The current trend of removing cash is a serious mistake

makeorbrake

neutral guy wrote: »

When I could pay Bitcoin in country were is no electricity or no internet then I will more interested in it.

That failsafe is already in place. More failsafes through different media will follow as we progress (eg. via sms/mesh networks/short wave radio).

i_surge wrote: »

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.

Firstly, who's 'we'? I didn't know the 'i_surge' username represented a group.
Secondly, I disagree. There's a distinction between a store of value use case and everyday transactional use/means of exchange. They're not one and the same thing.
Short term volatility doesn't make bitcoin a bad store of value. Bitcoin has been the best performing asset of the past decade. It was the best performing asset of 2019. It's currently the best performing asset of 2020. When you look at the higher lows that it has put in on price each year, those have been consistently higher - year on year.
When it comes to transactional use, sure volatility is not ideal. However, there is no impediment to parties transacting bitcoin. As I outlined to you in a previous post, if you have the ability to download and install an application on your phone, someone can then send you bitcoin within 60 seconds. Vendors can accept bitcoin in that manner - and deal with any volatility. Otherwise, vendors can also use services like Bitpay - and still accept bitcoin and have it exchanged into fiat currency if they prefer.
Other than that, in its eleven years, bitcoin's volatility has been proven to be reducing. That process will continue - it's likely to take a few years. Remember that gold was equally as volatile in the 1970s.

i_surge wrote: »

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)

Is your ability to express yourself so poor that you have to reduce yourself to calling people 'useless idiots'....or you're just a vanilla ignorant/arrogant A-hole from the get go? Or is it that your point of view simply doesn't stand up? Probably a little from column A and a little from column B.
How does bitcoin erode anyone's freedom?
And the introduction of bitcoin is at the expense of what that has been around for 1000s of years? How?

i_surge wrote: »

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

What are you going on about? My opinions are my own. And what's this 'self interest bias nonsense? Because my opinion doesn't align with yours, then mine is out of 'self interest' and your's is as pure as snow? That makes a whole lot of sense, doesn't it!:rolleyes:

i_surge wrote: »

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.

The ignorance on display is breathtaking. In the first instance, it has been pointed out to you already that there have been no nerds hoovering up electricity via bitcoin mining in their bedrooms for a number of years already. The activity is highly professional at this point. Here's an example -> LINK . That's a $200 million wind/solar mining farm established in West Texas with $50 million in funding from paypal founder, Peter Thiel.
Secondly, despite your protestations to the contrary, bitcoin mining fulfills a very important function - in securing the bitcoin blockchain and confirming transactions on the network.

i_surge wrote: »

Bitcoins are just modern tulips.

That's not very well thought through, is it? Here are the attributes of a good store of value -> LINK. Bitcoin scores well against most of them. Try that exercise with tulips and you'll see that your analogy is a fallacy.

i_surge wrote: »

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

If the suggestion is that I have to convince you of the efficacy of bitcoin in order to get a return on a speculative bitcoin investment, that's a hoot! You do me a disservice and you rather inflate your own importance if you think that's the case. Bitcoin is a global phenomenon and the market for bitcoin won't be moved on the basis of this thread in this tiny corner of the internet. I had an interest in bitcoin and used bitcoin actively for many years before I ever took a speculative interest in bitcoin. I firmly believe in the societal good that it enables - and over time, more and more are seeing the very same (or at least those that approach the subject with an open mind).

i_surge wrote: »

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?

And your point is.....??

i_surge

Ok you are right, I will retract the word idiot to avoid offense. I will call it a foolhardy attitude.

I'm criticising your sources the same way I was rolling my eyes at property industry "research" in 2009 telling us to keep buying houses. Self interest is self interest.

I don't know the details of mining. Either way that energy could definitely be better used. If it can be harnessed for mining maybe there is something much more worthy of being computed, seeing as you are all about the value to society.

It is a classic pyramid scheme and like all pyramid schemes there are mostly losers and a few big winners, how long does the game of pass the parcel run for?

Everything you have said about a store of wealth can be invalidated if we talk about bitcoins that were bought at 20k and I'm thinking about the youtube vlogs I have seen of the sheer desperation and panic of people who took on be the house type debt they couldn't afford at the peak of the craze. They might get out breakeven or even become billionaires, time will tell.

i_surge

I was wondering what the point was about Keynesian economists?

Wanderer78

i_surge wrote:

I was wondering what the point was about Keynesian economists?

If you think Keynesian is bad, you should look at neoclassical! I'd completely agree with economist bill black, if bitcoin was our main currency during the previous crash, we d be experiencing a deep depression right now, thank fcuk fiat is still around

i_surge

Wanderer78 wrote: »

If you think Keynesian is bad, you should look at neoclassical! I'd completely agree with economist bill black, if bitcoin was our main currency during the previous crash, we d be experiencing a deep depression right now, thank fcuk fiat is still around

I like the Keynesian ideal but that's all I know about it.

I don't know much about it really. What is good?

KyussB

Bitcoin advocates are desperate to proselytize it as the solution - they just can't find a 'problem' that solution is meant to solve, that anyone gives the smallest toss about, and which isn't better solved by something far more simple/proven.

Wanderer78

i_surge wrote:

I don't know much about it really. What is good?

Depends what school of thought you believe in to be honest, I've little or no knowledge of Keynesianism myself, but neoclassical is the most predominant school of thought at present, and its largely nonsense, I do agree with expanding the public balance sheet though, particularly at the moment, I'd be very reluctant to reduce taxes though

Bubbaclaus

neutral guy wrote: »

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 .

So you have a **** phone and a **** car and you think that is why your salary is higher than some fictitious 20 year old? Some success story.

i_surge

KyussB wrote: »

Bitcoin advocates are desperate to proselytize it as the solution - they just can't find a 'problem' that solution is meant to solve, that anyone gives the smallest toss about, and which isn't better solved by something far more simple/proven.

The intention is good and block chain is useful technology.

The problem is that greed got in the way. A stable electronic currency easily transferred around the world without fees with complete privacy that can be hidden from government would be amazing but it is a while away it seems. Greed and scam artists have entered the space and dominated it putting the original plan about 5 years off course.

There is always a place for hard cash too I hope.

i_surge

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Depends what school of thought you believe in to be honest, I've little or no knowledge of Keynesianism myself, but neoclassical is the most predominant school of thought at present, and its largely nonsense, I do agree with expanding the public balance sheet though, particularly at the moment, I'd be very reluctant to reduce taxes though

Is neoclassical growth/globalisation forever?

Snickers Man

RandomViewer wrote: »

Drug dealers will just use Sterling/ Dollars, gold sovereigns whatever, if you legalise drugs the criminals will find another cash flow, tiger kidnapping, kiddie porn, guns, scrum always finds its level

Yeah. Anyone who thinks drug dealers are too stupid or too hidebound by tradition to find ways around the cashless society is too naive to be let out on their own.

It DOES have implications for society at large, however. Not everybody has a bank account; not everybody can GET a bank account. Will school children be paid their pocket money in Revolut cards from now on?

circadian

I like the idea and concepts of crypto currency. I even have Bitcoin from before the first boom. I don't think bitcoin itself as a currency is a solution for removal of cash though. I treat it much more like gold. It's a commodity that is used to determine the value of cryptocurrencies.

makeorbrake

i_surge wrote: »

I'm criticising your sources the same way I was rolling my eyes at property industry "research" in 2009 telling us to keep buying houses.

Then debunk the sources. If you firmly believe that something I've posted - or a source that I've cited is wrong, I'd like to hear about it. I'd like to know about it for my own benefit. Surely if something I've posted is factually incorrect, you can explain to us why it's incorrect and back that up with your own cited data? You said you didn't believe what I said and I then provided citations. What more would you have me do?

i_surge wrote: »

Self interest is self interest.

See my previous post. Self interest comes in many forms. Did it ever occur to you that my 'self interest' is in seeing this rolled out for the good of society? That in its more prolific use, I get to use it more broadly also?
Secondly this thread is not going to move the bitcoin market!
Third, if anyone speaks of gold on this thread, will you be accusing them of self interest? If not, why not?

i_surge wrote: »

I don't know the details of mining.

Perhaps it would be best to reserve your opinion on it and hold off on taking a position on it until you do?

i_surge wrote: »

Either way that energy could definitely be better used. If it can be harnessed for mining maybe there is something much more worthy of being computed, seeing as you are all about the value to society.

Your comments here are steeped in a belief that mining is just a mechanism for someone to make money without any purpose. That's inaccurate.
Mining fulfills the role of securing the network. It contributes to the bitcoin blockchain network being the most secure network there is. That network is then available to anyone on the planet that wants to use it - to transact value peer to peer - without censorship or any impediment put in place by a centralised authority.

i_surge wrote: »

It is a classic pyramid scheme and like all pyramid schemes there are mostly losers and a few big winners,

Except that your claim is entirely inaccurate. Here's the US Securities & Exchange Commission's (SEC) definition of a pyramid scheme:

"[An] attempt to make money solely by recruiting new participants into the program. The hallmark of these schemes is the promise of sky-high returns in a short period of time for doing nothing other than handing over your money and getting others to do the same."

Where is this central authority that's marketing bitcoin to the masses and benefiting by that? Or are you saying that it's an open source pyramid scheme altruistically designed by someone for others to come along and benefit from it? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense!

i_surge wrote: »

how long does the game of pass the parcel run for?

And that's my question to you - because your claim makes no sense in this case. It wouldn't still be around and growing if it was a pyramid scheme.

i_surge wrote: »

Everything you have said about a store of wealth can be invalidated if we talk about bitcoins that were bought at 20k

Incorrect. Firstly, you've cherrypicked a specific pricing event to meet your narrative. Markets can become irrational and get ahead of themselves. That's what happened in late 2017.
My question to you is why do you single out bitcoin for criticism on that basis? If you bought a house at the peak of the celtic tiger and some 15 plus years later, you're still thousands in the hole, will you proclaim to all that property is not a store of value and that nobody should touch it?
If gold drops 40% tomorrow, will you tell everyone that it's no longer a store of value? If it then drops 44% the following year, will you tell everyone I told you so - it's not a store of value? The reason I mention those specific figures is because gold has dropped by those amounts in the past.

i_surge wrote: »

I'm thinking about the youtube vlogs I have seen of the sheer desperation and panic of people who took on be the house type debt they couldn't afford at the peak of the craze. They might get out breakeven or even become billionaires, time will tell.

Everyone has a responsibility to assess what media they expose themselves to. There are muppets/charlatans and outright scammers that use otherwise credible media as the centrepoint to their nonsense/scams,etc.- whether that is in relation to gold, property, bitcoin, stocks etc. Their actions should lead people to dismiss them - not the otherwise credible asset that they try and bend for their own purposes.

KyussB

i_surge wrote: »

I like the Keynesian ideal but that's all I know about it.

I don't know much about it really. What is good?

I don't think I've tried to summarize Keyne's views from scratch before, so not sure how to - this covers a bit too much tangential stuff.

The key insight was that the macroeconomic growth is demand-led (GDP/economic-output was determined in large part by consumer spending, demand for goods/resources etc.), not supply-led (GDP was not significantly influenced by increases in production of goods/resources etc., unless the demand was there for such goods/resources) - and that when there is a recession/depression where the private economy can not stimulate enough demand (this is going into the downward swing of an economic cycle), then the public sector (government) needs to step in with spending to boost demand (counter-cyclical policies, trying to push the downward swing in demand back up).

That's oversimplified, I'd need a few more rounds of attempting to explain that better, to nail it. The way this affects money/currency though, is that the supply of money is supposed to wax and wane to facilitate keeping the economy at maximum-GDP/Full-Output (at one part of the economic cycle it may come more from the Private Sector through loans, and at other parts of the cycle it may come more from the Public Sector through bonds or even direct monetization - monetization being very controversial still). As you can see, a fixed-supply currency like Bitcoin or Gold is absolutely useless for this.

A key thing to remember, is that what is known as 'Keynesian Economics' is not actually representative of Keynes views - it is a merging of Keyne's views with Neoclassical views that Keyne's actually disagreed with - and is called the Neoclassical Synthesis.
Stagflation in the 70's (caused by the oil supply-shock) is said to have discredited 'Keynesian' economics, but it didn't - it discredited the Neoclassical Synthesis. Keyne's views did not ignore the effects of supply-shocks (a sudden drop in supply can significantly affect GDP, of course). A modern version of Keyne's views, updated with the insights of his successors/students, is Post-Keynesian economics - and it's gradually gaining ground into mainstream status.

Pawinho

Mike3287 wrote: »

Exactly

Kills the black market and drug money culture

Do not call free market black. Don't be racist.

harrylittle

Thats what they want get ride of cash and bring in negative interest rates and a transaction tax .. watch your money drain away 2-3 % a year

makeorbrake

harrylittle wrote: »

Thats what they want get ride of cash and bring in negative interest rates and a transaction tax .. watch your money drain away 2-3 % a year

Here we have KyussB saying that there is no purpose/use case for decentralised currency when this post (and this thread generally) shows that it has!

@harrylittle - transaction taxes are one thing (and I live in a country where they have transaction taxes so I know all about it!) but remember that they effectively take at least 2% off you stealthily in any event - via inflation. THEN, tack on the transaction tax after that.

Bitcoin steps around that nonsense.

i_surge

makeorbrake wrote: »

Bitcoin steps around that nonsense.

It does but only while the party continues. It is zero sum and not everyone can win.

Why can't we agree that both have their merits and problems?

makeorbrake

circadian wrote: »

I like the idea and concepts of crypto currency. I even have Bitcoin from before the first boom. I don't think bitcoin itself as a currency is a solution for removal of cash though. I treat it much more like gold. It's a commodity that is used to determine the value of cryptocurrencies.

It's a slow burner. It's formative in its current development/establishment as digital gold/store of value/a hedge against fiat currencies in its own right. It takes time to bring that about.
Volatility needs to dissipate for it to function better in the transactional sense. User experience also needs to be improved. Transaction costs and transaction times are in the process of being brought down through its second layer solution - Lightning Network. All of this takes time - but it's in the works.

makeorbrake

i_surge wrote: »

It does but only while the party continues. It is zero sum and not everyone can win.

That statement is grounded in your belief that bitcoin is a pyramid scheme which one fine day will collapse and be worth nothing. That's the farthest thing from my belief - and there are an ever growing number of people that share my opinion on that.

i_surge wrote: »

Why can't we agree that both have their merits and problems?

Both? Bitcoin and what? I'm not sure what you're comparing it with.

Does bitcoin have issues/obstacles to overcome? Absolutely. We've already a discussed a few of them. Given the space and time to do so, I believe that it can overcome most if not all of them.

i_surge

I'm arguing that mining is an abuse of energy from first principles. I don't need to know the specifics. It is simply not a noble use of energy. The people who do it, do it for their own profit no matter what layer of virtue is painted over that.

It only takes one observation to break a theory and that is EXACTLY why 20k bitcoins are highly relevant. What do you think happens when people take profits? First out win, last out lose.

The whole point of cash is it more or less stable in value most of the time and drifts slowly.

i_surge

makeorbrake wrote: »

That statement is grounded in your belief that bitcoin is a pyramid scheme which one fine day will collapse and be worth nothing. That's the farthest thing from my belief - and there are an ever growing number of people that share my opinion on that.


Both? Bitcoin and what? I'm not sure what you're comparing it with.

Does bitcoin have issues/obstacles to overcome? Absolutely. We've already a discussed a few of them. Given the space and time to do so, I believe that it can overcome most if not all of them.

A growing number of people believe in a market that never goes down? It has been tried before. Good luck

makeorbrake

circadian wrote: »

I like the idea and concepts of crypto currency. I even have Bitcoin from before the first boom. I don't think bitcoin itself as a currency is a solution for removal of cash though. I treat it much more like gold. It's a commodity that is used to determine the value of cryptocurrencies.

Look at it this way. Cash will go whether you like it or not. I'm not saying that will happen tomorrow but I think stuff that has happened this year will probably result in that timetable being moved up. It could probably be gone in 10 years.

So...if in 2030 you find that there is no cash. The government of the day will be using a centralised digital currency instead. Are you going to be happy in using that? Are you going to be happy with the government knowing every single transaction you've ever made? Are you happy that the gov. could simply press a button and vapourise your access to your wealth? Is there a way that could go very wrong?

If you have some objections to the above scenario, then what are your alternatives? There's gold - an established store of value - no doubt. However, it has shortcomings when it comes to portability, storage and divisibility. You're still going to be left with using the government digital money for the majority of your transactions. Unless there's an alternative. To my mind, that alternative is bitcoin.
Are there issues with its use right now (volatility, user experience, etc.)? Sure. But most of those issues are being worked on. Furthermore, it is there for you as a verified solution today - if you want to transact value to whomever -wherever they are in the world.

makeorbrake

i_surge wrote: »

A growing number of people believe in a market that never goes down? It has been tried before. Good luck

You've highlighted that it has gone down (as per your mention of its at the peak price in late 2017). Doesn't that contradict whatever point you're trying to make here?

Other than that, there have been numerous major price corrections over the course of its existence.

How is it any different to gold in this respect??

i_surge

makeorbrake wrote: »

You've highlighted that it has gone down (as per your mention of its at the peak price in late 2017). Doesn't that contradict whatever point you're trying to make here?

Other than that, there have been numerous major price corrections over the course of its existence.

How is it any different to gold in this respect??

No it solidifies my point.

Perhaps the Lindy effect is the difference you are asking :pac:

I have some bitcoin myself but I see right through the fan boy stuff. Good luck with your investments.

makeorbrake

i_surge wrote: »

I'm arguing that mining is an abuse of energy from first principles. I don't need to know the specifics. It is simply not a noble use of energy. The people who do it, do it for their own profit no matter what layer of virtue is painted over that.

I'm sorry - but that's nonsense. You've already said that you don't understand mining - but that mining is wrong. I've taken the time to explain the function that mining serves - yet you're effectively telling me I won't listen to any explanations on that - mining is just wrong.
If that's the case, the use of energy for anything is wrong. When you go out tomorrow morning and start the car, remember the case you've made here and walk back into the house. When you turn on the lights, turn them off again. And the same with any energy use.

I've come across this argument a thousand times and it's based on a misunderstanding as to what bitcoin mining is - and the function that it serves.

Another poster reminded you that the conventional financial system uses untold amounts of energy ( a shed load more ). The only reason that you are reacting differently in this case is that your opinion is already formed that in your view, bitcoin is pointless.

I've already outlined why it's not - but even if for all intents and purposes we assume that its pointless, you still have an issue with the use of stranded power for bitcoin mining. If stranded renewable power - and by stranded power I mean power that is too far away from a population centre to be otherwise used - is used for bitcoin mining, where's the issue?

As regards people doing it for their own profit, are we really having this conversation? Do you think that they should do it for free? I don't know what you do for a living but if I turned around to you and said, from tomorrow you're to do that for free - and not profit from it - would you be ok with that?

i_surge wrote: »

It only takes one observation to break a theory and that is EXACTLY why 20k bitcoins are highly relevant. What do you think happens when people take profits? First out win, last out lose.

Ok, so let me get this straight. People decide to speculate on an asset - whether it be gold/equities/FX/commodities, etc. and there's no issue with any of that speculation but there is if its bitcoin? How does that make any sense?

i_surge wrote: »

The whole point of cash is it more or less stable in value most of the time and drifts slowly.

And yet if you use cash as a store of value, your wealth is being stolen from you stealthily every day of the week (through ongoing inflation).
We've covered the volatility topic. By now you should understand why there's volatility in bitcoin - and how that will dissipate over time. As I mentioned to you already, gold was equally as volatile in the 70s but I don't hear the outrage being expressed about that.

KyussB

makeorbrake wrote: »

Here we have KyussB saying that there is not purpose/use case for decentralised currency when this post (and this thread generally) shows that it has!

@harrylittle - transaction taxes are one thing (and I live in a country where they have transaction taxes so I know all about it!) but remember that they effectively take at least 2% off you stealthily in any event - via inflation. THEN, tack on the transaction tax after that.

Bitcoin steps around that nonsense.

I never said that. If you can't directly quote me as saying something, don't post pretending I said it - as it leads to stupid games where I end up forced to reply to correct misrepresentations of my posts.

There are plenty of good uses for blockchain and decentralized currencies. There are even some fantastic uses such as GridCoin, where instead of wasting energy in the manner Bitcoin does, the energy is put to good work on distributed computing projects - but this has not yet solved the problem of making sure there is enough useful work available (which, when that's cracked, could be truly revolutionary). Bitcoin however, is simply one of the first to become popular, and is riding mostly on that - with an ever-growing trail of problems.

i_surge

How many kWh per bitcoin?

i_surge

Is it for speculation or storing wealth?

You are arguing both ways at times, confusing! Same as I Kyuss, not interested in going backwards and I'm glossing over the refutations that don't make sense to me.

makeorbrake

immmmmmmmmmm

i_surge wrote: »

No it solidifies my point.

Eh, sorry but in no way does it solidify your point. It doesn't always go up. However, it is a scarce asset just like gold. If you have a problem with the pricing of bitcoin then you have a problem with the pricing of gold.

i_surge wrote: »

Perhaps the Lindy effect is the difference you are asking

If you're suggesting that gold is established whereas bitcoin is a newcomer, all day long. However, if the suggestion is that bitcoin doesn't bring it's own unique flavours to the party, then that would be incorrect.
Bitcoin fares much better in terms of portability, the ability to self custody/store it and with regard to divisibility. It has a shot at being a means of exchange - which gold can never be as its not divisible. It's a digital asset that can be transmitted digitally from party A to party B - where-ever those individuals are in the world.

What I'm saying to you is that I respect gold and it's place in the world. I'm not suggesting that it should immediately be replaced by bitcoin. What I am suggesting is that bitcoin is taking its own place in the world as a store of value in its own right - with its own unique characteristics.

i_surge wrote: »

I have some bitcoin myself but I see right through the fan boy stuff. Good luck with your investments.

Given your position, I think everyone here would be really interested to know why on earth you own some bitcoin. What was your motivation in buying it? Why do you continue to hold it?