Financial topics

[aeden]

Deflation on what you do not need and up and away as essential products is what we hear.
Soma for the masses.

[Higgenbotham]

Nobody here (Richard, John, Aeden or me) has any quibble with the concept of cryptocurrency. I've said specifically and unequivocally that a properly designed cryptocurrency system is what we need. But Bitcoin isn't it.

Cryptocurrency is like the Internet.
Bitcoin is like some defunct company based on the Internet.

But you have also said the problem with Bitcoin/Lightning is not a technical problem, as if there was not a problem in the design. You have also never explained any real problem with the design. Again, before they added Segwit and Lightning there was a technical problem with Bitcoin (limited number of transactions every 10 minutes) but with Lightning I really think they have fixed this and also helped with lower cost and increasing privacy at the same time. Bitcoin was loosing "Crypto Market Dominance" till they made this change but has been gaining since then. So the market seems to agree with me.

When the hyperinflation starts and people want to hold USD cash for as short a time as possible, Bitcoin/Lightning and my ATMs seem to be perfectly well designed technically to handle the expected problem. As the dollar becomes a bad store of value people will move to Bitcoin. The dollars that one customer deposits will go out shortly after to be hurriedly spent by another at some store that does not accept Bitcoin yet. In hyperinflation the "velocity of money" has to go way up because it is dropping in value so fast (and increased velocity contributes to inflation). But people who get paid once a month don't want to spend all their money the day their are paid, so they need to convert to something else. Bitcoin/Lightning ATMs can do this. After a time the stores will all accept Bitcoin and all will be fine. Anguilla will get through Hyperinflation and moving away form USD better in part because of my Bitcoin/Lightning ATMs. Really.

It seems strange for you to keep claiming there is a problem with Bitcoin but never able to really say what is wrong with it. What about the design do you think makes it not the "properly designed cryptocurrency system we need"?

I've mentioned several things that are wrong with Bitcoin. I'll start with the first and add a bit to that.

My first real post about Bitcoin discussed how it's not a currency and doesn't act as a currency, but as an asset:

"This graphic, which I made, summarizes why I believe bitcoin is part of the "all one market" bubble and is not acting as a currency, doesn't have the properties of a currency, etc. Like other assets, it's acting as an alternative to the dollar, but when things get scary, bitcoin doesn't act as a safe haven, but rather goes down with other assets. For bitcoin to act like a real currency, it would need to be an alternative to stocks, etc. People would sell stocks and hold bitcoin as cash and so on, and the value of bitcoin would go down as stocks go up and vice versa."

Repeating the graphic isn't that important.

I'll add some details which were not discussed in that post.

Going beyond that, Bitcoin is an asset that is not currently part of any currency system, and it's the type of asset it is doesn't make it compatible with making it part of a new information age economy currency system. As of now, like any other asset, it can be exchanged for currency, but that doesn't make it new, unique or special.

With gold, the cost to mine gold is tied to production costs in the real goods producing industrial economy, so the cost to mine gold has some stable relation to the real world, though it may only be to the industrial economy, not the information economy, as gold mining is still an industrial process. One of the attractions of gold as a stable store of value that makes it compatible with an industrial age currency system as an underlying reserve asset is that it preserves purchasing power and correlates well to costs in the industrial goods economy. It's said that an ounce of gold has bought a good man's suit over time and that's approximately true.

Does Bitcoin have equivalent properties for an information age economy as gold does for an industrial age economy? Due to its poor design, Bitcoin has none of those attributes for an information age economy.

Bitcoin is an asset whose price is not tethered to anything real in any sense. The cost to produce Bitcoin has no relation to the underlying economy, either the industrial or information age economy. That makes it unworkable as a reserve asset for a new monetary system in an information age economy. The cost to mine Bitcoin goes up and up as more Bitcoin is mined due to the computing power required. But at the same time, the cost of computing power is going down and if Bitcoin were to be considered an asset that is correlated to the digital economy, the cost to mine Bitcoin should fall in a correlated, stable way to the cost of computing power or some other attribute of the information age economy.

[aeden]

“Border Patrol let us know that they were going to be dropping migrants that had been detained for 72 hours in our town, which we really didn’t understand because we have nothing here,”

The mayor told the news outlet that crime has gone up in Gila Bend recently, with about 20 illegal crossers coming into the town on foot almost daily.
Riggs said that the cost for COVID-19 testing of two busloads of people a week would cost around $600,000 over a year.
Population of only 2,000 people.
Swamp Morons with beamed in ballets own you.
Fastest growing investigations teams will be arson.

Painted Cows of Bashan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUiARNgmQ1k

[vincecate]

My first real post about Bitcoin discussed how it's not a currency and doesn't act as a currency, but as an asset:

Any new currency that is being adopted will have to have more people buying it, so the total value of holdings in that currency can go up.
Because it is being adopted there will have to be people who view it as an asset to hold. Any crypto coin would have to have this feature. It is not a defect of Bitcoin design. It is just part of the adoption phase. Over time it is more and more used for transactions and the switch to Lightning will help with this.

"This graphic, which I made, summarizes why I believe bitcoin is part of the "all one market" bubble and is not acting as a currency, doesn't have the properties of a currency, etc. Like other assets, it's acting as an alternative to the dollar, but when things get scary, bitcoin doesn't act as a safe haven, but rather goes down with other assets. For bitcoin to act like a real currency, it would need to be an alternative to stocks, etc. People would sell stocks and hold bitcoin as cash and so on, and the value of bitcoin would go down as stocks go up and vice versa."

There are people selling stocks to buy Bitcoin. There are people moving out of USD to hold Bitcoin. There are people selling real-estate to hold Bitcoin. If the dollar is going to crash anything depending on low inflation and low interest rates is something to get out of.

Again, I expect Bitcoin to cash when the stock market crashes but then go up when people realize the dollar is crashing and we are going to get high inflation. If Bitcoin replaces the dollar as the world reserve currency (which I think it will) then the dollar is the bubble that is popping.

Going beyond that, Bitcoin is an asset that is not currently part of any currency system, and it's the type of asset it is doesn't make it compatible with making it part of a new information age economy currency system. As of now, like any other asset, it can be exchanged for currency, but that doesn't make it new, unique or special.
(...)

Bitcoin is an asset whose price is not tethered to anything real in any sense. The cost to produce Bitcoin has no relation to the underlying economy, either the industrial or information age economy. That makes it unworkable as a reserve asset for a new monetary system in an information age economy. The cost to mine Bitcoin goes up and up as more Bitcoin is mined due to the computing power required. But at the same time, the cost of computing power is going down and if Bitcoin were to be considered an asset that is correlated to the digital economy, the cost to mine Bitcoin should fall in a correlated, stable way to the cost of computing power or some other attribute of the information age economy.

(...)

With gold, the cost to mine gold is tied to production costs in the real goods producing industrial economy, so the cost to mine gold has some stable relation to the real world, though it may only be to the industrial economy, not the information economy, as gold mining is still an industrial process. One of the attractions of gold as a stable store of value that makes it compatible with an industrial age currency system as an underlying reserve asset is that it preserves purchasing power and correlates well to costs in the industrial goods economy. It's said that an ounce of gold has bought a good man's suit over time and that's approximately true.

The USD is mostly just backed by bonds denominated in USD. Thus the dollar is backed by the future value of the dollar. When people realize the future value is nothing, then the current value will become nothing. The "assets" held by the Fed won't be able to support the value of the dollar, the bonds will drop fast. So the dollar also is "not tethered to anything real in any sense". This can't be a complaint against Bitcoin compared to the dollar or other distributed blockchain crypto (without any central authority).

And again, they are printing trillions of USD and will continue to do so till it is worth less than the paper they need to print it. Bitcoin wins hands down on this point. A currency is really just a way of keeping score and Bitcoin is a fair way of keeping score while the USD is not.

If there is nobody running the blockchain you can not have a set of other assets that are held in trust for it. All of the crypto currencies that are pegged to something in the real world (gold, USD, etc) have some company running them to hold those real things. That company can be taxed, arrested, shut down, and totally destroyed. That is not "ideal attributes for an information age economy". It seems you think a crypto backed by gold would be better. There are some. But I would never hold these as some day I expect some government to tax those companies or just take the gold. An "information age currency" should only be in cyperspace and not in the domain where governments can attack it with guns. If this is the core of our disagreement, you are just wrong.

The value of Bitcoin/Lightning is in its use as a fair and reliable way to keep track of value, with lower costs. It is like you get reliable books without errors, between unlimited numbers of people and companies. It is a real value. But it is strange. I don't expect any other currency to be enough better than Bitcoin/Lightning to unseat Bitcoin as the top crypto currency. Before Lighting the future of Bitoin was uncertain, but now I think it is safe. Network effects are too strong and there is not enough room for future improvement. Lightning is that good.

Does Bitcoin have equivalent properties for an information age economy as gold does for an industrial age economy? Due to its poor design, Bitcoin has none of those attributes for an information age economy.

The only "poor design" I am hearing you say is that you seem to think it should be backed by something in the real world. Is that the only "poor design" you mean? Again, because such a coin would have to have a central authority that held the real stuff it could be attacked in the real world (guys with guns (maybe with government uniforms) could go steal the assets). A central authority can also be pressured into requiring information about users and reporting to tax authorities. Bitcoin can not be attacked in a similar way. Bitcoin is better because of this.

[aeden]

Bitcoin's algorithm is most at risk from quantum computing. MIT will crack it sooner than later.
White papers have been out for some time.
In 2018 it was noted it will be done.
Its signature algorithm that uses ECDSA Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm.

It will fall. The Holy Grail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3cxJci8Rvk

On a positive note, the USA has Joe Biden for President; indeed, one of the most intelligent,
vibrant, energetic leaders America has had in the last century.
His Border policy is brilliant. His effuse minions hold the high ground as the Beamed in Locust
from scripture.

https://cms.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inli ... k=z9qSXUnf

Bib and Bob Bish will save the day.

If importing from Crypto Wallets Version 1.0.26 or earlier, your secret phrase is 24 words instead of 12.

Congratulations
You passed the test - keep your seedphrase safe, it's your responsibility

Thought leadership to the cryptocurrency industry, which is why we are focused on strategies around vertical integration, governance, compliance, and efficiency; hence, our focus on physical technologies such as immersion cooling, along with software technologies found in our Blockseer platforms

Such a beasty of a head wound.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLz-ktBpSIY

thread: amos, l8ter

[Cool Breeze]

Bitcoin is like the internet. An innovation with a network effect that is the strongest money ever created.

I know you're addressing this post to John, but I'd like to comment on this concept.

Bitcoin is not like the Internet. Cryptocurrency is like the Internet.

Nobody here (Richard, John, Aeden or me) has any quibble with the concept of cryptocurrency. I've said specifically and unequivocally that a properly designed cryptocurrency system is what we need. But Bitcoin isn't it.

Cryptocurrency is like the Internet.
Bitcoin is like some defunct company based on the Internet.

I'll bite, what is a "properly designed" cryptocurrency?

[Cool Breeze]

** 23-Mar-2021 World View: Logical fallacies

> Your last statement not only is a logical fallacy, I'll prove it
> yet again - How do I prove to you that it is not a bubble?

> I asked you, you have no answer, which means your question is not
> only meaningless, it's silly.

You asked a question at 10 pm, and posted this follow-up rant at noon.

This may come as a shocking surprise to a child your age, but at my
Methuselean age, trying to survive on Social Security, I have other
time-consuming issues to deal with besides your nonsense.

This is particularly true in your case, since there's no point. I
wrote a lengthy response to you about Tulipomania, and you obviously
didn't even bother to read it, but instead continued posting your
nonsense about Tulipomania being a trivial event.

In the news thread, I went to a great deal of trouble to write a
lengthy response about al-Assad and the Syrian war, and you obviously
didn't even bother to read it, but instead doubled down on your
hateful bigoted statements about Muslims and Jews. So since you don't
bother to read anything I post, why should I even bother to respond to
anything you say?

I'm not your servant, and just because you demand that I respond to
your moronic repetitive rants doesn't mean that I have any obligation
to do so. Whether I respond to something depends on whether I'm in
the mood, whether I have time, and whether the subject is interesting
to me.

I'll come back to you later, when I have more time, and I'm in the
mood.

I don't demand anything from anyone. That's what lefties do. I'm all about the free exchange of ideas, not coercion or covetousness - all themes in lefty-ism (which you aren't either, I understand). As a result, of course, take your time.

[Cool Breeze]

It seems strange for you to keep claiming there is a problem with Bitcoin but never able to really say what is wrong with it. What about the design do you think makes it not the "properly designed cryptocurrency system we need"?

They don't know it, they just keep saying "No, no, bubble, bubble buzz word, blah blah blah"

I don't expect an answer to your, or my, question. Which of course will fit the bill, and prove our objections right. And also our suspicions to be dead on the mark.

[Cool Breeze]

Does Bitcoin have equivalent properties for an information age economy as gold does for an industrial age economy? Due to its poor design, Bitcoin has none of those attributes for an information age economy.

Bitcoin is an asset whose price is not tethered to anything real in any sense. The cost to produce Bitcoin has no relation to the underlying economy, either the industrial or information age economy. That makes it unworkable as a reserve asset for a new monetary system in an information age economy. The cost to mine Bitcoin goes up and up as more Bitcoin is mined due to the computing power required. But at the same time, the cost of computing power is going down and if Bitcoin were to be considered an asset that is correlated to the digital economy, the cost to mine Bitcoin should fall in a correlated, stable way to the cost of computing power or some other attribute of the information age economy.

The first question's answer is yes. Then you don't talk about the poor design. You just state it isn't, and not only are you wrong, I have no idea where you get these claims from. Of course it has attributes of the digital economy, that's exactly what it is. I don't even think you know how unclear any of your assertions are, they are totally wrong. It IS based on a protocol of permission-less banking, it is the "money of the internet" quite literally, rendering your objections bizarre because you are arguing the sky isn't blue.

Bitcoin is tethered to many real things, again, none of which you understand. It mines using cryptography and electricity, which are real, and self reinforcing. The cost to mine gold goes up and up if less gold is around, too. Are you unaware of this? Currently, bitcoin is more scarce than gold, I don't think you even are aware of the concept of stock to flow. Greater cost to mine bitcoin, which doesn't tremendously increase and we have until 2140 til all BTC are mined, but these are actually features, not bugs (more desire to have it since it is deflationary).

Another bizarre post totally destroyed by obvious facts to anyone who has actually studied BTC and lives in the real world, the real economy.

Enjoy the manipulation of gold via derivatives and the fake paper market meant to fool you, too. Ha, you don't even know that, apparently.

[Higgenbotham]

My first real post about Bitcoin discussed how it's not a currency and doesn't act as a currency, but as an asset:

Any new currency that is being adopted will have to have more people buying it, so the total value of holdings in that currency can go up.
Because it is being adopted there will have to be people who view it as an asset to hold. Any crypto coin would have to have this feature. It is not a defect of Bitcoin design. It is just part of the adoption phase. Over time it is more and more used for transactions and the switch to Lightning will help with this.

"This graphic, which I made, summarizes why I believe bitcoin is part of the "all one market" bubble and is not acting as a currency, doesn't have the properties of a currency, etc. Like other assets, it's acting as an alternative to the dollar, but when things get scary, bitcoin doesn't act as a safe haven, but rather goes down with other assets. For bitcoin to act like a real currency, it would need to be an alternative to stocks, etc. People would sell stocks and hold bitcoin as cash and so on, and the value of bitcoin would go down as stocks go up and vice versa."

There are people selling stocks to buy Bitcoin. There are people moving out of USD to hold Bitcoin. There are people selling real-estate to hold Bitcoin. If the dollar is going to crash anything depending on low inflation and low interest rates is something to get out of.

Again, I expect Bitcoin to cash when the stock market crashes but then go up when people realize the dollar is crashing and we are going to get high inflation. If Bitcoin replaces the dollar as the world reserve currency (which I think it will) then the dollar is the bubble that is popping.

Going beyond that, Bitcoin is an asset that is not currently part of any currency system, and it's the type of asset it is doesn't make it compatible with making it part of a new information age economy currency system. As of now, like any other asset, it can be exchanged for currency, but that doesn't make it new, unique or special.
(...)

Bitcoin is an asset whose price is not tethered to anything real in any sense. The cost to produce Bitcoin has no relation to the underlying economy, either the industrial or information age economy. That makes it unworkable as a reserve asset for a new monetary system in an information age economy. The cost to mine Bitcoin goes up and up as more Bitcoin is mined due to the computing power required. But at the same time, the cost of computing power is going down and if Bitcoin were to be considered an asset that is correlated to the digital economy, the cost to mine Bitcoin should fall in a correlated, stable way to the cost of computing power or some other attribute of the information age economy.

(...)

With gold, the cost to mine gold is tied to production costs in the real goods producing industrial economy, so the cost to mine gold has some stable relation to the real world, though it may only be to the industrial economy, not the information economy, as gold mining is still an industrial process. One of the attractions of gold as a stable store of value that makes it compatible with an industrial age currency system as an underlying reserve asset is that it preserves purchasing power and correlates well to costs in the industrial goods economy. It's said that an ounce of gold has bought a good man's suit over time and that's approximately true.

The USD is mostly just backed by bonds denominated in USD. Thus the dollar is backed by the future value of the dollar. When people realize the future value is nothing, then the current value will become nothing. The "assets" held by the Fed won't be able to support the value of the dollar, the bonds will drop fast. So the dollar also is "not tethered to anything real in any sense". This can't be a complaint against Bitcoin compared to the dollar or other distributed blockchain crypto (without any central authority).

And again, they are printing trillions of USD and will continue to do so till it is worth less than the paper they need to print it. Bitcoin wins hands down on this point. A currency is really just a way of keeping score and Bitcoin is a fair way of keeping score while the USD is not.

If there is nobody running the blockchain you can not have a set of other assets that are held in trust for it. All of the crypto currencies that are pegged to something in the real world (gold, USD, etc) have some company running them to hold those real things. That company can be taxed, arrested, shut down, and totally destroyed. That is not "ideal attributes for an information age economy". It seems you think a crypto backed by gold would be better. There are some. But I would never hold these as some day I expect some government to tax those companies or just take the gold. An "information age currency" should only be in cyperspace and not in the domain where governments can attack it with guns. If this is the core of our disagreement, you are just wrong.

The value of Bitcoin/Lightning is in its use as a fair and reliable way to keep track of value, with lower costs. It is like you get reliable books without errors, between unlimited numbers of people and companies. It is a real value. But it is strange. I don't expect any other currency to be enough better than Bitcoin/Lightning to unseat Bitcoin as the top crypto currency. Before Lighting the future of Bitoin was uncertain, but now I think it is safe. Network effects are too strong and there is not enough room for future improvement. Lightning is that good.

Does Bitcoin have equivalent properties for an information age economy as gold does for an industrial age economy? Due to its poor design, Bitcoin has none of those attributes for an information age economy.

The only "poor design" I am hearing you say is that you seem to think it should be backed by something in the real world. Is that the only "poor design" you mean? Again, because such a coin would have to have a central authority that held the real stuff it could be attacked in the real world (guys with guns (maybe with government uniforms) could go steal the assets). A central authority can also be pressured into requiring information about users and reporting to tax authorities. Bitcoin can not be attacked in a similar way. Bitcoin is better because of this.

Your argument for Bitcoin adoption is similar to those I've seen elsewhere, that "The dollar is being debased at X% per year (usually a really high number) and I need to hold something that will keep up with or stay ahead of that X% debasement. Bitcoin has done that and will continue to do that." And you add that will happen as an average, which is a good caveat to add if your basis for saying all that is correct. In other words, that Fed printing of money will cause inflation to accelerate, Bitcoin adoption to accelerate, and it will proceed up the S curve of adoption. According to that view, it's the natural course of Fed money printing and accelerating inflation and since Bitcoin has a limited supply and other attributes, it is the obvious alternative to the dollar.

While I don't agree with any of that, it is a view that's been expressed quite a lot.

Now let's take a step back and look at what properties this asset might need to have for adoption to occur as an asset before it even has a chance to be a currency. It won't be able to act as a currency until it gets up to the top of the S curve if I understand correctly. Setting aside all the usual objections that have been put out there in the mainstream (it has no use, it has no utility) and starting from what I think is the right place to start, its value has correlated to its cost of production, which has no correlation to anything in the real world, really. It's just a pseudo-cost that can go from one arbitrary state to another.

Let's back up and talk about gold in that manner first. As I said, gold mining is an industrial process and the cost of mining gold correlates well with the cost of things in the real world that people have to buy that are produced in similar ways with similar inputs. Let's say that a breakthrough in gold mining were to occur using some new technology and the price to produce gold were to drop to $10 per ounce. Would gold at that point have any use as money? My opinion is not much (provided that most other things in the world are still produced according to the industrial model). When I bought gold some years back, that was on my mind as a possible risk.

I don't see that the cost of production of Bitcoin means anything in relation to how anything is this economy is produced or that this cost is anchored in some way to the real economy. The cost of production of Bitcoin hasn't been anchored to anything real up to the present and it doesn't appear it will be in the future. Obviously, there are a lot of future scenarios pro and con that can be discussed. I don't want to discuss them but I do realize that many possible scenarios would exist and probably many more I am not aware of. The word wouldn't be "backed", but "anchored" so as to maintain stable purchasing power and act as a store of value like gold has had the ability to do, and could have had greater ability to do in a free market.

Whether a crypto backed by gold would be better, it depends on what kind of economy people want to have. For the current economy, a crypto backed by gold wouldn't work, in my opinion.

As far as the poor design of Bitcoin, I'm starting with the first serious post I made about Bitcoin. I don't think anything that is introduced as and behaves as an "all one bubble" asset and has no anchor of value to anything in the real world will transition to a currency.