Topic: Pomp Vs. Peter (Read 275 times)

Bitcoin is not bad as store of value at all, it just depends on your own entry point, which also applies to Gold. Gold hasn't really been that much of a store of value if you measure from peak to where it is today, which is the same reason people consider Bitcoin a bad store of value today. It all depends on your entry point and how you read the charts.

Bitcoin is a bad store of value when you after whatever period of time have lost value, and then still, it's your entry point that made you lose.

In the end low transaction throughput is meaningless when you see that the high transaction throughput coins don't experience much use at all outside speculation.

Pretty much; and lets not forget that Schiff is really really incentivized to go against Bitcoin and defend his businesses and investments concerning gold.


True. Bitcoin will organically gain demand when people actually realize the value of Bitcoin themselves in the future. I won't lie though, it heavily heavily frustrates me to hear such bad arguments against Bitcoin that I actually debate these skeptics in my head at night. Boy, the countless hours of sleep I've lost because of them. I guess I'm just that passionate.

He probably knows the weakness of his arguments, but like any good debater, the idea is to win, rebutt, and ensure your weakness becomes your strength. He probably IS using the basis for a young asset to be just that - one in a long series of passing digital currency trends.

But I bet you, if he were alive in 50 years (probably won't, nor will most of us), he'd be looking at Bitcoin, a currency half a century old and superior to everything else in almost every aspect of a currency.

I also don't really agree anyone needs to be defending Bitcoin, and I'm fine if we're having idiots foam at the mouth for and against... the ones who speak fluently and without any trace of drama have been doing so quietly for years, and their audience is the more organic one, the fomo-less one, so they're the only ones that matter, no?

Exactly my thoughts. It shouldn't be black or white. Bitcoin can be a store of value for people in countries with economic crises like Venezuela, Bitcoin can be a currency for the niche demographic of people in the cryptocurrency space, and Bitcoin can be a speculative investment for the others. So much people fighting about Bitcoin being a currency vs being a SoV that I'm surprised that this is such an uncommon opinion. LOL

The problem I have with debates like this is the fact that most participants are bogged down in their own strong perceptions of what they think Bitcoin should be. Strong emphasis would be placed on specific positives and negatives and none of the parties would budge on their view of that.

Why should Bitcoin only be a stable "Store of Value"  if it can be a currency and a highly speculative commodity at the same time? People should be able to decide how they want to use the Bitcoin technology and how that fits into their needs.

I would much rather have a technology with several uses, than having it shoved into a specific use case and then criticizing it for not being good at it. Gold can be used for several things, why not Bitcoin?

criticism is OK, in fact i myself criticize bitcoin a lot and the more i learn about the technical aspect of it the more i criticize certain decisions. for example the most recent problem i have is that each transaction we have been sending for the past 10 years is wasting about 10-12 bytes!
but arrogant people who don't want to accept things and only focus on the negative and even exaggerate those negative things aren't really criticizing anything.

An elections campaign debate is the first thing that comes to mind. It is also as pointless in so far as neither of the sides will refuse to come down. They will stick to whatever view or stand they have even up to the point of looking ridiculous. There's not a single reason to yield. But at the end of the day, the millions of viewers might make their decisions based on the debate, or at least it has an influence. So as much as possible, be convincing enough to the audience even if you know very well that you cannot do the same to your debate adversary.

While I agree with you, I like hearing criticisms though. I think it's healthy to listen to the negative criticisms from time to time, not just the positive things. Sometimes I feel like I'm overly too bullish that I feel I need a little bit of bearish in me to balance things out a bit.

this is exactly why i never liked these kinds of debates. i see no point in them. neither side is going to come down from their positions, they just stick to whatever the hell they think and just talk their heads off. in the end the viewer wastes his time while in the end is not able to make any conclusions.

Yes. It goes both ways really. While Bitcoin is really bad as SoV currently, most of the arguments towards Bitcoin are always focused on the present(e.g. low tps, expensive to transact, volatile), completely ignoring the potential liquidity improvement by time and the potential development that could improve the technology in general in the future.

It also comes to how the Bitcoiners phrase it. They should be saying "Bitcoin could potentially be a great global SoV in the future" than just "Bitcoin is a good SoV".

Ehh I doubt it. I'm pretty sure if someone actually made a valid criticism, that people here wouldn't be too hard on the person. But mostly it's just very bad criticisms hence the poster is very likely to get called derogatory names.

The liquidity issue has not been argued over in this debate either.


Because they are stuck in the past. In the age in which gold is the most precious possession. He repeatedly mentioned how gold has been in use and with precious value in the past thousands of years.

I guess he was already proven wrong when it was pointed out to him that he badly missed the bandwagon when the price of BTC was around $10. And he admitted that he really missed it and he could be a billionaire today had he invested in it. Again, that realization was made in hindsight. He could have picked up a lesson or two from it but he is simply adamant that the future of Bitcoin is bleak.


Yeah, Pomp mentioned that if one doesn't like it, I don't have time for you. But it was his opening remark on a 2-min allocation to finally convince Peter otherwise. I guess it was not really a nice strategy. The point, after all, is to change the mindset of the man. And if one starts with "all right, your mind is impossible to change," that is already tantamount to giving up.


Not healthy, mate. That is sad. Shouldn't be the way a healthy forum discussion should proceed.

---

In general, I think Peter got most of the airtime. Pomp's less aggressive, less assertive, and timid approach did not fare well with a veteran gold bug.

I guess Peter Schiff will have a better debate opponent with another Peter, that is, Van Valkenburg of Coin Center.

People got used to hear out these debates yet we got tired of bearish sentiments on the other party.Actually Peter do have some points and i cant really deny
nor oppose on his insights but he should really be open into the possibilities.
This isnt an interesting thing on my part.They can debate all they want yet majority does know on what Bitcoin do actually had.

Would be interesting to see if you will get the same amount of hatred as I got when I expressed the same position on store-of-value. Seems that quite a few members of bitcointalk feel it is ok to curse and criticize any new member that express a reasonable and detailed point of view which is different from what they are told the last 2 years.

Satoshi once said;
Pomp brought it up during the debate but clearly didn't agree with it. He wastes his time on someone that is not ever going to concede that Bitcoin has value and is a better alternative to Gold in most fields aside from where Gold's physical aspect fetches demand from various industries. Peter is doing a good job protecting his own interests. Gold bugs can be proud.

Also, stop donating your precious satoshis to this Bitcoin bear. He's just holding onto it because it will allow him to say that it sucks as a store of value because it went down.

peter's position is simple conservatism. by his rules, he can't really be proven wrong. he's right that bitcoin could be an asset bubble, and we can't affirmatively know that now---only long afterwards in hindsight. if the object is store-of-value and not speculative gains, then he's right that bitcoin is unreliable.

the thing about conservatives is they are always fighting the future and never foresee big changes. i believe he will be proven wrong in time, but he's correct that we bitcoiners are in no position to declare bitcoin a store-of-value yet.

I actually created a topic about this like 12 hours ago. Died out immediately unfortunately. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.52023538

Anyway, as always from Peter Schiff's arguments, he always liked to throw around that "Bitcoin is not stable hence not a good currency and SoV".

I mean, I expected him to be an expert at these stuff, but does he really expect that a 10 year old open market asset to be stable in price in a decade alone(? While bitcoin is not the ideal currency and SoV currently for most people in economically healthy countries(compared to countries like Venezuela), it can be in the future. To get there, we're going to need a lot of liquidity from traders, speculators/investors, and from niche users(like us here). It's going to take some time for it to be stable in price like gold. It frustrates me a lot why almost no one defending Bitcoin points out the lack of liquidity that could increase with time.

So where is a transcript of this debate, for those of us bandwidth impaired? I wouldn't mind a copy paste of CC into pastebin or something.

I was actually a very interesting debate because many of the pints the two guys discussed can be true under the present circumstances and into the future. Personally, there is no point comparing the real gold and Bitcoin as both can be utilized and can be very valuable. We already know the differences and similarities between the two assets so in my case why not have them both if one has the money or resources to acquire them.

Peter made a heavy statement against bitcoin and he was right on that. For him bitcoin is dangerous since you can be in the bubble but you do not know that you are already in the bubble. In 2018 a huge number of bitcoin holders have suffered from the major setback of bubble popping. But on the long run somehow Anthony has made a point but the reality of his statements will not be seen today but on the future. So let us see if Peter will really kick his butt when he sees bitcoin will be a necessary virtual currency in the world.

---

---

A day has passed and there seems to be an eerie silence here about what took place in the golden debate. Do you guys find it uninteresting at all? Or are we simply speechless? Or is there no more point discussing about it here?

Care to drop some feedback, BTCitcoiners?

---

For those who were not able to watch, here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wigz8z6Vm3U&feature=youtu.be