Topic: ECB - Towards the holy grail of cross-border payments (Read 175 times)

Kiddo, you were in your dad's balls when I was a teenager (you probably don't even know what BBS means). I didn't start the personal arguments. You did. Be more polite next time (your very first post was rude for no apparent reason, admit it). M'kay?

I fulfilled my military service long before you did... the woke culture didn't exist back then. You seem to be a woke/Slava Ukraini kinda guy, I get it, we're not going to get along. I don't like people who support the corrupt establishment. Thank god I didn't live in a communist shithole like you did. Maybe that's why you fancy WEF's communist/socialist utopia? I'm against fascism, including the woke version of it.

Stop doing this shit, it doesn't work on me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

I'm not going to bother anymore with rude internet strangers that had a bad day at work. Get a life.

The only arrogant person here is the one who expects the West to never fall (like Rome did), not someone like me who remains humble and knows that nothing will last forever, not even the human species. You're not a God, accept your fate.

ps1: I'm not going to have any discussion with anyone who hasn't read this article, especially on BitcoinTalk:

https://brandonquittem.com/bitcoin-rhythms-of-history/

Forum discussions are meant to exchange knowledge. I'm not going to post it again, just because the majority uses smartphones and is too lazy to read.

The forum layout doesn't help either, it's very cumbersome, since there's no mobile theme...

ps2: If someone doesn't appreciate the knowledge I'm giving them for free and starts being ironic/rude for no apparent reason, I stop discussing with them.

There are 8 billion people on the planet and the majority isn't even worth the oxygen they're breathing... be valuable, appreciate the knowledge you're getting for free (while others have to pay for it) and then we can have a discussion.

Personal arguments when you don't have any argument are also a clear sign, but unlike you, I'm not the kid to throw a tantrum cause somebody told him 2+2 is not 5 and start cursing and insulting people. Probably it has to do with being raised in a home not a cave.


Replace the soviet union with China, the same brainwashing about how the US will fall because we're making record ques in the bread line that could encircle Florida. And it was Japan, Japan will grow again, it will become a superpower the Japanese make everything better, then Germany again it will be a superpower, the US is dead, you're actually quite late to the party, everyone has moved to India is the new superpower that will destroy the US, some are even two steps ahead, Africa will be the economic center of the multiverse by 2050.


Of course, bring the woke argument, what a surprise.
Kiddo, I've made my full army service, and probably by the way you like to discuss things with your arrogance, it was well before somebody thought of the woke culture and while you were still two separate entities.


Let's leave that to 2026, since the whole world will crash for sure by that time we won't have anything else but to discuss in our caves while we're listening to the wolfs outside.

Personally, I am not surprised because it is the traditional way of thinking, which measures things according to specific measurements, and characteristics do not strive to know that what they are trying to measure or something new needs new tools for measurement, just like someone who tries to measure space dimensions with current tools or measure questions with solid bodies measurement tools, and so on.

Central banks are still trying to measure Bitcoin according to traditional economic metrics, no matter how big and fundamental the difference between them is.

In general, people does not care about what is behind the technology, as few of us know how the bank card works, but because it provides an easier solution, they will use it. Therefore, when a Bitcoin prediction happens, many will not care to know whether it is supported or not.

Cheap irony doesn't make you look smarter. Quite the opposite.

USD (as a global reserve currency) was 100 years old back in the 60s/70s/80s? Or was China a superpower back then?

Learn some proper math/history and then we can talk.

Also read this article, don't be lazy (mobile computing promotes laziness): https://www.brandonquittem.com/bitcoin-rhythms-of-history/

LMU doesn't look like Eurozone to you, with a different twist (bimetallic coins)?

To me it seems you don't want to be taught by history.

Also, the lack of (military) war made people lazy, arrogant and woke. Now it's time for a change.

Arrogance brings hubris and hubris brings nemesis...

Study some history and then we can have a proper discussion.

You remind me of arrogant Roman citizens, just a few years before the Roman Empire fell. All empires fall eventually. Only deniers don't accept this fact.

For like forever, when they defined crypto as assets then they have come with these, unbacked for everything else and backed by other assets for stablecoins, the one for tokens was quite funny too, something about exchanging value in a limited environment or so.


Well, definitions are not about personal preferences, unfortunately, all of them from Ethereum to litecoin to shicoincash or dogecoina are crypto assets.

But this time for sure?
Because I've heard it in the 60s, in the 7s0, in the 80s capitalism was on its last legs, 2000 it was clear the west will burn and it will not get another decade, in 2008 we all knew it was doomed, in 2013 again doom, so seeing now it's 2022, this time is for sure?
For real, this is the last time when I pack my bags and wait for the apocalypse!


Yeah, quite funny, an article about how the Union is for sure going to be destroyed because Greece joined in a year that multiplied by 2 divided by 7 and multiplied again by the square root of the population of ancient troy reads 666, and 10 years since the article was written, again nothing.
The whole article misses on a crucial thing, Europe hasn't been at war for close to a century, Europe and no country with its border want war anymore, and wars and territorial ambitions were the ones that destroyed alliances and unions, trade, and economies. 

While I do agree that Bitcoin can be stolen easier then gold - if not properly secured - I also didn't hear about Bitcoin seed stored under similar security measures as gold (thick walls, armed military defending it and so on).
While for Bitcoin a N-of-N multisig with N big enough is a pretty good solution (if it works for nukes, why it wouldn't work for BTC?), and also cheap, gold still needs strong security and storage that costs a lot of money.
Even more, electronics industry may find good use for that bunch of gold hoarded just for the sake of it.

Gold leaves tons of traces, but Bitcoin doesn't?

I know plenty of gold heists where the criminals didn't leave a single trace...

Storing gold is not a problem at all, it's not too difficult or too expensive. Just because Bitcoin has some sort of advantage here, doesn't mean that Bitcoin will get adopted. It's just one of the factors, and a very minor one.

And I'd say Bitcoin is actually less safe than gold. Have you ever heard about a gold vault heist in real life? That stuff only happens in movies and games like GTA. But Bitcoin hacks happen often. One rogue or corrupt employee could rob the whole country of their reserves if the Bitcoin storage is poorly implemented. And once its gone, its gone for good, recovery of stolen coins is a very rare occurrence. While moving tons of gold leaves lots of traces and is just impossible for one person or small team.

Unbacked is a fair assessment really and is open to a small bit of interpretation of the reader, it's unlikely that any sort of wording would be totally satisfactory to all people. I read unbacked as in, it has no central banking authority that is able to guide it's future (unless you talk about the developers in this manner) and it doesn't have the economy of any country to fall back on to assess a true productive value behind it like standard fiat currencies. That can also be seen in a good light, not necessarily negative, because a decentralized currency is supported by citizens of all countries and you might argue is the first truly globalized independent currency in existence.

Definitely:

https://cointelegraph.com/news/100-years-ago-henry-ford-proposed-energy-currency-to-replace-gold

Nobody wastes electricity (which costs money) for nothing...

Fiat currency was criticized for many years. For governments lacking precious metals reserves to back what they print. "Create money out of thin air." Was originally a criticism for paper money in eras when a gold standard was abandoned. Naturally proponents of fiat feel a certain irony and satisfaction at redirecting these classical criticisms at cryptocurrency. They had been in a position of defending against these arguments for so long. They took perverse type of pleasure in seeing others struggle with it.

I wonder if it could be fair to say that bitcoin is backed by the electrical consumption of its mining sector. It certainly protects BTC's blockchain against 51% attacks and verifies the integrity of the entire system.

Bitcoin's algorithm not being easily adjusted or adapted could be another form of intrinsic backing. The codebase guarantee that makes BTC difficult to hyperinflate.

That would require way more than 24 trillion euros.

Here's why: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FCElR00WEAALu9Y?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

They will most likely settle for less than that...

Probably just to see what the public's reaction to the suggestion. 50+ pages but too shy to show.

Creating their own CBDC will also be subjected to whether its backed by something or not. And seem like they are not open to bring back gold on the table so yah BTC could be good.  But BTC is just too  volatile.

But why would they suddenly want BTC to be the reserve?  Did they ransack Satoshi's bag already?  I don't think they will approve if they don't have more than a million BTC.

What's funny is that people think Eurozone is a wholly "new" experiment.

Spoiler alert: it's not new at all: https://mostlyeconomics.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/when-greece-exited-from-latin-american-union-in-1908/

History repeats itself every 100 years (1908/Latin Monetary Union, 2008/Lehman Brothers meltdown & Eurozone crisis).

Judging by that, I wouldn't be surprised if we return back to the Gold Standard (and maybe abandon it again later on). But this time the Gold Standard will be digitized thanks to BTC.

There's no reason to bother with gold anymore, since it's not as scarce as people think it is:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gold-production

BTC's emission schedule is the complete opposite.

It will happen when the whole West collapses and people will literally beg to return to something stable (Gold Standard 2.0 - Digital Transformation edition).

Sometime between 2026 and 2030: https://www.brandonquittem.com/bitcoin-rhythms-of-history/

Central banks will need to instill confidence to promote their CBDC shitcoin. Hell, ECB even said the digital euro will be capped to 1.5 trillion tokens.

Because it's a new asset with only 1% of the global population using it.

Just like gold, it will stabilize (so less opportunities to gain/lose money) when 90% of the world adopts it.

They can always start at a certain ratio (let's say 1:1) and later on they can water it down (1:10, 1:20, 1:50, 1:100). Fractional Reserve Banking 101.

If you study the history of ancient coins, you'll see that it has happened many times before (diluting the gold content in favor of silver and/or copper). It's a neat trick to fool the masses.

CBDCs were clearly inspired by cryptocurrencies.

There will be HUGE competition among various CBDCs for global domination...

Just imagine if one day China announces that they secretly hoarded BTC to build reserves (someone is buying en masse during the bear market and we don't know their identity, could also be Russia or someone else, we'll see in the future).

Don't you think that would instill confidence that e-yuan is more valuable than the e-dollar or e-euro?

No government wants that, but they may need to. As said, countries save up gold in vaults, because they need assets. Furthermore, they might portray it as a similar to gold standard at first, and later alter it same as in 1971, although this argument doesn't hold a lot of water, because bitcoin is easier to transfer in contrast with gold.

Trading digital currencies with digital scarcity, that is bitcoin, does sound a probable scenario. It's down to the governments' interest to be first.

From what I know, now currencies are not backed by anything. They are simply IOU papers, central bank promise papers.

However, countries keep gold in vaults, to prove some sort of solvability. And that can be replaced by Bitcoin. Why? Because private keys are much easier to safely store (if one knows what he's doing) and, unlike for gold, they would not have to pay for huge vaults for storage. Also proof of funds is easy to get.
Even more, it starts becoming visible that gold may not be as scarce as initially thought and this may become tricky (pricewise).

Back to the question: indeed, since fiat is not backed at all, I don't see why would they be backing CBDCs with bitcoin, when they can back with fiat or, directly nothing.

All quite debatable, but I think that they are simply building the argument to create something that is radically different from bitcoin to be used as digital currencies in EU. All arguments are partial and not very well thought. Bitcoin uses plenty of energy to secure the network, true, but no more than centralised payment networks. Overall this is just another opinion.

Why would any government want to back a currency with Bitcoin? Bitcoin is highly volatile, while creating their own fiat currency would allow them to continue doing what all central banks are doing - stabilizing the currency against market volatility.

I think  crypto community shouldn't pay as much attention to CBDC as they do right now. CBDC is not cryptocurrency. It's not affecting existing cryptocurrencies. It's not a competitor to cryptocurrencies. It's just a government-owned payment network.

This 1st of August some ECB authors published this paper: https://blackhatcoiner.com/ecb.pdf (paper from the official site, but it denies access from Tor)

I said the authors and not the actual chairmen of ECB, because:

Comments:

Isn't it annoying to read this term? Implying that it isn't backed by anything makes it sound like a non-licensed liability, hereby a scam. Since when do we use the term "unbacked" for assets?

If the energy is used to secure the network, it isn't being wasted. How many times do we have to debunk this weak argument? Granted, centralized solutions are more efficient, but they don't provide the same benefits. Period. Plus, bitcoin mining can be used to save up costs of wasted energy.

Ugh. Ethereum, "the crypto asset". This opens up a big discussion, but I wouldn't call asset a completely centralized decision-wise digital currency whose monetary policy is yet unknown, with 70% of the current cap being pre-mined. Rather a unit of a feudal system.

It'll make sense if, in the not far future, CBDC's will be backed by digital asset, that is bitcoin.