EPTBut I guess most people see Bitcoin's potential as a currency and are buying into Bitcoin in the hopes that it will one day become globalized...
*At this point in time.
Off-Topic General Discussion - Page 609
| Forum Index > The Shopkeeper′s Inn |
|
Chrispy
Canada5878 Posts
But I guess most people see Bitcoin's potential as a currency and are buying into Bitcoin in the hopes that it will one day become globalized... *At this point in time. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On November 18 2013 15:09 wei2coolman wrote: This has literally been said like the past 3 times the bubble burst. Guess what happened? Bitcoin still around. I mean, I guess when you say it enough times it eventually becomes true. ? I don't care too much about the bursting bubbles (which anything will generally have). It's more the fact it basically operates a static money supply by design, and that's hilariously bad for a currency. It's somewhat manageable because bitcoin remains substitutable, but really, I'd treat it like gold; at best it's an asset, prone to market fluctuations and bubbles. It'd make a pretty piss-poor currency. On November 18 2013 15:10 Chrispy wrote: So you think Bitcoin is essentially a scam*? Because if it's not a currency, it is nothing. But I guess most people see Bitcoin's potential as a currency and are buying into Bitcoin in the hopes that it will one day become globalized... *At this point in time. Currently, it's an asset. People hold on to it as an investment (in the vain hopes that it'll be globalized currency, perhaps), not as currency, and given it's design, it'll probably remain that way. Well, that, and illegal activities which constitute a sizable portion of its transactions (since that's it's only real advantage over other currencies). Again, I stress that it's design of a static money supply makes it a horrendous choice for an actual currency. | ||
|
iCanada
Canada10660 Posts
I remember when Bitcoin was all underground and it was basically a way for smart drug dealers to launder drug monies. It was even based of how much it translated into drugs. Its not illegal to sell virtual currency, and since the database was all behind TOR transactions couldn't be tracked. Initially it was 1 bitcoin = 1 gram of Marijuana = $10 usd Ofcourse Bitcoin blew up, I wish I was smart enough to spend like 100 bucks on it a few years ago. Considering the primary use for it, and that being the safest method for everyone, seems pretty obvious ot me in hindsight. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On November 18 2013 15:13 Lord Tolkien wrote: ? I don't care too much about the bursting bubbles (which anything will generally have). It's more the fact it basically operates a static money supply by design, and that's hilariously bad for a currency. It's somewhat manageable because bitcoin remains substitutable, but really, I'd treat it like gold; at best it's an asset. It'd make a pretty piss-poor currency. Currently, it's an asset. People hold on to it as an investment (in the vain hopes that it'll be globalized currency, perhaps), not as currency, and given it's design, it'll probably remain that way. Again, I stress that it's design of a static money supply makes it a horrendous choice for an actual currency. It's not static, it's slowly growing. (though slower as it goes on, as virtue of how mining works). I don't see it replacing currency, but it definitely works as a go-between imo, at least that's what it looks like it's final future will be. A more fluid currency exchange after it settles down. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On November 18 2013 15:20 wei2coolman wrote: It's not static, it's slowly growing. (though slower as it goes on, as virtue of how mining works). I don't see it replacing currency, but it definitely works as a go-between imo, at least that's what it looks like it's final future will be. A more fluid currency exchange after it settles down. It's effectively static, since the growth is largely logarithmic due to exponential decay of it's growth. It doesn't matter if 100 bitcoins are produced in a day if there are already 1 million out, it's a drop in the bucket. Completely useless from a monetary perspective. If we wanted to do something similar, we'd just put gold back as a global standard, and ANY economist will tell you how stupid that is. Also, why in god's name would it be worth it as a currency exchange? Why not just directly swap between USDs and Euros when needed or utilize Forex markets? If we wanted a supranational currency for balance of payment/capital flows, we'd turn to the IMF and SDRs lololol. They could at least (hypothetically) EXPAND the amount of SDRs available to meet market demand, and there'd actually be enough for it to function well enough for forex (if they made it possible to be privately owned, or else allowed SDR bonds/securities to be sold). Bitcoins? Lol. Just, no. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On November 18 2013 15:28 Lord Tolkien wrote: It's effectively static, since the growth is largely logarithmic due to exponential decay of it's growth. It doesn't matter if 100 bitcoins are produced in a day if there are already 1 million out, it's a drop in the bucket. Also, why in god's name would it be worth it as a currency exchange? Why not just directly swap between USDs and Euros when needed. If we wanted a supranational currency for balance of payment/capital flows, we'd turn to the IMF and SDRs lololol. They could at least (hypothetically) EXPAND the amount of SDRs available to meet market demand, and there'd actually be enough for it to function well enough for forex (if they made it possible to be privately owned, or else allowed SDR bonds/securities to be sold). Bitcoins? Lol. Just, no. It would be essentially someone's version of cash under the couch. Or for the more discrete purchases as mentioned above. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On November 18 2013 15:30 wei2coolman wrote: It would be essentially someone's version of cash under the couch. Or for the more discrete purchases as mentioned above. 1) Why not actually have cash under a couch? Or actually have a bank account with savings? Or have a mutual fund/safe investments? Why Bitcoin as an asset? I could invest in gold for all I care, it doesn't change anything about the asset (volatile, market-sensitive), and it by design slants it towards asset territory over currency, because it by it's nature encourages hoarding if demand for it increases (when it has no intrinsic value). It makes it harder for countries to operate capital controls or pegged exchange rates (which is fine, given that those are pretty much inoperable nowadays) due to arbitrage, but why would I actually choose to buy into Bitcoins when I could even invest in all manner of assets, securities, etc? What possible advantages does it have over fiat currencies, barring in countries with the most piss-poor monetary policy (aka Zimbabwe), and even when, why not just USDs given they're the international unit of exchange? 2) If we're talking about utilizing it for "discrete" purposes then the argument is already lost. If that's the primary argument, there's no reason for the state not to shut it down. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On November 18 2013 15:38 Lord Tolkien wrote: 1) Why not actually have cash under a couch? Or actually have a bank account with savings? Or have a mutual fund/safe investments? Why Bitcoin as an asset? I could invest in gold for all I care, it doesn't change anything about the asset (volatile, market-sensitive), and it by design slants it towards asset territory over currency, because it by it's nature encourages hoarding if demand for it increases (when it has no intrinsic value). It makes it harder for countries to operate capital controls or pegged exchange rates (which is fine, given that those are pretty much inoperable nowadays) due to arbitrage, but why would I actually choose to buy into Bitcoins when I could even invest in all manner of assets, securities, etc? What possible advantages does it have over fiat currencies, barring in countries with the most piss-poor monetary policy (aka Zimbabwe), and even when, why not just USDs given they're the international unit of exchange? 2) If we're talking about utilizing it for "discrete" purposes then the argument is already lost. If that's the primary argument, there's no reason for the state not to shut it down. What power does the state have over shutting down Bitcoin? AFAIK the guy who invented walked away from the project a long long time ago, unless they make investing into Bitcoin an "illegal" act, I don't see how the state can have control of it. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On November 18 2013 15:46 wei2coolman wrote: What power does the state have over shutting down Bitcoin? AFAIK the guy who invented walked away from the project a long long time ago, unless they make investing into Bitcoin an "illegal" act, I don't see how the state can have control of it. The state can simply make it illegal for national businesses to accept transactions in bitcoin, or pass financial regulations on bitcoin trading. It's nearly impossible to ban it given the international financial market today, but there are certainly means to disincentivize its use. It's somewhat of an extreme though. People banking on cryptocurrencies to actually become currencies are going to get burned, because trying to use precious metals as a GOOD model to base a currency on tickles me, as much as Ron Paul advocating for the gold standard. That's disregarding the propensity for cryptocurrencies to be pump and dump/pseudo-scams. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On November 18 2013 15:53 Lord Tolkien wrote: The state can simply make it illegal for national businesses to accept transactions in bitcoin, or pass financial regulations on bitcoin trading. It's nearly impossible to ban it given the international financial market today, but there are certainly means to disincentivize its use. It's somewhat of an extreme though. People banking on cryptocurrencies to actually become currencies are going to get burned, because trying to use precious metals as a GOOD model to base a currency on tickles me, as much as Ron Paul advocating for the gold standard. Gov't has about as much control of stopping Bitcoin as well as it did pirating. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On November 18 2013 15:55 wei2coolman wrote: Gov't has about as much control of stopping Bitcoin as well as it did pirating. Significantly more, actually. While it can't regulate Peer-to-Peer transactions, it absolutely can influence what legitimate businesses and financial institutions accept and trade. It can't get further into the black market/informal economy than that, but it's more than enough to disincentivize it for the majority of actual consumers. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On November 18 2013 15:58 Lord Tolkien wrote: Significantly more, actually. While it can't regulate Peer-to-Peer transactions, it absolutely can influence what legitimate businesses and financial institutions accept and trade. It can't get further into the black market/informal economy than that, but it's more than enough to disincentivize it for the majority of actual consumers. Bitcoin started off as fairly niche market of users, and it still is as far as I'm concerned. All of whom have at least some technical know how. inb4 USA bans all currency exchange with other countries. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On November 18 2013 16:03 wei2coolman wrote: Bitcoin started off as fairly niche market of users, and it still is as far as I'm concerned. All of whom have at least some technical know how. inb4 USA bans all currency exchange with other countries. The USD and US debt functions as international reserve and unit of account. Why would the US ban forex exchange, exactly? | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On November 18 2013 16:06 Lord Tolkien wrote: The USD and US debt functions as international reserve and unit of account. Why would the US ban forex exchange, exactly? The joke was you said US would disincentives or make illegal the use of Bitcoins, and overarching reach of just stopping all foreign exchange. As far as US stepping forward in stopping Bitcoins, who's to say other countries won't embrace the use of it? | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On November 18 2013 16:11 wei2coolman wrote: The joke was you said US would disincentives or make illegal the use of Bitcoins, and overarching reach of just stopping all foreign exchange. As far as US stepping forward in stopping Bitcoins, who's to say other countries won't embrace the use of it? Same incentives as the US. There's no reason why we need Bitcoins whatsoever. I mean, really: it's nonsense. If we want supranational currency exchange, we'd go with the IMF and SDRs. I haven't seen any credible economic analysis which predicts that Bitcoins or other cryptocurrencies will dominate the world economy in the future. Not one. <_< | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On November 18 2013 16:16 Lord Tolkien wrote: Same incentives as the US. There's no reason why we need Bitcoins whatsoever. I mean, really: it's nonsense. If we want supranational currency exchange, we'd go with the IMF and SDRs. I haven't seen any credible economic analysis which predicts that Bitcoins or other cryptocurrencies will dominate the world economy in the future. Not one. <_< I don't think anyone think or wants bitcoin as dominant currency. It's just a subset of currency to have available. And use or spenditure of it may become norm in certain areas. | ||
|
Ryuu314
United States12679 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyLaw
United States3482 Posts
On November 18 2013 17:09 Ryuu314 wrote: Personally, I think bitcoins are going to end up like gold and silver. It'll have value, but the intrinsic risk of using it as a stable currency makes it so that it's only ever going to be a commodity. This is exactly how the system is set up. Here's a commodity you can mine and it's limited. Some precious metals are filtered out of the system. We don't have booms like south american copper mining nor california gold rush occurring daily. Bit coins lowered the "mining" rate as well. Surprise you end up with a commodity system. What's the argument here? | ||
|
obesechicken13
United States10467 Posts
| ||
|
remedium
United States939 Posts
On November 18 2013 17:28 obesechicken13 wrote: How is the bitcoin mining limit set? What's to stop someone from buying a supercomputer and mining a ton of coins? Energy costs. ETA: people actually do this, it is expensive. | ||
| ||
