank branded credit, or bank branded mortgages

2. sell part of the allotment to other companies. for a small percentage so that (non savings deposit) credit companies can offer credit/mortgages to their customers

..
there are a few other charter details. like its not exactly $90bill a year they can offer out in one go. its more complex. EG like if they want to allocate $90bill over a 30 year mortgage period. they can only offer out $3billion per year. so that it all sums up that if all mortgages are paid in full  over time it equates back to the $90b allotment
..
anyway. this $90b is not the savings account security/property/liability.... its the banks liability/property

a savings account owner cannot walk upto a person that got a loan and say "give me my money back, its mine"
its not theirs.. the loanee has a contract with the bank. not the savings account customer.

its not a Loanee   <->  savings account depositor contract

its not a Loanee   <->bank<->  savings account depositor contract

the closest visualisation is
                                                   ┌>treasury                
loanee <->credit bank subsidiary<->private insurance
                                                  └>bank
the loanee has a contract with the credit bank subsidiary
separately. different contract
the credit bank subsidiary has a contract to pay insurance on the loan allotment.(private company)
the credit bank subsidiary has a contract to pay tax on the loan allotment.(treasury)
the bank gets to keep the rest
..    
separately.                    ┌<bank        
saver <->deposit bank<->FDIC
separately. different contract
the BANK has to pay insurance on the deposit allotment.(FDIC)

a saver has a contract with deposit bank
a loanee has a contract with credit bank subsidiary
but a saver does not have a contract with a credit bank subsidiary

---

because a bank is offering its product to subsidiary which offer to loanee's... the loanee needs to pay THE BANK(indirectly) in the future.
so imagine all collected up(paid in full) $100bill loans returned in a year
the bank subsidiary gets $5b
out of that the bank subsidiary has to pay
800m-1.2b to the treasury
2b to the private company
the bank keeps 2.8b-3.2b (its less because the subsidiary also keeps profit)

then separately to entice/ incentivise savings depositors to not "bank run"/withdraw.. the bank may offer its $100b depositors
60m-810m (0.06%-0.81%)
then separately to entice/ incentivise savings depositors to not "bank run"/withdraw.. the bank insures depositors by paying the FDIC
830m(0.83%) (for a $250k cap per customer)

where by the bank keeps 1.16b-2.13b out of the 5bill loan interest returned via the subsiduary

..
your savings account is not secured against a loan. it has nothing to do with a loan.
your savings account is insured for 'upto' $250k
meaning if you have $1m
a. spread over 4 accounts($250k each)
the $1m will be insured
b. in one account($1m in 1 account)
the FDIC will only honour $250k.. and the rest of your $750k is lost if bank failed

it has nothing to do with any contract with loans
a savings account is not contracted to a loanee, not secured by a loanee. not liable to a loanee

obviously the bank only makes profits from loans. and thus can only afford to pay depositor insurance by doing loans.
but that does not mean a deposit/bank note is securitised/contracted/linked to a loan. there is no contracted obligation between a bank note/deposit account balance to a loanee

a loanee does not owe the depositor anything. because the savings account balance does not disappear when loans are made.
the loanee does not 'get' funds of a savings account. they are separate balances

where by as said at the start. a bank with 100b in deposits .. will have a combined loan, deposit balance and bank note of $200bill

---

---

with all that said..
BANK BALANCE in a deposit account is insured by upto $250k per account
but guess what.
in the 2008 financial crisis. the FDIC did not want to let banks fail to then have to pay out the insurance.
no one was able to file claims to activate the insurance clause.
even if it was activated. the funds go to the bank. not the citizen
(thus the insurance is meaningless as its never used)

what actually happened in 2008 was the treasury 'printed' its own money and gave it to the banks.
so now the banks have the value.
the treasury is now in debt by trillions. and its now the people that owe the treasury, in tax, to attempt to draw down the national debt.
yep the bank is getting tax from people. (meaning their $100b deposits are now worth $80b(20% tax)) the treasury then pays banks that bought the bonds a small % of the $1trill 'quantitative easing'/bail out. so again the banks are making profit while peoples money is becoming worth-less and worth .. less

your bank note is not insured.
your bank deposit balance probably will never activate its insurance clause
instead, government will just create debt which its citizens have to pay back, even if they personally didnt ask for a loan.

if you want an explanation of this process i can give it. but i think i have wrote enough for now.

Number $40,000,000,000 is not created by a regime, but by the banking system, via granting loans and protecting them with the collaterals of the borrowers. So, if no one on the market wants those numbers anymore, borrowers are forced to use them. Otherwise the banking system will seize their collaterals and trade it with me, given banks are liable to liquidate the open loans.

Regarding bitcoin and what is intended for. Off of intentions you cannot live.

Neither is Bitcoin intended to be observed in your screen. Also, both are capital if two individuals say so.

I think I was clear enough when I implied that I don't trust the banking system for living. That I trust something which promotes principles proportional to my character, such as free speech, freedom of choice and free markets. Understand that people may have different socio-political beliefs.

Let's assume you're the owner of a number $40,000,000,000. But, no one wants those anymore, because the socio-political regime is overthrown. What can you do with $40,000,000,000, which can be inflated anytime by the way in contrast with your 19,000,000 BTC.

If we're going to take completely hypothetical scenarios, be my guest.

Sharers are not intended to be eaten but to prove the ownership of capital. Bitcoin proves the ownership of numbers. That's the point.

Why is it that you view me as a problem? I am here to state facts. The real problem is with you people. You gave up things you can live off of, or you give up membership in banking system that ensures you get such things back, only to be members of the system where you hold numbers. The demonstrate the stupidity of this system consider the following example. Let's say you are the richest person on Earth and you have land, buildings, machines,.... all over the world. Now let's assume you trade literally all that, including food, for all the bitcoins in existence. After that you are the owner of a number "19,000,000". Let's assume no one in the market is interested in buying these numbers any more. What can you do with "19,000,000? Let's say you get hungry and need something to eat. The guy next to you has pizza. You offer him your number, and he responds: "pizza I can eat. With your number I can do nothing. I'll pass the deal."  And now what? Is there something like banking system to ensure you get back the things you can live off of? No. Is there any capital that you own to produce such things? No. So where's all the bitcoin value that you people are talking about? Where's the freedom, if now you have to work only to get food, only to meet your basic needs? You literally have nothing. Do you now get what does it mean having protection in the banking system or in capital? Or are you still going to make excuses for the system of number holders?

That's a hasty generalization. One can live from a variety of numbers in the database, but what matters is what those numbers represent.
You keep arguing with flawed, deceptive, and false arguments that can easily be proven wrong.


This must be the stupidest thing I've read today.

It's advisable to mention that there are many kinds of value, e.g., personal value, intrinsic value, market value. Value should not be unconsciously translated to price.

They can neither eat the shares. There has to be a supposed agreement between the parties, whether that's legally enforced or not. You don't like that. You've invested your time to create these videos that you've become biased. You keep thinking of Bitcoin as a number in a database, but you don't comprehend that it helps some people's lives.

Maybe that's the problem with you. You don't believe that people can live all by themselves. You remind me of this:

That's language, semantics, definitions. The fact is that people can live off of capital. Off of numbers in a database, they cannot. No matter how someone define words this fact won't change.

I think nothing. I have opinions on nothing. I am simply stating facts: off of capital people can live. Off of numbers no one can. Btw, we are not discussing whether you can buy or sell something. We are discussing that when you hold fiat money the whole banking system protects you by ensuring that the borrowers provide you the things you can live off of. That stocks are the ownership of such things. And that crypto/ bitcoin is the ownership of things no human being on Earth can live off of. Nor anyone in bitcoin system protects you like banks do.

Yes, people can live off of sunset picture because it pleases their aesthetic senses

Maybe he even tried to live off of the sunset pictures? I hope they weren't lead-based oil paints (which would actually explain some things).

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/lead/health.html

funny part is..
antithesis thinks he can live off of shares. he thinks he can buy a pizza using shares..
.. good thing i have btc, i can buy pizza with btc.

while he starves himself investing in shares, i will feed myself using btc