Topic: USD vs BTC - page 58. (Read 121137 times)

They are not the same type of goods, can not be categorically compared. Bitcoin can only be regarded as a digital commodity, it is in a baby, only 8 years old. The dollar has a long history, and its position is now no money can shake. Bitcoin as an investment product is very popular, the more stable bitcoin, it is closer to the value of the storage tool, and eventually become a currency. By then, bitcoin will usher in a new era, which may need to wait 5 to 10 years.

The amount of bitcoin transaction is increase quickly. So many service and goods that we can buy with bitcoin. In china bitcoin is used for move the wealth to outside of country. Some fiat is already close to worthless, I think we only need to wait until USD become worthless. Thats my opinion.

These options are not mutually exclusive

Strictly speaking, what you consider as centralized government money (fiat) is no less decentralized than Bitcoin itself. The way in which fiat money is created (e.g. through bank loans) can hardly be called centralized by any means. Commercial banks operate in this respect very much like Bitcoin miners and create new money out of thin air just like the miners do. Regarding transferring funds, digital fiat transfers, for example, instant payments are also processed in a pretty much decentralized manner through instant payment notifications (i.e. not involving a central bank or government)

Both USD and BTC are digital currencies... this is what people often forget. It's not like paper money makes for any relevant amount of the USD supply, all money is digital, cash is a small % used to move that digital money around, and soon all money will be digital since they will remove physical coins and dollar bills, same goes for euro and all the other fiat coins in the world, so what we are looking at is an scenario where we will have only 2 options:

1) centralized government electronic money
2) decentralized electronic money (bitcoin)

I don't remember you come up with anything of substance in the discussion of fixed (as defined by an algo) versus adjustable (through a sort of a feedback loop) money supply. So we are basically back to that topic. If that is your point, than no, these regulations, which essentially come down to firmly setting how many coins are mined on a daily basis, can't possibly be more efficient than dynamic money supply if done properly. If this is not what you wanted to say, please clarify what you mean by efficacy and what exactly it refers to...

It is not a thing which exists all by itself


Do you really believe that a universal Bitcoin ban will spur the prices up? The psychologists among us cannot even agree whether the recent price hike is due to real adoption or just price manipulation by rogue Chinese miners

The dollar will still win it over and over again, its simply too strong and the bitcoin first needs to grow a lot more before it can really compare itself even to the dollar.

Nope, the dollar is way bigger and the bitcoin is growing but the dollar stays a lot bigger and also way more used too.

A specific precedence, yes, that is my argument.  Precedence in terms of efficacy.  Public, precise, and verifiable specification actually works in regulating the money supply.  A selection of people in private with no possible oversight - won't work effectively.  The difference is akin to replacing the voltage regulator in your car with a group of bickering robots all who would benefit from charging their own batteries with the voltage passing through.  Which is a better regulator? 

As to the other topic you bring up..  can you think of an example where prohibition DECREASED the price of something?  The only example I can come up with is the 500 rupee note in India, and that isn't quite fair because prior to the prohibition the prohibiters were accepting the things in trade for e.g. tax receipts.  The psychologists among us might also point out that prohibition could even further increase the already increasing adoption rate. 

Another problem with prohibition of public coins is that it is even more impossible to carry out than prohibition of scheduled drugs (which can't even be kept out of prisons).  Public coins can be stored in anything, from inside your own head to steganographed in facebook photos to hidden in the text of this post.  Such a prohibition would be akin to saying "you can't speak swahili" - solely a carte blanche for facists to prosecute anyone they like - meanwhile of course the fascists doing so will be taking bribes in bitcoin.  Regulatory capture again. 

to me i think there is no comparison between the two. because to me bitcoin is a digital currency but USD is a fiat currency but if we consider their popularity the we can see that i will chose bitcoin because it has a bright future.

Obviously Bitcoin is not more popular than USD. The vast majority of the people still have no idea what Bitcoin is. I think the question is better be put this way: " Is bitcoin more popular than US Dollar among Bitcoin users?" And even to that question I think the answer is no.

Your argument is very shaky

Basically, you claim that algorithm that defines precisely how and in which amounts Bitcoin should be mined has precedence over government regulations in respect to Bitcoin. Obviously, this point I can't possibly agree with. Let's remain realists, and if the US or Chinese government outright bans Bitcoin with severe criminal prosecution of Bitcoin holders as well as traders, this ban will have more serious consequences on the Bitcoin price than any of "the precise and complete regulation(s) of bitcoin issuance". Ultimately, it is the price that matters, right? But if it hits the floor due to government interference, would the preciseness and completeness of Bitcoin issuance have any meaning then?

Wait. There is gold which also got a large sum of value. But still it sticks to USD when it comes to ranging its price. We dont know that exactly and will US let that happen. We know they have their pride when it comes to being the strongest currency. There will be a fight with that.

Well i believe so too. I wasn't very optimistic at the start but with how the price of bitcoin moved the past few months, a lot of people are already being aware and is using btc. We need now a couple of big corporation and business to accept the use of bitcoin and we may be seeing btc moving up at par with the dollar in the near future

if the state of bitcoin prices have remained stable and positive ride like today, I believe, over time, bitcoin will be positioned parallel to or exceeds USD. maybe today bitcoin is more common in the sum in the form usd, but someday, UDS will be sticking to the bitcoin. bitcoin will be growing over the times

You could indeed claim this, with regards to the laws of nature, and you'd be exactly right.  The Earth's orbit is regulated by gravity, weather by physics, sure.  

However the context here is more specific.  As you say: "What people are allowed to do with their bitcoins".  Well for one, they aren't allowed to issue them in private at no cost - fiat currencies are issued in private in arbitrary amount at no cost.  If you understand the phenomenon of "regulatory capture" you can see clearly how the precise and complete regulation of bitcoin issuance and transactions FAR FAR outweighs in efficacy any so-called regulation by e.g the office of the comptroller of currency or the federal reserve board.  Perhaps it is cherry picking to call a spade a spade.  If so, I am guilty as charged.  

If you are worried about the rule of law with regards to bitcoin users, I really don't see any relevance here.  "But your honor I had bitcoin in my pocket" is always irrelevant in a criminal proceeding.  If wrongdoing is proven, you face consequences, at least to the same extent as when any other exchange commodity is involved. I'm not claiming the justice system works in any sense here, just that it doesn't care what economic tokens are involved.

This whole "bitcoin is unregulated" nonsense has always been a total farce - the only value is in pointing out the compete lack of knowledge on the part of anyone saying it.  The only other meaning I can see is if we are to take "regulated" as a euphemism for "corruptible", in which case sure - bitcoin is less regulated. 



  

  

USD is very famous but bitcoin is also getting too much popularity day by day and a huge number of people investing their money in bitcoin too much faster because they know that bitcoin will be getting more famous and stronger more than USD in the future.

true but when bitcoin have been accepted and adopted by almost all humans, might be a different story. when everyone adopts bitcoin, certainly everyone would accept bitcoin as a payment option right?

Cherry-picking at its best (or worst)

I could just as well claim that everything in this world is regulated by the laws of nature and Bitcoin is not regulated any better or in a more orderly manner since it is basically the same laws that are regulating Bitcoin too. And so what? The question is about Bitcoin being regulated by governments, or degree thereof, and whether this regulation is possible in the manner as fiat is being regulated. It is not so much about Bitcoin itself and its public ledger, the blockchain, but about what people are allowed to do with their bitcoins and what they are prohibited from doing, which is what government regulation ultimately boils down to

Bitcoin will coexist with fiat for long time. Small transactions can use fiat.

None of countries are now accepting bitcoin offically, just few of company which is based on those countries accepting bitcoin didn't mean the countries were accepting bitcoin so, stop spreading this bullshit
and fiat value is not always decreasing but sometimes increasing just like bitcoin, if people leave fiat because of that reason then so does with bitcoin, people will get away from it