Topic: The Supply of Bitcoin Is Limited. The Supply of Cryptos Isn't! - page 8. (Read 2214 times)

The scarcity from crypto comes from mathmatics.  Physics which secures gold like you say is also a conceptual study at its core.  The physical reality makes gold have its current value.  Crypto currently has network effects, hashing power and intelligent community backing it - those a pretty decent things for 2017.  At some point in the future gold could easily become worthless via space travel or our ability to create gold properties with technology.

But the only problem is gold and silver, along with other precious stones and metals are being held secure by the Feds and the bankers, so that option is also a no-go for those who doesn't want to be controlled 'again' by these entities. Also, we are rather uncertain about the Fed's and the banks' involvement in several cryptos, but we cannot rule them out as again, these scums will take part in almost anything just to control the people. This is also a concerning thing about crypto since there's always a loophole in which these guys can fit in no matter how small it is.

Been pondering about these things in a while, and it seems that no matter how far we distance ourselves against these greedy bastards, they'd always find a way to get involved and control us.

Ive been thinking this thing too considering on the supply of cryptos compared on valuable asset or investment on this physical world. Even we would differentiate or compare it to local fiat currencies which do have still limited supply and creating one wont really be that easy unlike on crypto as long you do have the knowledge on making an altcoin then you are good to go which as being said it would divide potential investors or adopters because of thousands of new coins are popping out.

I'd agree, it's been a concern for me.

Other than faith, only thing that could really tie people to one or another is a major monopoly adopting one or another as I see it, e.g.: If people could only purchase food with pepes, then pepes would be 'the' coin.


Just not this part. I'd say they are far less practical to use as currency, but unlike crypto or fiat they have true inherent value.

I'm not sure there's such a thing as freedom in this world, at least not while one is to live in society.

No doubt that cryptos can ensure some regulatory freedom as it is not limited physically like gold or silver. However, the unlimited supply of altcoins is not good for the overall crypto community. We are seeing new altcoins are popping up every single day and flooding the market where most of them are worthless and makes no sense to buy. This way the investments are getting divided into thousand fractions. If we had only a handful of altcoins with proper marketing plans and roadmap, that would be much beneficial for the crypto community. If we can't control this trend, then millions of altcoins will flood the market which will eventually bring down the worth and reliability of crypto currency market.

So, if Bitcoin really takes off, we think we have an honest, state-free money.  No central bank, or anyone, can create bitcoins past the 21 million limit.

Correct?  In practice, no.

What Western central banks are doing now is getting us used to the idea of multiple cryptocurrencies being viable.  When they use their printed money to buy some new cryptos, their values go up.  

One simple example of how they can continue to expand their money supply is to have a basket of cryptos against which they 'manage' exchange rates with dollars, euro, etc.  Say, at first this basket contains 1 BTC, 10 ETH, and 100 LTC, and the Fed and US government have an official or unofficial policy of keeping this basket at the price of $100K, with a combination of keeping money printing and public debt under control, and selling the BTC/ETH/LTC in its vaults to scare savers away from moving their dollars into coins.

As time goes on, the Fed will want to create more dollars.  (As it always has.)  Then they will  buy up lots of new cryptocurrency XYZ (cheap) with their dollars, and raise the price of XYZ.  After XYZ has 'proven itself in the market with its technical superiority,' the Fed will add it to the basket, and the new basket will be priced at $120K.  Since the 'base money' has expanded by 20%, the number of dollars can also be expanded by 20%.

This is only one of many variations.  The Fed doesn't even have to declare a basket (as mentioned above.)  Whatever it buys will rise in value, and will become part of the 'basket'.  Whatever it abandons will die out.  It will have all the power.

The system will be no different from the early days of gold and silver standards, but with a new twist: there are an unlimited number of new gold and silver mines, and only central banks know where they are!

So, I'm still thinking that gold and silver, whose scarcity is secured by physics, rather than computer code, are the superior forms of money for improving our freedom from governments and bankers.