The current trend of removing cash is a serious mistake

Eric Cartman

kenmm wrote: »

The ATM would back up the cash only surely? i.e. its the main means by which we withdraw cash. Its not accurate to use ATMS as the one example of cashless here.

Linking a debit card via open banking to revolut or getting apple/android pay set up on the mobile is different and I am sure the uptake in older people would be far less because its not something they are used to.

by that I meant the concept of having a plastic card, a PIN number and inserting that card and entering that pin to complete a transaction isn't new and even most elderly people would be familiar now.

i_surge

makeorbrake wrote: »

That's open to debate as you're discounting two things. Bitcoin is an energy standard. Secondly, it's the pre-programmable nature of bitcoin that gives it its power. Nobody controls it. It's 'rules' are baked in and transparent from the outset (fixed supply, known circulatory volume and 'interest rate').


I've been hearing this for a couple of years already. I keep an open mind. However, it will only be replaced by something technologically superior. What will that be and how will it be better? In the meantime, bitcoin is benefiting from the Lindy Effect / ongoing network effect.


Its progress has been extraordinary. Remember we're talking about the transfer of value - it's the cornerstone of civilisation. That doesn't get changed in a day. Sure, there's a large speculative interest right now but we're already seeing it develop as a store of value and a hedge against central bank money.
To my mind, the only thing its lacking is full development of it's layer 2 solution (Lightning Network) to facilitate fast/simple micro-transactions - together with much more work to be done on UI/UX such that your granny can use it.

It depends on how it's used. Right now there are ways to use it such that it's anonymous.

You are clearly religious about the whole thing. Time will tell.

Mining it is one of the most disgusting abuses of energy I can think of. Hugely wasteful and inefficient.

I think anyone actively trying to be replace simplicity with complexity is a bit stupid.

We have all heard the stories about lost forever crypto wallets.

i_surge

I just realised you mentioned the lindy effect in a debate about hard cash vs. digital cash.

Big LOL

El Tarangu

makeorbrake wrote: »

Bitcoin can still be transacted if the internet crashes. It can be transacted via satellite (with that network online via 5 different satellites accessible around the world). So long as someone in the community can fire up a genny, then you can transact.

If society collapses to the extent that there is no longer any internet and we are reliant on privately-held generators for electricity, bitcoin will be completely worthless, as would stock certificates and paper money (though at least these could be used to start a fire). Gold would still have some value in these circumstances. Though if it ever got this bad, most of us would probably already be dead, so it would be quite academic at this point.

makeorbrake

i_surge wrote: »

You are clearly religious about the whole thing. Time will tell.

Pragmatic yes, religious, no.

i_surge wrote: »

Time will tell.

So there is no contender right now and you can't tell us how it needs to be improved?

i_surge wrote: »

Time will tell.
Mining it is one of the most disgusting abuses of energy I can think of. Hugely wasteful and inefficient.

Let me get this straight. Bitcoin mining is the electricity user of last resort using energy from hydro and solar away from population centres that can't otherwise be used. It uses renewable energy that would otherwise be wasted. It uses flared off gas on oil fields in the back of beyonds that couldn't otherwise be used. It uses power in power stations that would otherwise be wasted. And then you tell us it's a 'disgusting abuse'? You're mistaken.

i_surge wrote: »

Time will tell.
I think anyone actively trying to be replace simplicity with complexity is a bit stupid.

A retarded statement if ever there was one.

i_surge wrote: »

We have all heard the stories about lost forever crypto wallets.

What's your point? Has gold or cash ever been lost, stolen or confiscated? Bitcoin can and will be 'lost' if the owner can't remember a 12 or 24 word key. That individual can choose to memorize it or store the key elsewhere - be it in a safety deposit box or wherever they see fit. It's not complicated.

i_surge wrote: »

I just realised you mentioned the lindy effect in a debate about hard cash vs. digital cash.

The irony that you should suggest that digital cash can't be hard money - shows a complete lack of understanding of what bitcoin is. With designed in scarcity, Bitcoin is the epitome of hard money.
Secondly, I referenced the lindy effect given that you made the claim that bitcoin would be usurped in 10 or 20 years. If you don't understand the power of network effect, more fool you.

makeorbrake

El Tarangu wrote: »

If society collapses to the extent that there is no longer any internet and we are reliant on privately-held generators for electricity, bitcoin will be completely worthless, as would stock certificates and paper money (though at least these could be used to start a fire). Gold would still have some value in these circumstances. Though if it ever got this bad, most of us would probably already be dead, so it would be quite academic at this point.

You said it - and I said it - it's entirely academic at that point. I made the point that the chisel and hammer you referred to would be far more valuable than gold or bitcoin at that point.
However, if we're just talking about an internet outage or an electricity and internet outage over a shorter timeframe, bitcoin works just fine - and can be transacted via satellite. You'd just need one person in the community to have a genny or a few solar panels.

KyussB

Bitcoin is more of a cult than a currency - the amount of shite that its adherents spout, in bad faith argument - just like the Libertarians.

Nearly all macroeconomists shit on Bitcoin from a height.

makeorbrake

KyussB wrote: »

Bitcoin is more of a cult than a currency - the amount of shite that its adherents spout, in bad faith argument - just like the Libertarians.

That's really insightful....or more accurately, it could have been had you decided to actually discuss the technology rather than just sledge people that see the potential in it. Well done.

KyussB wrote: »

Nearly all macroeconomists shit on Bitcoin from a height.

You mean Keynesian economists, right? Figures.

KyussB

No, I mean nearly all macroeconomists. It's near-universally reviled as a vehicle for fraud and speculation.

There is merit in the underlying blockchain tech, credited by some macroeconomists - but Bitcoin itself is generally reviled.

El Tarangu

KyussB wrote: »

No, I mean nearly all macroeconomists. It's near-universally reviled as a vehicle for fraud and speculation.

There is merit in the underlying blockchain tech, credited by some macroeconomists - but Bitcoin itself is generally reviled.

If it's accepted in many places in exchange for goods and services, does any of that actually matter?

i_surge

The bit about green energy is a lie, people do it with homemade rigs running off whatever form of power is supplied into their gaf. Destroying the planet in a selfish way for ones and zeros of notional and volatile value. A disgusting practice.

You clearly don't understand the Lindy effect. On a relative basis BTC is very new and not likely to stick around.

i_surge

makeorbrake wrote: »

You said it - and I said it - it's entirely academic at that point. I made the point that the chisel and hammer you referred to would be far more valuable than gold or bitcoin at that point.
However, if we're just talking about an internet outage or an electricity and internet outage over a shorter timeframe, bitcoin works just fine - and can be transacted via satellite. You'd just need one person in the community to have a genny or a few solar panels.

Water, food, fuel, guns and bullets are your currency in that case. Or will you hotwire the genny to download a few coins and order uber eats?!

El Tarangu

i_surge wrote: »

The bit about green energy is a lie, people do it with homemade rigs running off whatever form of power is supplied into their gaf. Destroying the planet in a selfish way for ones and zeros of notional and volatile value. A disgusting practice.

While I don't entirely disagree with you, the world economy is built upon people working jobs that expend vast amounts resources while providing only notional value.

shoxter

Eric Cartman wrote:

The ATM was introduced to Ireland in 1980 , somebody who is 90 today would have been 50 at that point, still a decade of working left in them. I don't think for one second theres any elderly person who is sill independent and functional enough to be in charge of their own money who has no idea how to use an ATM.

I work in a retail store which is card only and I have either had a lot of elderly customers go elsewhere as they don't use card or for some that do I have had to show them not only how to use it in a card terminal but also how to tap the card for contactless

i_surge

makeorbrake wrote: »

Pragmatic yes, religious, no.

You said my ode to simplicity was retarded and that you are pragmatic. If you can convince me why something complicated is better than a simpler functional equivalent in any walk of life i will happily change my mind.

But you are very much wrong as complexity brings with it fragility.

i_surge

El Tarangu wrote: »

While I don't entirely disagree with you, the world economy is built upon people working jobs that expend vast amounts resources while providing only notional value.

Agreed, but at least they are feigning economic value.

Bitcoin mining is 100% parasitic and provides no social value whatsoever.

i_surge

El Tarangu wrote: »

If it's accepted in many places in exchange for goods and services, does any of that actually matter?

Is it?

How could I run a shop and accept something so volatile as a working currency? I think there is some action in holland/austria/usa but you can't really use it widely at all, for very good reason.

Similarly i see makeorbrake doesn't know what hard or soft mean in the general sense that came from hardware/software computing terms. Bitcoin can never be a hard currency unless you start printing it.

KyussB

El Tarangu wrote: »

If it's accepted in many places in exchange for goods and services, does any of that actually matter?

Outside of the Internet, noodles are a more accepted means of exchange.

makeorbrake

KyussB wrote: »

No, I mean nearly all macroeconomists.

Eh, no. You mean Keynesian economists. And of course they're not going to like it. It flies in the face of everything they believe in (and the merry-go-round that puts bread on their tables).

KyussB wrote: »

It's near-universally reviled as a vehicle for fraud and speculation.

On fraud, cash is the vehicle of choice for fraud. Only 1% of crypto transactions have been found to be illicit according to research carried out by Chainalysis.
As for laundering 100s of billions for the cartels, Wachovia Bank, Danske, HSBC, Standard Chartered and many many more can offer a bespoke service for that. If you happen to have 16 tonnes of Cocaine that you'd like to move, Morgan Stanley will lend you a ship to move it.

I'm sure many people use the internet for illicit purposes. Drug dealers were early adopters of mobile phones back in the day. Just because a tool can be misused doesn't mean we should try to deprive society from using it.

On the speculation front, people speculate on all manner of things. Look at the stock markets this year for god sake! They have no correlation with economies. Is speculation on FX wrong? If so, where's the outrage? There was rampant speculation via the dot com boom and bust but note the value add that came out of it as a consequence. 5 tech companies account for a quarter of the entire value of the S&P 500 today.
If speculation is wrong, where's the outrage when it comes to speculation on all these other items?

KyussB wrote: »

There is merit in the underlying blockchain tech, credited by some macroeconomists - but Bitcoin itself is generally reviled.

Bitcoin is reviled by that group of Keynesian economists because it steps outside the system that they earn a crust from and creates a parallel system. The Krugman's of this world? Of course they oppose it. I wouldn't expect anything less.
What is interesting though is that people who are involved in actually generating value in the conventional markets are crossing over - one by one, seeing the value in the proposition and seeing what ails the sick puppy that is the current economic model.

i_surge wrote: »

The bit about green energy is a lie

Respectfully, it's no lie. The vast majority of bitcoin mining relies upon green energy. Think about it. Bitcoin mining is a highly professional activity. It's quite difficult to make a profit with it. One of the key elements of that is the cheapest possible energy on the planet - and the cheapest energy is green energy that is otherwise surplus to requirements/too far from a population centre to be used.

i_surge wrote: »

people do it with homemade rigs running off whatever form of power is supplied into their gaf.

In the early years of bitcoin, people ran homemade rigs. Those days are long gone! Firstly, you need specialised kit and secondly, unless you have access to the cheapest of energy on the planet, you'll be out of business before you even start.

i_surge wrote: »

Destroying the planet in a selfish way for ones and zeros of notional and volatile value.

Bitcoin mining is not selfish - it provides for the most secure network on the planet - a network that has never been taken down in 11 years of aggressive attempts by bad actors to do so.

i_surge wrote: »

A disgusting practice.

If you persist with that type of statement, it's indicative of ignorance.

i_surge wrote: »

You clearly don't understand the Lindy effect. On a relative basis BTC is very new and not likely to stick around.

It's you that doesn't understand the Lindy Effect. You say that BTC is going to be usurped. I've asked you by what and you have no answer. I've also asked you what needs to be improved upon (because it can only be usurped by something superior) and again, you have no answer.
So taking that back to the Lindy Effect, bitcoin has been around for 11 years and it is progressing year on year in all manner of ways. You can't even tell me what's going to usurp it - so whatever that is - is behind the curve. All the while - every day of its continuing existence - bitcoin is being meshed into the fabric of society and as a financial technology. That's the Lindy Effect in action right there.

i_surge wrote: »

Water, food, fuel, guns and bullets are your currency in that case.

See the exchange on this subject between myself and El Tarangu on that. If you're talking complete societal breakdown - as in there is neither internet nor electricity for months on end, then it's a moot point. Neither bitcoin nor gold will help you in that situation.

i_surge wrote: »

Or will you hotwire the genny to download a few coins and order uber eats?!

If there is temporary disruption to either internet or electricity or both - and society is very much challenged but we don't have complete breakdown, I'm saying that bitcoin can be transacted as normal for whatever you want. That can be an exchange of value with an individual close-by or the other side of the world.

i_surge wrote: »

Agreed, but at least they are feigning economic value.

You've accepted his point - which is that the conventional financial network comes with far more cost and energy expended.

i_surge wrote: »

Bitcoin mining is 100% parasitic

See above. It in no way is 'parasitic'. You've claimed that but you have not proven it (because you can't - the statement is entirely inaccurate).

i_surge wrote: »

and provides no social value whatsoever.

This betrays a complete misunderstanding of what bitcoin provides. It provides a decentralised network that allows an individual to transmit value to another - without any centralised party sitting in the middle. Nobody can intercept that transaction, nobody can censor it. Nobody can confiscate that value.

i_surge wrote: »

How could I run a shop and accept something so volatile as a working currency? I think there is some action in holland/austria/usa but you can't really use it widely at all, for very good reason.

I'm 8,000 KM away. If you have the ability to install this app on your phone, then I can send you bitcoin in under a minute.
Anyone can use it - to transact value for any good/service - and nobody can prevent them from doing so.

i_surge wrote: »

Similarly i see makeorbrake doesn't know what hard or soft mean in the general sense that came from hardware/software computing terms. Bitcoin can never be a hard currency unless you start printing it.

Your definition of 'hard currency' as in paper, rocks and seashells,etc. ? Yeah, i believe in the evolution of money - and that's not evolution.
Secondly, most people's meaning of 'hard money' is that of 'sound money' -> LINK.
"The hardness of money is in reverse relation to the monetary inflation, and the consequent dilution of the value of the existing stock, which can economically be inflicted on it."

Bitcoin is a fixed supply currency with designed in scarcity. It's not being printed off like monopoly money because nobody can tamper with it to do so.

KyussB wrote: »

Outside of the Internet, noodles are a more accepted means of exchange.

Bitcoin and its eco-system continue to develop year on year. The focus right now is in proving it's case as a store of value. Means of exchange trails behind - and needs further development of layer 2 solution, Lightning Network - together with general improvements to UX/UI. You can take potshots at the technology in its earlier stages of development. Bitcoin doesn't care - nor do those that are working on the technology.

i_surge

makeorbrake wrote: »

Eh, no. You mean Keynesian economists. And of course they're not going to like it. It flies in the face of everything they believe in (and the merry-go-round that puts bread on their tables).


On fraud, cash is the vehicle of choice for fraud. Only 1% of crypto transactions have been found to be illicit according to research carried out by Chainalysis.
As for laundering 100s of billions for the cartels, Wachovia Bank, Danske, HSBC, Standard Chartered and many many more can offer a bespoke service for that.

I'm sure many people use the internet for illicit purposes. Drug dealers were early adopters of mobile phones back in the day. Just because a tool can be misused doesn't mean we should try to deprive society from using it.

On the speculation front, people speculate on all manner of things. Look at the stock markets this year for god sake! They have no correlation with economies. Is speculation on FX wrong? If so, where's the outrage? There was rampant speculation via the dot com boom and bust but note the value add that came out of it as a consequence. 5 tech companies account for a quarter of the entire value of the S&P 500 today.
If speculation is wrong, where's the outrage when it comes to speculation on all these other items?

Bitcoin is reviled by that group of Keynesian economists because it steps outside the system that they earn a crust from and creates a parallel system. The Krugman's of this world? Of course they oppose it. I wouldn't expect anything less.
What is interesting though is that people who are involved in actually generating value in the conventional markets are crossing over - one by one, seeing the value in the proposition and seeing what ails the sick puppy that is the current economic model.


Respectfully, it's no lie. The vast majority of bitcoin mining relies upon green energy. Think about it. Bitcoin mining is a highly professional activity. It's quite difficult to make a profit with it. One of the key elements of that is the cheapest possible energy on the planet - and the cheapest energy is green energy that is otherwise surplus to requirements/too far from a population centre to be used.


In the early years of bitcoin, people ran homemade rigs. Those days are long gone! Firstly, you need specialised kit and secondly, unless you have access to the cheapest of energy on the planet, you'll be out of business before you even start.


Bitcoin mining is not selfish - it provides for the most secure network on the planet - a network that has never been taken down in 11 years of aggressive attempts by bad actors to do so.


If you persist with that type of statement, it's indicative of ignorance.


It's you that doesn't understand the Lindy Effect. You say that BTC is going to be usurped. I've asked you by what and you have no answer. I've also asked you what needs to be improved upon (because it can only be usurped by something superior) and again, you have no answer.
So taking that back to the Lindy Effect, bitcoin has been around for 11 years and it is progressing year on year in all manner of ways. You can't even tell me what's going to usurp it - so whatever that is - is behind the curve. All the while - every day of its continuing existence - bitcoin is being meshed into the fabric of society and as a financial technology. That's the Lindy Effect in action right there.



See the exchange on this subject between myself and El Tarangu on that. If you're talking complete societal breakdown - as in there is neither internet nor electricity for months on end, then it's a moot point. Neither bitcoin nor gold will help you in that situation.


If there is temporary disruption to either internet or electricity or both - and society is very much challenged but we don't have complete breakdown, I'm saying that bitcoin can be transacted as normal for whatever you want. That can be an exchange of value with an individual close-by or the other side of the world.


You've accepted his point - which is that the conventional financial network comes with far more cost and energy expended.


See above. It in no way is 'parasitic'. You've claimed that but you have not proven it (because you can't - the statement is entirely inaccurate).


This betrays a complete misunderstanding of what bitcoin provides. It provides a decentralised network that allows an individual to transmit value to another - without any centralised party sitting in the middle. Nobody can intercept that transaction, nobody can censor it. Nobody can confiscate that value.


I'm 8,000 KM away. If you have the ability to install this app on your phone, then I can send you bitcoin in under a minute.
Anyone can use it - to transact value for any good/service - and nobody can prevent them from doing so.


You're definition of 'hard currency' as in paper, rocks and seashells,etc. ? Yeah, i believe in the evolution of money - and that's not evolution.
Secondly, most people's meaning of 'hard money' is that of 'sound money' -> LINK.
"The hardness of money is in reverse relation to the monetary inflation, and the consequent dilution of the value of the existing stock, which can economically be inflicted on it."

Bitcoin is a fixed supply currency with designed in scarcity. It's not being printed off like monopoly money because nobody can tamper with it to do so.



Bitcoin and its eco-system continue to develop year on year. The focus right now is in proving it's case as a store of value. Means of exchange trails behind - and needs further development of layer 2 solution, Lightning Network - together with general improvements to UX/UI. You can take potshots at the technology in its earlier stages of development. Bitcoin doesn't care - nor do those that are working on the technology.

Way too much koolaid consumed.

By definition... consuming finite resources for personal profit is parasitic. We don't have abundent green energy to waste in any case even if what you are saying is true which i doubt.

Guess what else can be used to transact privately without censorship

I'm not in the business of argueing ad infinitum about symantics you don't understand and I have made my points. Enjoy

i_surge

Nobody can steal bitcoins except when entire exchanges are hacked

makeorbrake

i_surge wrote: »

Way too much koolaid consumed.

Is that the kind of thing that makes for a compelling argument in your book?

i_surge wrote: »

By definition... consuming finite resources for personal profit is parasitic.

Consuming resources (energy) that would otherwise be expended and lost is a smart use of resources. As for the personal profit point, what's wrong with someone working and providing a societal good (securing the most secure network on the planet and confirming transactions on that network) and being compensated/rewarded for their investment/efforts/hard work?
If you are going to appoint yourself as overlord as regards who is deemed worthy of energy use or not, I'll have some of that. Those Christmas lights that you run every year - I'm not down with that. They do nothing for me and they're destroying my planet. Take them down.:p

i_surge wrote: »

We don't have abundent green energy to waste in any case even if what you are saying is true which i doubt.

See above. Utilizing energy that would otherwise be wasted is a smart use of said energy - not a waste. Stranded power is exactly that.
You say you don't believe me. Fine. Download this report from Coinmetrics and tell me I'm wrong.

i_surge wrote: »

Guess what else can be used to transact privately without censorship

Here's an idea. Why don't you tell us.

i_surge wrote: »

Nobody can steal bitcoins except when entire exchanges are hacked

I said confiscate - not steal. Cash, Gold, Bitcoin - they can all be stolen. And why pray tell would you be leaving your coins on an exchange? You can and should self-custody bitcoin and if you do so by following security protocols, nobody will steal them.

i_surge wrote: »

I'm not in the business of argueing ad infinitum about symantics you don't understand and I have made my points.

There's no explanation needed on a discussion board as to whether you choose to contribute to a conversation or not. Personally, I enjoyed our discussion - you provided an opportunity to clear up a shed tonne of misunderstanding and inaccurate info. However, trying to maintain an untenable position with a 'you don't understand' jibe is both weak and unbecoming.

KyussB

makeorbrake wrote: »

Eh, no. You mean Keynesian economists. And of course they're not going to like it. It flies in the face of everything they believe in (and the merry-go-round that puts bread on their tables).

No, I mean nearly all macroeconomists - as I've said twice now. No matter how much you want to propagandize otherwise - nearly all macroeconomists pan Bitcoin as a vehicle for fraud and speculation.

makeorbrake

KyussB wrote: »

No, I mean nearly all macroeconomists - as I've said twice now. No matter how much you want to propagandize otherwise - nearly all macroeconomists pan Bitcoin as a vehicle for fraud and speculation.

What economists that don't earn their crust on the back of centralised sovereign currencies - and the systems that surround them (government funded think tanks, central banks, etc) have spoken ill of bitcoin?..and why?

Secondly, I'm not 'propaganda-ising' anything! I get that you despise bitcoin. However, I'm entitled to an opinion as much as anyone. If something I've written here is without foundation, then tackle that - lets hear it (but expect that I'll hold you to the same standard - i.e. you'll have to back it up).

Speaking of proving my point, you've gone on about fraud - and I've provided data that clearly demonstrates little illicit use of bitcoin for that purpose proportionately.
I outlined to you that cash is king when it comes to illicit use - but you're quiet on that. The very same re. the facilitation of the cartels by big banking.

And on speculation - the very same point. It seems you have nothing to add. Apparently, speculation is bad when it comes to bitcoin but it's fine for virtually everything else.

neutral guy

When I could pay Bitcoin in country were is no electricity or no internet then I will more interested in it.
Same as with bank card !
The people from abroad go to see them families every year and now they can not do that because they getting Covid payment
One family already lost it because was at home outside Ireland and paid at home by card issued by one of the irish banks
When they came back to Ireland because got email get back to work they got news that they will not get Covid payment and have return what they got.Cashless is nice is not ?
I got refund from shop and 3 weeks after I found that money is still not on my account and now I have waste my time trying prove that I am not a scammer !
Guys,there is billions reasons say cashless NO !
Because cashless simply is the waste of time and money ! And does not work at all !

The J Stands for Jay

neutral guy wrote: »

When I could pay Bitcoin in country were is no electricity or no internet then I will more interested in it.
Same as with bank card !
The people from abroad go to see them families every year and now they can not do that because they getting Covid payment
One family already lost it because was at home outside Ireland and paid at home by card issued by one of the irish banks
When they came back to Ireland because got email get back to work they got news that they will not get Covid payment and have return what they got.Cashless is nice is not ?
I got refund from shop and 3 weeks after I found that money is still not on my account and now I have waste my time trying prove that I am not a scammer !
Guys,there is billions reasons say cashless NO !
Because cashless simply is the waste of time and money ! And does not work at all !

Eh?

neutral guy

McGaggs wrote: »

Eh?

I got letter from bank one day in 2011
They could not understand why I used my card 8 months ago and still no use it
I actually forgot my PIN because was busy on hoovering cash
They said they gonna close my account if I will not explain why wages is coming and no money is leaving
I said I am carpenter,do you know what I mean ?
She said No
Today I fitted kitchen and got 1K in cash I said which I gonna use for my daily expenses for about 1 month
And the next kitchen which I gonna fit next week weekend will pay my rent
She said Would you like come to your account review ( buy bank products,take loan for car ) ?
I said Sorry,I have enough money.

i_surge

makeorbrake wrote: »

What economists that don't earn their crust on the back of centralised sovereign currencies - and the systems that surround them (government funded think tanks, central banks, etc) have spoken ill of bitcoin?..and why?

Secondly, I'm not 'propaganda-ising' anything! I get that you despise bitcoin. However, I'm entitled to an opinion as much as anyone. If something I've written here is without foundation, then tackle that - lets hear it (but expect that I'll hold you to the same standard - i.e. you'll have to back it up).

Speaking of proving my point, you've gone on about fraud - and I've provided data that clearly demonstrates little illicit use of bitcoin for that purpose proportionately.
I outlined to you that cash is king when it comes to illicit use - but you're quiet on that. The very same re. the facilitation of the cartels by big banking.

And on speculation - the very same point. It seems you have nothing to add. Apparently, speculation is bad when it comes to bitcoin but it's fine for virtually everything else.

We are simply saying that bitcoin is a bad store of value as it virtually useless for everyday transactions (due to the speculation induced volatility) and it has lots of sources of fragility that cash doesn't have.

The wider points is that there is a class of useless idiot who wants to erode freedom by introducing flawed technological solutions at the expense of what has been tried and tested for 1000s of years now (hint hint Lindy effect)

Most of your arguments seem to parroted from various bitcoin inspired sources which have an obvious self interested bias to them.

To see you argue that some nerd hoovering up electricity in his bedroom for personal profit is somehow a boon for our privacy and sovereignty and in the public interest is laughable at best. Bitcoins are just modern tulips.

You have defended your glorious currency with real zeal. You are well invested, pun intended.

i_surge

It is not something i know a lot about but my understanding of Keynes is that he thought we certainly wouldn't be on a bread on the table merry-go-round.

Did he not believe in technology increasing leisure and reducing labour?

neutral guy

No,I dont believe
The guy 20 years of age drive his 2018 Golf which he bought with loan
He can not afford buy it for cash because he spending his time on phone all day
For that reason bosman does not want bring his wage up
I use Nokia made in 2007 and for that reason I drive older 16 years old car
Because I have no problems with spending time on phone my wage are 50 per cent higher.
So the older technologies I am use the better wage I get .