Topic: The very sad truth about Bitcoin : It might die to gambling - page 3. (Read 6968 times)
Blather
For all we know gambling could actually be one of the factors pushing Bitcoin. Like porn pushed the VCR and silk road pushed... well, Bitcoin.
...I should have been clearer: The post i was responding to suggested that a single bitcoin would suffice as the sum total of a country's currency (presumably because one bitcoin is divisible enough for everyone to trade in fractions). I tried to point out that it would be impossible for the simple reason that there's another 10+ million BTC, just like the one used by the unfortunate country, out in the wild. If that country valued that single bitcoin at, let's say, $200 billion (the printed total of fiat the country swapped for the bitcoin), then the other bitcoins would also be valued the same ($200 billion *each*). This, you must agree, is nonsense, unless 1 bitcoin was worth that much to begin with.
As things stand right now, with 1BTC = $105 (had to look up at the tab), trying to convert *a single country's* monetary system to use *a single bitcoin* is functionally equivalent to reducing all the fiat within that country to $105, while the rest of the world is still flooded with dollars. Something like that.
As things stand right now, with 1BTC = $105 (had to look up at the tab), trying to convert *a single country's* monetary system to use *a single bitcoin* is functionally equivalent to reducing all the fiat within that country to $105, while the rest of the world is still flooded with dollars. Something like that.
It is a simple explaination to those who believe that hoarders will cause the end of Bitcoin ("It might die to gambling"). They speak as if there will not be enough bitcoins left over because of all of the hoarders.
But one does not need millions in circulation as the 1 BTC for a country's economy highlights.
And by saying that one would simply just cash out your hoarded bitcoins if it reaches that high of a price kills the whole hoarding killing Bitcoin argument.
Stop it. The only thing the "1 BTC for a country economy" argument highlights is the fact that it's an absurd argument. Unless that country's economy is worth just $105 at today's rates. Reread my reply.
If that's still not clear, i'll use your example: "Just like how the US is fine with being *bought* for 18 trillion dollars?"
1. Imagine that trillion dollars being swapped for a single bitcoin.
2. Now that bitcoin is worth 18 trillion dollars, according to you.
3. There are other bitcoins in the world, more than 10 million of them, each one is now worth 18 billion dollars?
4. ? ? ? Why not?
Edit: The fundamental problem that exists for a country wishing to adopt bitcoin is the very problem i've outlined above. It's theoretically impossible for a country to adopt a currency like bitcoin *unless its extant value is substantially higher than the value of fiat it must replace.* Even when the country is willing to do everything short of collapsing its economy to do so.
And again, a full country could have all of their capital in 1 Bitcoin and still be fine.
As long as it's fine with being *bought* for one bitcoin
Just like how the US is fine with being *bought* for 18 trillion dollars?
Where does buying a country come into play?
That amount of currency does not exist outside of US. To make things simple, let me point out that when a country's entire currency consists of a single bitcoin, and i have *two* bitcoins, that country shouldn't be traded with
Edit: You do understand that i could toss that country's economy into a tailspin by simply showing them my two bitcoins *exist,* right?
Perhaps, but that's assuming that you are extremely strange, and don't just spend your 2 BTC when they are worth $1,000,000,000 each, which they would be before that point.
Also, while the inflation would be tragic... I don't think the effect would be as bad as you think: the U.S. has quadrupled the money supply since 2,000. You could also use it in a way where there would be at least short term benefits.
I should have been clearer: The post i was responding to suggested that a single bitcoin would suffice as the sum total of a country's currency (presumably because one bitcoin is divisible enough for everyone to trade in fractions). I tried to point out that it would be impossible for the simple reason that there's another 10+ million BTC, just like the one used by the unfortunate country, out in the wild. If that country valued that single bitcoin at, let's say, $200 billion (the printed total of fiat the country swapped for the bitcoin), then the other bitcoins would also be valued the same ($200 billion *each*). This, you must agree, is nonsense, unless 1 bitcoin was worth that much to begin with.
As things stand right now, with 1BTC = $105 (had to look up at the tab), trying to convert *a single country's* monetary system to use *a single bitcoin* is functionally equivalent to reducing all the fiat within that country to $105, while the rest of the world is still flooded with dollars. Something like that.
It is a simple explaination to those who believe that hoarders will cause the end of Bitcoin ("It might die to gambling"). They speak as if there will not be enough bitcoins left over because of all of the hoarders.
But one does not need millions in circulation as the 1 BTC for a country's economy highlights.
And by saying that one would simply just cash out your hoarded bitcoins if it reaches that high of a price kills the whole hoarding killing Bitcoin argument.
Actually the gambling enterprises are hiring lots of people now, due to that most of rich people have nothing to do but gambling, that is a very profitable business in today's system where a few people holds lots of wealth but have no good way to consume them 
Bitcoin will end up being held by gambling businesses.
And then?
I can assuage your
Can someone assauge me please?-Burger-
And again, a full country could have all of their capital in 1 Bitcoin and still be fine.
As long as it's fine with being *bought* for one bitcoin
Just like how the US is fine with being *bought* for 18 trillion dollars?
Where does buying a country come into play?
That amount of currency does not exist outside of US. To make things simple, let me point out that when a country's entire currency consists of a single bitcoin, and i have *two* bitcoins, that country shouldn't be traded with
Edit: You do understand that i could toss that country's economy into a tailspin by simply showing them my two bitcoins *exist,* right?
Perhaps, but that's assuming that you are extremely strange, and don't just spend your 2 BTC when they are worth $1,000,000,000 each, which they would be before that point.
Also, while the inflation would be tragic... I don't think the effect would be as bad as you think: the U.S. has quadrupled the money supply since 2,000. You could also use it in a way where there would be at least short term benefits.
I should have been clearer: The post i was responding to suggested that a single bitcoin would suffice as the sum total of a country's currency (presumably because one bitcoin is divisible enough for everyone to trade in fractions). I tried to point out that it would be impossible for the simple reason that there's another 10+ million BTC, just like the one used by the unfortunate country, out in the wild. If that country valued that single bitcoin at, let's say, $200 billion (the printed total of fiat the country swapped for the bitcoin), then the other bitcoins would also be valued the same ($200 billion *each*). This, you must agree, is nonsense, unless 1 bitcoin was worth that much to begin with.
As things stand right now, with 1BTC = $105 (had to look up at the tab), trying to convert *a single country's* monetary system to use *a single bitcoin* is functionally equivalent to reducing all the fiat within that country to $105, while the rest of the world is still flooded with dollars. Something like that.
And again, a full country could have all of their capital in 1 Bitcoin and still be fine.
As long as it's fine with being *bought* for one bitcoin
Just like how the US is fine with being *bought* for 18 trillion dollars?
Where does buying a country come into play?
That amount of currency does not exist outside of US. To make things simple, let me point out that when a country's entire currency consists of a single bitcoin, and i have *two* bitcoins, that country shouldn't be traded with
Edit: You do understand that i could toss that country's economy into a tailspin by simply showing them my two bitcoins *exist,* right?
Perhaps, but that's assuming that you are extremely strange, and don't just spend your 2 BTC when they are worth $1,000,000,000 each, which they would be before that point.
Also, while the inflation would be tragic... I don't think the effect would be as bad as you think: the U.S. has quadrupled the money supply since 2,000. You could also use it in a way where there would be at least short term benefits.
...
Let me try again:
1 - Bitcoins have a limited supply
2 - Gambling sites are globally earning more bitcoins than they have to spend to keep their business on
3 - Gambling sites will end up owning a lot of bitcoins, if we don't prevent this
The same thing is happening with fiat today.
Or can you just give me an example of government lottery which has a negative result ?
Let me try again:
1 - Bitcoins have a limited supply
2 - Gambling sites are globally earning more bitcoins than they have to spend to keep their business on
3 - Gambling sites will end up owning a lot of bitcoins, if we don't prevent this
The same thing is happening with fiat today.
Or can you just give me an example of government lottery which has a negative result ?
1. Bitcoins are a limited supply.
2.
3.
4. That's how business works, and it is a good thing.
Err... Yep, that's my point exactly.
I thought so, my reply was mainly for the Op.
This is the third "Bitcoin is doomed" story I've seen today.
I think some people just want to buy in cheaper.
I think some people just want to buy in cheaper.
The more uses of Bitcoin and the more Bitcoins moving the more valuable they become. If online poker was allowed in the USA and Bitcoin was used for half the transactions it would probably double Bitcoins current market cap.
And again, a full country could have all of their capital in 1 Bitcoin and still be fine.
As long as it's fine with being *bought* for one bitcoin
Just like how the US is fine with being *bought* for 18 trillion dollars?
Where does buying a country come into play?
That amount of currency does not exist outside of US. To make things simple, let me point out that when a country's entire currency consists of a single bitcoin, and i have *two* bitcoins, that country shouldn't be traded with
Edit: You do understand that i could toss that country's economy into a tailspin by simply showing them my two bitcoins *exist,* right?
And again, a full country could have all of their capital in 1 Bitcoin and still be fine.
As long as it's fine with being *bought* for one bitcoin
Just like how the US is fine with being *bought* for 18 trillion dollars?
Where does buying a country come into play?
And again, a full country could have all of their capital in 1 Bitcoin and still be fine.
As long as it's fine with being *bought* for one bitcoin
...
Let me try again:
1 - Bitcoins have a limited supply
2 - Gambling sites are globally earning more bitcoins than they have to spend to keep their business on
3 - Gambling sites will end up owning a lot of bitcoins, if we don't prevent this
The same thing is happening with fiat today.
Or can you just give me an example of government lottery which has a negative result ?
Let me try again:
1 - Bitcoins have a limited supply
2 - Gambling sites are globally earning more bitcoins than they have to spend to keep their business on
3 - Gambling sites will end up owning a lot of bitcoins, if we don't prevent this
The same thing is happening with fiat today.
Or can you just give me an example of government lottery which has a negative result ?
1. Bitcoins are a limited supply.
2.
3.
4. That's how business works, and it is a good thing.
Err... Yep, that's my point exactly.
Are you saying that other businesses are just breaking even at best? The point of most businesses is to ... earn wealth?
No. I'm saying that setting up a gambling business is way easier, and much safer, compared to other useful businesses.
There is no way denying sd and jd are racking in A LOT of bitcoins, today.
I'd be -really- interested in a list of BTC businesses that can match their volumes.
I'm not defending gambling, simply pointing out that as businesses go, gambling is unexceptional, at least qualitatively. They all try to make the most money while risking the least. Online gambling sites have expenses too.
And again, a full country could have all of their capital in 1 Bitcoin and still be fine.
...
Let me try again:
1 - Bitcoins have a limited supply
2 - Gambling sites are globally earning more bitcoins than they have to spend to keep their business on
3 - Gambling sites will end up owning a lot of bitcoins, if we don't prevent this
The same thing is happening with fiat today.
Or can you just give me an example of government lottery which has a negative result ?
Let me try again:
1 - Bitcoins have a limited supply
2 - Gambling sites are globally earning more bitcoins than they have to spend to keep their business on
3 - Gambling sites will end up owning a lot of bitcoins, if we don't prevent this
The same thing is happening with fiat today.
Or can you just give me an example of government lottery which has a negative result ?
1. Bitcoins are a limited supply.
2.
3.
4. That's how business works, and it is a good thing.
I'm not a bitcoin elder, but I've done my share of reading back to catch up.
And among all the threats bitcoin faces, one struck me as the most dangerous:
Gambling.
Remember, limited amount of coin.
Each day, just-die (sp?) and MANY other clones are racking up coins. And a lot of those.
Disguised adds like this so-called news are hurting bitcoin bigway.
People running those gambling sites obviously don't wan't bitcoin to succeed. They just wanna get rich while it lasts.
Thus, they probably throw the coins back to get fiat, but... What if one decided not to ?
And what if we reach the goal to make banks&fiat vanish and bitcoin becomes the main currency?
I know this won't happen, but I also fear this CANNOT happen, because of the gambling sites.
TLDR;
A gambling business can't lose as much wealth as the other successful ones earn.
Bitcoin won't inflate.
Bitcoin will end up being held by gambling businesses.
I really hope someone proves me wrong, even if the process of doing so includes insults.
And among all the threats bitcoin faces, one struck me as the most dangerous:
Gambling.
Remember, limited amount of coin.
Each day, just-die (sp?) and MANY other clones are racking up coins. And a lot of those.
Disguised adds like this so-called news are hurting bitcoin bigway.
People running those gambling sites obviously don't wan't bitcoin to succeed. They just wanna get rich while it lasts.
Thus, they probably throw the coins back to get fiat, but... What if one decided not to ?
And what if we reach the goal to make banks&fiat vanish and bitcoin becomes the main currency?
I know this won't happen, but I also fear this CANNOT happen, because of the gambling sites.
TLDR;
A gambling business can't lose as much wealth as the other successful ones earn.
Bitcoin won't inflate.
Bitcoin will end up being held by gambling businesses.
I really hope someone proves me wrong, even if the process of doing so includes insults.
I think the issue of hording has been addressed. I have to disagree that this is a problem, in fact, the way I see it, gambling transfers wealth from fools to (on average) people who are more responsible. I'm not saying that gambling automatically makes you a fool by the way, there is nothing wrong with wasting a few bucks for the chance of winning, but in the end, gamblers always lose in the long run.
Jump to: