Topic: Do you think Buffett was right? - page 9. (Read 11668 times)
Buffett don't even understand where is fiat money's value comes from, not even mention bitcoin
"It's a method of transmitting money."
Wrong. Bitcoin is money. Bitcoin transactions are ways of transmitting money. Just like checks, bitcoin transactions have little value in themselves. The value is what they transmit.
The point is simple, the bitcoin network could become an efficient way for transmitting value world wide. Should not be used for storing value.
I think bitcoin or alts are an excellent technology for storing value, volatility aside, there is no other form of money so versatile and stealthily transportable as a wallet file. Not to mention, if people use bitcoin only as a WU replacement and never save any, they have to use the tedious, time consuming and costly on and off ramp exchanges for every transaction. You can do it if you want, but bitcoin's natural tendency is to be self contained and currency-like.
Think about it, if bitcoin did indeed become that efficient way for transmitting value world wide with lots of adoption, and nobody hoarded it, then the transaction volume should be quite steady on average, supporting a steady exchange rate and thereby encouraging businesses and people to not bother with converting to fiat because it would be more expensive and less convenient. And there you end up with a very solid currency.
But the problem is that people treat bitcoin as an investment, and this is why volatility is part of the game.
The point is simple, the bitcoin network could become an efficient way for transmitting value world wide. Should not be used for storing value.
I think bitcoin or alts are an excellent technology for storing value, volatility aside, there is no other form of money so versatile and stealthily transportable as a wallet file. Not to mention, if people use bitcoin only as a WU replacement and never save any, they have to use the tedious, time consuming and costly on and off ramp exchanges for every transaction. You can do it if you want, but bitcoin's natural tendency is to be self contained and currency-like.
Think about it, if bitcoin did indeed become that efficient way for transmitting value world wide with lots of adoption, and nobody hoarded it, then the transaction volume should be quite steady on average, supporting a steady exchange rate and thereby encouraging businesses and people to not bother with converting to fiat because it would be more expensive and less convenient. And there you end up with a very solid currency.
Always trust a shirt maker about advice on cryptographic internet protocols.
>cryptographic
no, just because it utilized cryptography does not make it cryptographic.
>internet
yes, Internet
>protocols
no, Bitcoin is not a protocol, it's a proof of concept prototype implementation, which has been pushed into production by delusions of grandeur. No matter how you like it.
Always trust a shirt maker about advice on cryptographic internet protocols.
You don't think he has advisers?
His track record speaks for itself. It also tells us that the combination of tech and certain PM esque qualities are both fundamental turn offs for him and always have been.
He's an investor. At the moment this whole space is speculation. They are totally different beasts.
He's an investor. At the moment this whole space is speculation. They are totally different beasts.
But isn't he a part of a demographic that supposedly will want to invest in bitcoin when (or if) the bitcoin ETF launches?
I can't see grandpa going for it under any circumstances myself. If anyone does expose themselves a little to it, it'll more likely be folks in their 30s and 40s who've grown up around the idea of an internet economy.
I think that if they wanted to buy bitcoin, they could do it easily today.
His track record speaks for itself. It also tells us that the combination of tech and certain PM esque qualities are both fundamental turn offs for him and always have been.
He's an investor. At the moment this whole space is speculation. They are totally different beasts.
He's an investor. At the moment this whole space is speculation. They are totally different beasts.
But isn't he a part of a demographic that supposedly will want to invest in bitcoin when (or if) the bitcoin ETF launches?
I can't see grandpa going for it under any circumstances myself. If anyone does expose themselves a little to it, it'll more likely be folks in their 30s and 40s who've grown up around the idea of an internet economy.
Always trust a shirt maker about advice on cryptographic internet protocols.
His track record speaks for itself. It also tells us that the combination of tech and certain PM esque qualities are both fundamental turn offs for him and always have been.
He's an investor. At the moment this whole space is speculation. They are totally different beasts.
He's an investor. At the moment this whole space is speculation. They are totally different beasts.
But isn't he a part of a demographic that supposedly will want to invest in bitcoin when (or if) the bitcoin ETF launches?
His track record speaks for itself. It also tells us that the combination of tech and certain PM esque qualities are both fundamental turn offs for him and always have been.
He's an investor. At the moment this whole space is speculation. They are totally different beasts.
He's an investor. At the moment this whole space is speculation. They are totally different beasts.
I expect more technologies like that to come out the next few years.
ripple requires trust as i need a gateway to get my usd into the system. for me its the same as walking to my bank, deposit to my bank account and use ebanking to transmit it.
why should i use ripple? my bank even handles currency conversions for me.
you may even compare it with paypal if you reduce ripple to the money transmitting aspect - you dont have the usd. you have just an IOU.
bitcoin needs two things to really be a money transmitter:
- liquid market
- enough security for my current transfer (miners need an incentive to secure the network - and they are paid in btc)
- a price high enough that i am able to buy the amount of btc i want to transfer
If there is a technology that allows the transfer of fiat currencies through a distributed ledger network (that doesn't need a cryptocurrency to secure it) the need to use bitcoin as a "check" to transmit value vanishes, same for your 3 requirements.- liquid market
- enough security for my current transfer (miners need an incentive to secure the network - and they are paid in btc)
- a price high enough that i am able to buy the amount of btc i want to transfer
at first: as we talk specifically about bitcoin my points stand.
if you talk about something like XUSD (NXT) or BitUSD (bitshares) i dont think you are right. try "buying" 100Million bitusd, transmit them and sell them back.
You can transfer USD (or anything else) and you don't need liquidity in a crypto market (it's not a necessity anyway)
I expect more technologies like that to come out the next few years.
Is that cheaper to use Ripple over other alternatives?
"It's a method of transmitting money."
Wrong. Bitcoin is money.
Is it really? I don't see why most people should use it for day-to-day transactions.
He either had no idea what Bitcoin was when he said this, or just is talking down a potential draw away from USD, which he has a lot of his wealth based on.
bitcoin needs two things to really be a money transmitter:
- liquid market
- enough security for my current transfer (miners need an incentive to secure the network - and they are paid in btc)
- a price high enough that i am able to buy the amount of btc i want to transfer
If there is a technology that allows the transfer of fiat currencies through a distributed ledger network (that doesn't need a cryptocurrency to secure it) the need to use bitcoin as a "check" to transmit value vanishes, same for your 3 requirements.- liquid market
- enough security for my current transfer (miners need an incentive to secure the network - and they are paid in btc)
- a price high enough that i am able to buy the amount of btc i want to transfer
at first: as we talk specifically about bitcoin my points stand.
if you talk about something like XUSD (NXT) or BitUSD (bitshares) i dont think you are right. try "buying" 100Million bitusd, transmit them and sell them back.
You can transfer USD (or anything else) and you don't need liquidity in a crypto market (it's not a necessity anyway)
I expect more technologies like that to come out the next few years.
bitcoin needs two things to really be a money transmitter:
- liquid market
- enough security for my current transfer (miners need an incentive to secure the network - and they are paid in btc)
- a price high enough that i am able to buy the amount of btc i want to transfer
If there is a technology that allows the transfer of fiat currencies through a distributed ledger network (that doesn't need a cryptocurrency to secure it) the need to use bitcoin as a "check" to transfer value vanishes, same for your 3 requirements.- liquid market
- enough security for my current transfer (miners need an incentive to secure the network - and they are paid in btc)
- a price high enough that i am able to buy the amount of btc i want to transfer
Is that even possible? How can you secure a more or less decentralized network without a "reward" system?
"It's a method of transmitting money."
Wrong. Bitcoin is money. Bitcoin transactions are ways of transmitting money. Just like checks, bitcoin transactions have little value in themselves. The value is what they transmit.
bitcoin needs two things to really be a money transmitter:
- liquid market
- enough security for my current transfer (miners need an incentive to secure the network - and they are paid in btc)
- a price high enough that i am able to buy the amount of btc i want to transfer
If there is a technology that allows the transfer of fiat currencies through a distributed ledger network (that doesn't need a cryptocurrency to secure it) the need to use bitcoin as a "check" to transmit value vanishes, same for your 3 requirements.- liquid market
- enough security for my current transfer (miners need an incentive to secure the network - and they are paid in btc)
- a price high enough that i am able to buy the amount of btc i want to transfer
at first: as we talk specifically about bitcoin my points stand.
if you talk about something like XUSD (NXT) or BitUSD (bitshares) i dont think you are right. try "buying" 100Million bitusd, transmit them and sell them back.
bitcoin needs two things to really be a money transmitter:
- liquid market
- enough security for my current transfer (miners need an incentive to secure the network - and they are paid in btc)
- a price high enough that i am able to buy the amount of btc i want to transfer
If there is a technology that allows the transfer of fiat currencies through a distributed ledger network (that doesn't need a cryptocurrency to secure it) the need to use bitcoin as a "check" to transfer value vanishes, same for your 3 requirements. - liquid market
- enough security for my current transfer (miners need an incentive to secure the network - and they are paid in btc)
- a price high enough that i am able to buy the amount of btc i want to transfer
Jump to: