@jmlanzaf said:
They have absolutely inflated the number by decreasing (by design) the payout rate for bitcoin mining even as the effort of the mining went up. So, when the work you do was once worth 50 BTC, it's now worth 6.25 BC. That is 100% absolutely equivalent to increasing the number of BTC.
Total BS. The payout in coin per mining hour is continually decreasing because the number of bitcoin left to mine is shrinking. The rising price per coin is actually returning more dollars per coin mined even though it takes more time to mine that coin. The last coin will take weeks or even months to mine. Of course mining is increasing the number of BC, that is how it works. The number has not yet reached it's end of 21M BC. It is the shrinking supply of BC left to find that aids in driving the price.
No. Not BS at all. The price is rising because of speculative demand. That is masking the intentional printing of more blocks/BTC.
The number is not decreasing because of the shrinking supply. I mean, it is, but it is built in to the formula. The payout drops 50% every 4 years until 2140 by design. This is effectively moving the decimal point on BTC value. Now 0.1 BTC does what 1.0 BTC used to do. That is equivalent to having 10x as much BTC.
Now, that doesn't make me bitcoin skeptical. However, I think this "limited supply" argument is a straw man. It's not a "limited supply" when the central "bank" can manipulate the value making smaller and smaller units.
Most of the rise in BTC is due to speculative demand which masks the natural inflating of the value that is going on. When 0.1 BTC does what 1.0 BTC used to do, then your $100 BTC is now a $1000 BTC. This is the opposite of a stable currency.
Can a very sophisticated hacker (state sponsored or otherwise) disrupt the bitcoin?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@Smudge said:
Isn’t Bitcoin also is totally dependent on a working power grid while gold is not, at least at the bullion level?
Absolutely. And when a geomagnetic storm of sufficient intensity hits the earth.... or a rogue nation sets off an EMT high above the USA... your bitcoin will likely be gone and worthless. But then again, so will many other things that depend on computers, voltage lines, etc.
It's not tinfoil hat theory, but real and has some pretty high chances of happening. Carrington event in 1859 resulted in burning telegraph wires and started some fires on railroad ties (the rails conducted high currents from the magnetic storm). That was back in much less technical times... the microcircuits of today would likely be devestated.
I guess you don't realize that the Internet (and Bitcoin) are global entities with significant amounts of redundancy built in. If you want to make financial decisions predicated on a natural phenomenon that hasn't happened since 1859, that's your prerogative. Your gold has a much higher chance of melting in a common fire.
To be fair, melted gold is still gold.
But it would take a much bigger event than 1859 to manage to wipe out all data on the planet with all the redundancies you mention.
It's also worth mentioning that if such a huge EM event happened, your bank balance and your stock portfolio and your bond portfolio all disappear also since they all exist as strictly digital assets these days. They don't issue stock certificates anymore, for example, and the Treasury doesn't issue paper bonds except for some EE for gift giving.
@jmlanzaf said:
This is such a fictional number. They have absolutely inflated the number by decreasing (by design) the payout rate for bitcoin mining even as the effort of the mining went up. So, when the work you do was once worth 50 BTC, it's now worth 6.25 BC. That is 100% absolutely equivalent to increasing the number of BTC.
investopedia.com/tech/how-does-bitcoin-mining-work/
"How Much a Miner Earns
The rewards for bitcoin mining are reduced by half every four years. When bitcoin was first mined in 2009, mining one block would earn you 50 BTC. In 2012, this was halved to 25 BTC. By 2016, this was halved again to 12.5 BTC. On May 11, 2020, the reward halved again to 6.25 BTC. "
I fail to understand your argument here. We agree that the number of Bitcoins is increasing due to mining rewards. The 21 million number is the ultimate cap on the number of Bitcoins that can exist, and is expected to be reached circa the year 2140. How is the payout rate being halved every four years relevant to anything? While miners are now getting 6.25 BC instead of the erstwhile 50 BC, the value (in dollars) thereof is much greater. Again, how is this relevant to anything?
It is a question of this "limited supply" argument. It isn't a "limited supply", it is an "infinitely divisible" supply.
Now, to some extent, that constant divisibility increases the $ denominated value as it is currently set up. 0.1 BTC does what 1.0 BTC used to do. But it is not "limited supply", it is intentional manipulation of the value. By design, bitcoin is being inflated in value by 50% every 4 years.
But such manipulation, though it favors increasing value now, is still manipulation. Specifically, it is manipulation of supply on a scale the Fed has never dreamed of.
I prefer ETH to BTC. I'm not even a BTC skeptic. However, I don't buy the "limited supply" when you effectively are creating more blocks and more BTC by intentionally manipulating the payout rate. When there were 21 million BTC (max) and the payout was 50 BTC per block, there were a maximum of 400,000 blocks. The blocks are the actual "unit of work". Now that we are down to 6.25 BTC, there are effectively 3 million (round numbers) blocks. 4 years from now, the payout will be 3.125 BTC and there are effectively 7 million blocks.
Again, not really an argument against BTC by itself. But it is an argument against "limited supply".
@jmlanzaf said:
However, I think this "limited supply" argument is a straw man. It's not a "limited supply" when the central "bank" can manipulate the value making smaller and smaller units.
If I turn a 100 ton supply of gold bars into 1 oz coins, I still have a 100 ton supply of gold.
Most of the rise in BTC is due to speculative demand which masks the natural inflating of the value that is going on. When 0.1 BTC does what 1.0 BTC used to do, then your $100 BTC is now a $1000 BTC. This is the opposite of a stable currency.
Who claimed it was a stable currency? It's supply is limited. Two different things. ALL of the price rise is due to speculative demand. There is no natural price inflating going on.
"How many times can a man turn his head and pretend he just doesn’t see?” - Bob Dylan
@jmlanzaf said:
However, I think this "limited supply" argument is a straw man. It's not a "limited supply" when the central "bank" can manipulate the value making smaller and smaller units.
If I turn a 100 ton supply of gold bars into 1 oz coins, I still have a 100 ton supply of gold.
Most of the rise in BTC is due to speculative demand which masks the natural inflating of the value that is going on. When 0.1 BTC does what 1.0 BTC used to do, then your $100 BTC is now a $1000 BTC. This is the opposite of a stable currency.
Who claimed it was a stable currency? It's supply is limited. Two different things. ALL of the price rise is due to speculative demand. There is no natural price inflating going on.
That ignores the value judgment associated with it.
The actual unit of work here is not the BTC, it is the blocks that are unencrypted. It is these that are expanding.
If you want to use the gold bar metaphor which is fundamentally flawed, it is equivalent to dividing your 100 ton supply of gold bars into 1 oz coins, each of which has the same value as the original 100 tons.
You have a system that once contained only 400,000 blocks worth of BTC, that now contains 3 million blocks of BTC which in 4 years will contain 6 million blocks of BTC.
@Smudge said:
Isn’t Bitcoin also is totally dependent on a working power grid while gold is not, at least at the bullion level?
Absolutely. And when a geomagnetic storm of sufficient intensity hits the earth.... or a rogue nation sets off an EMT high above the USA... your bitcoin will likely be gone and worthless. But then again, so will many other things that depend on computers, voltage lines, etc.
It's not tinfoil hat theory, but real and has some pretty high chances of happening. Carrington event in 1859 resulted in burning telegraph wires and started some fires on railroad ties (the rails conducted high currents from the magnetic storm). That was back in much less technical times... the microcircuits of today would likely be devestated.
I guess you don't realize that the Internet (and Bitcoin) are global entities with significant amounts of redundancy built in. If you want to make financial decisions predicated on a natural phenomenon that hasn't happened since 1859, that's your prerogative. Your gold has a much higher chance of melting in a common fire.
To be fair, melted gold is still gold.
But it would take a much bigger event than 1859 to manage to wipe out all data on the planet with all the redundancies you mention.
It's also worth mentioning that if such a huge EM event happened, your bank balance and your stock portfolio and your bond portfolio all disappear also since they all exist as strictly digital assets these days. They don't issue stock certificates anymore, for example, and the Treasury doesn't issue paper bonds except for some EE for gift giving.
Melted gold is still gold, but there are disaster scenarios where recovery of said gold (to a specific owner) would probably cost more than it's worth, or impossible even, say in a thermonuclear explosion. There have been two of those in populated areas since 1859.
@jmlanzaf said:
This is such a fictional number. They have absolutely inflated the number by decreasing (by design) the payout rate for bitcoin mining even as the effort of the mining went up. So, when the work you do was once worth 50 BTC, it's now worth 6.25 BC. That is 100% absolutely equivalent to increasing the number of BTC.
investopedia.com/tech/how-does-bitcoin-mining-work/
"How Much a Miner Earns
The rewards for bitcoin mining are reduced by half every four years. When bitcoin was first mined in 2009, mining one block would earn you 50 BTC. In 2012, this was halved to 25 BTC. By 2016, this was halved again to 12.5 BTC. On May 11, 2020, the reward halved again to 6.25 BTC. "
I fail to understand your argument here. We agree that the number of Bitcoins is increasing due to mining rewards. The 21 million number is the ultimate cap on the number of Bitcoins that can exist, and is expected to be reached circa the year 2140. How is the payout rate being halved every four years relevant to anything? While miners are now getting 6.25 BC instead of the erstwhile 50 BC, the value (in dollars) thereof is much greater. Again, how is this relevant to anything?
It is a question of this "limited supply" argument. It isn't a "limited supply", it is an "infinitely divisible" supply.
Now, to some extent, that constant divisibility increases the $ denominated value as it is currently set up. 0.1 BTC does what 1.0 BTC used to do. But it is not "limited supply", it is intentional manipulation of the value. By design, bitcoin is being inflated in value by 50% every 4 years.
But such manipulation, though it favors increasing value now, is still manipulation. Specifically, it is manipulation of supply on a scale the Fed has never dreamed of.
I prefer ETH to BTC. I'm not even a BTC skeptic. However, I don't buy the "limited supply" when you effectively are creating more blocks and more BTC by intentionally manipulating the payout rate. When there were 21 million BTC (max) and the payout was 50 BTC per block, there were a maximum of 400,000 blocks. The blocks are the actual "unit of work". Now that we are down to 6.25 BTC, there are effectively 3 million (round numbers) blocks. 4 years from now, the payout will be 3.125 BTC and there are effectively 7 million blocks.
Again, not really an argument against BTC by itself. But it is an argument against "limited supply".
Paying people less to mine something is not equivalent to inflating that thing.
The situation is exactly analogous to gold. There is a capped fixed supply of total gold, already mined and still in the ground. Over time the "pay" for mining goes down because the more easily accessible gold is gone. At some point, miners decide it's not cost-effective to continue operations. Such economic decisions are also based on the dollar value of the commodity at the time, whether that commodity is gold or Bitcoin.
@Smudge said:
Isn’t Bitcoin also is totally dependent on a working power grid while gold is not, at least at the bullion level?
Absolutely. And when a geomagnetic storm of sufficient intensity hits the earth.... or a rogue nation sets off an EMT high above the USA... your bitcoin will likely be gone and worthless. But then again, so will many other things that depend on computers, voltage lines, etc.
It's not tinfoil hat theory, but real and has some pretty high chances of happening. Carrington event in 1859 resulted in burning telegraph wires and started some fires on railroad ties (the rails conducted high currents from the magnetic storm). That was back in much less technical times... the microcircuits of today would likely be devestated.
I guess you don't realize that the Internet (and Bitcoin) are global entities with significant amounts of redundancy built in. If you want to make financial decisions predicated on a natural phenomenon that hasn't happened since 1859, that's your prerogative. Your gold has a much higher chance of melting in a common fire.
To be fair, melted gold is still gold.
But it would take a much bigger event than 1859 to manage to wipe out all data on the planet with all the redundancies you mention.
It's also worth mentioning that if such a huge EM event happened, your bank balance and your stock portfolio and your bond portfolio all disappear also since they all exist as strictly digital assets these days. They don't issue stock certificates anymore, for example, and the Treasury doesn't issue paper bonds except for some EE for gift giving.
Melted gold is still gold, but there are disaster scenarios where recovery of said gold (to a specific owner) would probably cost more than it's worth, or impossible even, say in a thermonuclear explosion. There have been two of those in populated areas since 1859.
If there is a thermonuclear explosion there will be many more to follow and I'm pretty sure BT will be worthless at that point and hopefully your gold interest (if it even matters) will be accessible. If I was lucky enough to have bought some BT in the beginning I would have sold it the first time it started dropping from 20K. If I had the money to buy into it now, I would not. Too risky for the little guy.
@jmlanzaf said:
This is such a fictional number. They have absolutely inflated the number by decreasing (by design) the payout rate for bitcoin mining even as the effort of the mining went up. So, when the work you do was once worth 50 BTC, it's now worth 6.25 BC. That is 100% absolutely equivalent to increasing the number of BTC.
investopedia.com/tech/how-does-bitcoin-mining-work/
"How Much a Miner Earns
The rewards for bitcoin mining are reduced by half every four years. When bitcoin was first mined in 2009, mining one block would earn you 50 BTC. In 2012, this was halved to 25 BTC. By 2016, this was halved again to 12.5 BTC. On May 11, 2020, the reward halved again to 6.25 BTC. "
I fail to understand your argument here. We agree that the number of Bitcoins is increasing due to mining rewards. The 21 million number is the ultimate cap on the number of Bitcoins that can exist, and is expected to be reached circa the year 2140. How is the payout rate being halved every four years relevant to anything? While miners are now getting 6.25 BC instead of the erstwhile 50 BC, the value (in dollars) thereof is much greater. Again, how is this relevant to anything?
It is a question of this "limited supply" argument. It isn't a "limited supply", it is an "infinitely divisible" supply.
Now, to some extent, that constant divisibility increases the $ denominated value as it is currently set up. 0.1 BTC does what 1.0 BTC used to do. But it is not "limited supply", it is intentional manipulation of the value. By design, bitcoin is being inflated in value by 50% every 4 years.
But such manipulation, though it favors increasing value now, is still manipulation. Specifically, it is manipulation of supply on a scale the Fed has never dreamed of.
I prefer ETH to BTC. I'm not even a BTC skeptic. However, I don't buy the "limited supply" when you effectively are creating more blocks and more BTC by intentionally manipulating the payout rate. When there were 21 million BTC (max) and the payout was 50 BTC per block, there were a maximum of 400,000 blocks. The blocks are the actual "unit of work". Now that we are down to 6.25 BTC, there are effectively 3 million (round numbers) blocks. 4 years from now, the payout will be 3.125 BTC and there are effectively 7 million blocks.
Again, not really an argument against BTC by itself. But it is an argument against "limited supply".
@jmlanzaf said:
This is such a fictional number. They have absolutely inflated the number by decreasing (by design) the payout rate for bitcoin mining even as the effort of the mining went up. So, when the work you do was once worth 50 BTC, it's now worth 6.25 BC. That is 100% absolutely equivalent to increasing the number of BTC.
investopedia.com/tech/how-does-bitcoin-mining-work/
"How Much a Miner Earns
The rewards for bitcoin mining are reduced by half every four years. When bitcoin was first mined in 2009, mining one block would earn you 50 BTC. In 2012, this was halved to 25 BTC. By 2016, this was halved again to 12.5 BTC. On May 11, 2020, the reward halved again to 6.25 BTC. "
I fail to understand your argument here. We agree that the number of Bitcoins is increasing due to mining rewards. The 21 million number is the ultimate cap on the number of Bitcoins that can exist, and is expected to be reached circa the year 2140. How is the payout rate being halved every four years relevant to anything? While miners are now getting 6.25 BC instead of the erstwhile 50 BC, the value (in dollars) thereof is much greater. Again, how is this relevant to anything?
It is a question of this "limited supply" argument. It isn't a "limited supply", it is an "infinitely divisible" supply.
Now, to some extent, that constant divisibility increases the $ denominated value as it is currently set up. 0.1 BTC does what 1.0 BTC used to do. But it is not "limited supply", it is intentional manipulation of the value. By design, bitcoin is being inflated in value by 50% every 4 years.
But such manipulation, though it favors increasing value now, is still manipulation. Specifically, it is manipulation of supply on a scale the Fed has never dreamed of.
I prefer ETH to BTC. I'm not even a BTC skeptic. However, I don't buy the "limited supply" when you effectively are creating more blocks and more BTC by intentionally manipulating the payout rate. When there were 21 million BTC (max) and the payout was 50 BTC per block, there were a maximum of 400,000 blocks. The blocks are the actual "unit of work". Now that we are down to 6.25 BTC, there are effectively 3 million (round numbers) blocks. 4 years from now, the payout will be 3.125 BTC and there are effectively 7 million blocks.
Again, not really an argument against BTC by itself. But it is an argument against "limited supply".
Paying people less to mine something is not equivalent to inflating that thing.
The situation is exactly analogous to gold. There is a capped fixed supply of total gold, already mined and still in the ground. Over time the "pay" for mining goes down because the more easily accessible gold is gone. At some point, miners decide it's not cost-effective to continue operations. Such economic decisions are also based on the dollar value of the commodity at the time, whether that commodity is gold or Bitcoin.
"inflating" might be the wrong word to use here as it brings a lot of baggage with it.
Comparisons to gold are also full of baggage and perhaps misleading given the non-physical nature of BTC.
@jmlanzaf said:
This is such a fictional number. They have absolutely inflated the number by decreasing (by design) the payout rate for bitcoin mining even as the effort of the mining went up. So, when the work you do was once worth 50 BTC, it's now worth 6.25 BC. That is 100% absolutely equivalent to increasing the number of BTC.
investopedia.com/tech/how-does-bitcoin-mining-work/
"How Much a Miner Earns
The rewards for bitcoin mining are reduced by half every four years. When bitcoin was first mined in 2009, mining one block would earn you 50 BTC. In 2012, this was halved to 25 BTC. By 2016, this was halved again to 12.5 BTC. On May 11, 2020, the reward halved again to 6.25 BTC. "
I fail to understand your argument here. We agree that the number of Bitcoins is increasing due to mining rewards. The 21 million number is the ultimate cap on the number of Bitcoins that can exist, and is expected to be reached circa the year 2140. How is the payout rate being halved every four years relevant to anything? While miners are now getting 6.25 BC instead of the erstwhile 50 BC, the value (in dollars) thereof is much greater. Again, how is this relevant to anything?
It is a question of this "limited supply" argument. It isn't a "limited supply", it is an "infinitely divisible" supply.
Now, to some extent, that constant divisibility increases the $ denominated value as it is currently set up. 0.1 BTC does what 1.0 BTC used to do. But it is not "limited supply", it is intentional manipulation of the value. By design, bitcoin is being inflated in value by 50% every 4 years.
But such manipulation, though it favors increasing value now, is still manipulation. Specifically, it is manipulation of supply on a scale the Fed has never dreamed of.
I prefer ETH to BTC. I'm not even a BTC skeptic. However, I don't buy the "limited supply" when you effectively are creating more blocks and more BTC by intentionally manipulating the payout rate. When there were 21 million BTC (max) and the payout was 50 BTC per block, there were a maximum of 400,000 blocks. The blocks are the actual "unit of work". Now that we are down to 6.25 BTC, there are effectively 3 million (round numbers) blocks. 4 years from now, the payout will be 3.125 BTC and there are effectively 7 million blocks.
Again, not really an argument against BTC by itself. But it is an argument against "limited supply".
Why do you prefer ETH?
The Ethereum network is an open-source block chain platform designed so that it can be adapted by other users. So, for example Docusign uses the ethereum network as a way of validating signatures on contracts. As such, there are real applications using the technology. Bitcoin doesn't have any application other than the actual "mining" of the bitcoin itself.
I can envision - and I've been wrong before - that the Ethereum network could become a financial platform that banks and brokers use to conduct business. There is no similar way to use bitcoin as it is designed.
It's also worth mentioning that if such a huge EM event happened, your bank balance and your stock portfolio and your bond portfolio all disappear also since they all exist as strictly digital assets these days. They don't issue stock certificates anymore, for example, and the Treasury doesn't issue paper bonds except for some EE for gift giving.
I have much greater confidence that the ownership of AMZN or APPL would not just disappear compared to a digital currency.
@Smudge said:
Isn’t Bitcoin also is totally dependent on a working power grid while gold is not, at least at the bullion level?
Absolutely. And when a geomagnetic storm of sufficient intensity hits the earth.... or a rogue nation sets off an EMT high above the USA... your bitcoin will likely be gone and worthless. But then again, so will many other things that depend on computers, voltage lines, etc.
It's not tinfoil hat theory, but real and has some pretty high chances of happening. Carrington event in 1859 resulted in burning telegraph wires and started some fires on railroad ties (the rails conducted high currents from the magnetic storm). That was back in much less technical times... the microcircuits of today would likely be devestated.
I guess you don't realize that the Internet (and Bitcoin) are global entities with significant amounts of redundancy built in. If you want to make financial decisions predicated on a natural phenomenon that hasn't happened since 1859, that's your prerogative. Your gold has a much higher chance of melting in a common fire.
To be fair, melted gold is still gold.
But it would take a much bigger event than 1859 to manage to wipe out all data on the planet with all the redundancies you mention.
It's also worth mentioning that if such a huge EM event happened, your bank balance and your stock portfolio and your bond portfolio all disappear also since they all exist as strictly digital assets these days. They don't issue stock certificates anymore, for example, and the Treasury doesn't issue paper bonds except for some EE for gift giving.
Melted gold is still gold, but there are disaster scenarios where recovery of said gold (to a specific owner) would probably cost more than it's worth, or impossible even, say in a thermonuclear explosion. There have been two of those in populated areas since 1859.
If there is a thermonuclear explosion there will be many more to follow and I'm pretty sure BT will be worthless at that point and hopefully your gold interest (if it even matters) will be accessible. If I was lucky enough to have bought some BT in the beginning I would have sold it the first time it started dropping from 20K. If I had the money to buy into it now, I would not. Too risky for the little guy.
The main point of the disaster discussion (for me, anyway) was to point out that physical assets are as vulnerable to loss as electronic assets. Cataclysmic disasters are so rare that it doesn't make sense to live in fear of them. As such, I'm not going to engage in any more discussion of specific scenarios except to say that assumptions about what they'd do to the value of specific assets are essentially guesswork.
When Bitcoin went to $20k in 2017, it was an obvious mania. It was the talk of every holiday party, CNBC started showing the price in real-time, and every mom and pop had to get in on the action. If I'd owned any at the time, I'd have sold. The current move is primarily based on large institutional buying and is therefore much more sustainable. An old top acts as price resistance. Once Bitcoin broke through $20k, it was a major technical buy signal, and the safest time to purchase it in years. If it pulls back to $20k and holds above, I'd advise jumping in with both feet!
It's also worth mentioning that if such a huge EM event happened, your bank balance and your stock portfolio and your bond portfolio all disappear also since they all exist as strictly digital assets these days. They don't issue stock certificates anymore, for example, and the Treasury doesn't issue paper bonds except for some EE for gift giving.
I have much greater confidence that the ownership of AMZN or APPL would not just disappear compared to a digital currency.
The ownership of AMZN and APPL are pretty much stored the same way that ownership of BTC is stored, which is the point.
I'd also point out that the huge EM event that fried everything would pretty much make AMZN and APPL worthless as they are digital companies.
@jmlanzaf said:
Comparisons to gold are also full of baggage and perhaps misleading given the non-physical nature of BTC.
Well, the thread is about comparing gold to Bitcoin, after all.
I think the analogy is apt, for the reasons I cited above. Both are assets with constrained supply. Bitcoin has far more utility in the modern economy and that is why I believe it will handily outperform gold price-wise. OTOH, I think it makes sense to hold both assets, as Bitcoin is more volatile and crypto is a rapidly changing landscape.
It's also worth mentioning that if such a huge EM event happened, your bank balance and your stock portfolio and your bond portfolio all disappear also since they all exist as strictly digital assets these days. They don't issue stock certificates anymore, for example, and the Treasury doesn't issue paper bonds except for some EE for gift giving.
I have much greater confidence that the ownership of AMZN or APPL would not just disappear compared to a digital currency.
The ownership of AMZN and APPL are pretty much stored the same way that ownership of BTC is stored, which is the point.
I'd also point out that the huge EM event that fried everything would pretty much make AMZN and APPL worthless as they are digital companies.
You really think the ownership of a $2 Trillion company would just be lost? You think people would just forget overnight that Jeff Bezos owns AMZN or Elon Musk would just fail to own TSLA. BlackRock and Vanguard would no longer own 5-10% of most publicly traded companies.
A real operating company that makes things and performs services that people value is not a “digital company” that just fails to exist one day like a man-made currency.
It's also worth mentioning that if such a huge EM event happened, your bank balance and your stock portfolio and your bond portfolio all disappear also since they all exist as strictly digital assets these days. They don't issue stock certificates anymore, for example, and the Treasury doesn't issue paper bonds except for some EE for gift giving.
I have much greater confidence that the ownership of AMZN or APPL would not just disappear compared to a digital currency.
The ownership of AMZN and APPL are pretty much stored the same way that ownership of BTC is stored, which is the point.
I'd also point out that the huge EM event that fried everything would pretty much make AMZN and APPL worthless as they are digital companies.
You really think the ownership of a $2 Trillion company would just be lost? You think people would just forget overnight that Jeff Bezos owns AMZN or Elon Musk would just fail to own TSLA. BlackRock and Vanguard would no longer own 5-10% of most publicly traded companies.
A real operating company that makes things and performs services that people value is not a “digital company” that just fails to exist one day like a man-made currency.
Jeff Bezos does not own AMZN. Elon Musk does not own TSLA. Those are publicly traded companies. The ownership of the company's shares is registered and stored digitally.
Bitcoin is not a digital entity. It is an asset that is owned. The ownership - like TSLA stock - is registered digitally. It isn't that the currency itself disappears, it's that the ownership record gets lost. The same applies to all of your banking. There isn't a pile of money in a bank vault with your name on it. There is a digital record of your being owed a certain number of dollars.
Do I think they would be lost in an EM storm? Unlikely due to system redundancy. But I also don't think the ownership of the BTC would be lost under the same circumstances. [Please remember the context of this discussion.]
And, yes, I do believe that if an EM event wipes out all the digital information, you will lose your Bitcoin and your bank accounts and your stocks and bonds and anything stored digitally. People don't have paper back-up anymore. They have magnetic back-up.
I was talking to a guy the other day who does bitcoin mining. I told him I looked into it but the electricity costs were ridiculous. He runs several mining setups and uses it to heat his house in the winter.
I started the thread on nov 25 with bitcoin at 19,000. A little over a month later it is at $31,000. I understand the skeptics but the reality is anyone who bought a month ago could sell today with a 63% gain. And buy that nice $10 gold proof in the OP with $12,000 left over.
@Gazes said:
I started the thread on nov 25 with bitcoin at 19,000. A little over a month later it is at $31,000. I understand the skeptics but the reality is anyone who bought a month ago could sell today with a 63% gain. And buy that nice $10 gold proof in the OP with $12,000 left over.
Like any bubble, the trick is knowing when to get out.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@Gazes said:
I started the thread on nov 25 with bitcoin at 19,000. A little over a month later it is at $31,000. I understand the skeptics but the reality is anyone who bought a month ago could sell today with a 63% gain. And buy that nice $10 gold proof in the OP with $12,000 left over.
Like any bubble, the trick is knowing when to get out.
About a week ago on CNBC, Josh Brown defined a "bubble" as "massive price appreciation of an asset you don't own".
@scubafuel said: @gazes it doesn’t worry you that it moved ~50% in a month?
Does Bitcoin at $31k gain any more utility than Bitcoin at $15k? Did gold also move 50%, perhaps due to massive global inflation?
If you’re honest, have you or anyone else you know ever used it for a transaction (other than maybe freeing your computer from ransomeware?)
Everyone I know holds it like an asset, but they tell me it’s going up because “everyone will be using this soon instead of dollars”.
Am i worried? If i had alot of money in it i would be holding my breath on the rollercoaster ride (i dont though). My post was just an observation---the gain as of today is real. It is also very liquid---someone can sell this in a second and make a nice gain. My guess is that at some point it will be down to 10,000 and up to 100,000. When and what order? I have no idea.
@Gazes said:
I started the thread on nov 25 with bitcoin at 19,000. A little over a month later it is at $31,000. I understand the skeptics but the reality is anyone who bought a month ago could sell today with a 63% gain. And buy that nice $10 gold proof in the OP with $12,000 left over.
Like any bubble, the trick is knowing when to get out.
About a week ago on CNBC, Josh Brown defined a "bubble" as "massive price appreciation of an asset you don't own".
The back story: Tether is supposedly another virtual currency that can be exchanged for Bitcoin. Unlike Bitcoin, Tether is purportedly tied to an actual currency reserve; however, repeated requests for transparency and audit through the years have never been fulfilled. Now it appears (based on the study at least) that Tether and a corporate alter ego manipulated the market for Bitcoin and is responsible for most of the last sharp price increase (back in 2017-2018). Can anyone say pump and dump?
Edited to add: Oh yeah, the other two companies are being investigated for fraud by the U.S. Department of Justice and the New York Attorney General's Office. Need I say more?
@scubafuel said: @gazes it doesn’t worry you that it moved ~50% in a month?
Does Bitcoin at $31k gain any more utility than Bitcoin at $15k? Did gold also move 50%, perhaps due to massive global inflation?
If you’re honest, have you or anyone else you know ever used it for a transaction (other than maybe freeing your computer from ransomeware?)
Everyone I know holds it like an asset, but they tell me it’s going up because “everyone will be using this soon instead of dollars”.
There have been countless great long-term investments that experienced huge short-term spikes, often followed by corrections and consolidation. Nothing to worry about in and of itself.
Bitcoin at $31k does have more utility in the sense that it indicates the base of holders is expanding.
Gold probably hasn't moved much because there are now better alternatives for hedging fiat currencies.
Yes, I've transacted in Bitcoin and (increasingly) will going forward.
Bitcoin is not the best crypto for small daily transactions, for technical reasons. The average transaction size is large and relatively infrequent. Think of a bank wire... without the bank. That still represents a lot more utility than gold offers.
@Gazes said:
I started the thread on nov 25 with bitcoin at 19,000. A little over a month later it is at $31,000. I understand the skeptics but the reality is anyone who bought a month ago could sell today with a 63% gain. And buy that nice $10 gold proof in the OP with $12,000 left over.
Like any bubble, the trick is knowing when to get out.
About a week ago on CNBC, Josh Brown defined a "bubble" as "massive price appreciation of an asset you don't own".
Sounds like some of you guys are "whistling in the dark".
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@scubafuel said: @gazes it doesn’t worry you that it moved ~50% in a month?
Everyone I know holds it like an asset, but they tell me it’s going up because “everyone will be using this soon instead of dollars”.
From what I've read, it seems more likely that people will be using bitcoin instead of gold. Already, a fairly large percentage of bitcoins are held by large and institutional investors, and not actively traded.
I bought some Bitcoin during the last run up a few years ago, and sold enough near the top to get my original investment out. I’ve just been letting my profits ride... it’s been pretty fun to watch.
@Gazes said:
I started the thread on nov 25 with bitcoin at 19,000. A little over a month later it is at $31,000. I understand the skeptics but the reality is anyone who bought a month ago could sell today with a 63% gain. And buy that nice $10 gold proof in the OP with $12,000 left over.
Like any bubble, the trick is knowing when to get out.
About a week ago on CNBC, Josh Brown defined a "bubble" as "massive price appreciation of an asset you don't own".
Sounds like some of you guys are "whistling in the dark".
No, we're laughing......... all the way to the bank.
@Gazes said:
I started the thread on nov 25 with bitcoin at 19,000. A little over a month later it is at $31,000. I understand the skeptics but the reality is anyone who bought a month ago could sell today with a 63% gain. And buy that nice $10 gold proof in the OP with $12,000 left over.
Like any bubble, the trick is knowing when to get out.
About a week ago on CNBC, Josh Brown defined a "bubble" as "massive price appreciation of an asset you don't own".
Sounds like some of you guys are "whistling in the dark".
No, we're laughing......... all the way to the bank.
@CoinscratchFever said:
I understand you can buy fractions. I may have to jump on the wagon for a while
I just bought another token amount ($1k) as a "terminator trade". I'm really rooting for a sizeable correction at this point, but the momentum probably carries it higher short-term. I'm guessing it'll test $50k at some point this year. Barring some seismic shift in the cryto and/or general economic landscapes, I don't see it retreating below $20k again (for long).
@Gazes said:
I started the thread on nov 25 with bitcoin at 19,000. A little over a month later it is at $31,000. I understand the skeptics but the reality is anyone who bought a month ago could sell today with a 63% gain. And buy that nice $10 gold proof in the OP with $12,000 left over.
Like any bubble, the trick is knowing when to get out.
About a week ago on CNBC, Josh Brown defined a "bubble" as "massive price appreciation of an asset you don't own".
Sounds like some of you guys are "whistling in the dark".
No, we're laughing......... all the way to the bank.
Does that bank hand out monopoly money too?
Hard to tell the difference between that and US dollars these days.
Maybe that's why no one is exchanging their Bitcoin for either.
@Gazes said:
I started the thread on nov 25 with bitcoin at 19,000. A little over a month later it is at $31,000. I understand the skeptics but the reality is anyone who bought a month ago could sell today with a 63% gain. And buy that nice $10 gold proof in the OP with $12,000 left over.
Like any bubble, the trick is knowing when to get out.
About a week ago on CNBC, Josh Brown defined a "bubble" as "massive price appreciation of an asset you don't own".
Sounds like some of you guys are "whistling in the dark".
No, we're laughing......... all the way to the bank.
Does that bank hand out monopoly money too?
Hard to tell the difference between that and US dollars these days.
Maybe that's why no one is exchanging their Bitcoin for either.
If people aren't exchanging it for real currency then what are they exchanging it for? Drugs? Grenade launchers? Other contraband? I thought the Silk Road was shut down by the feds.
It's hard to argue with where it was and where it seems to be going. I'm not gonna put all my eggs in one basket and I will the Vegas rule which is - Only bring what you can afford to lose.
@Gazes said:
I started the thread on nov 25 with bitcoin at 19,000. A little over a month later it is at $31,000. I understand the skeptics but the reality is anyone who bought a month ago could sell today with a 63% gain. And buy that nice $10 gold proof in the OP with $12,000 left over.
Like any bubble, the trick is knowing when to get out.
About a week ago on CNBC, Josh Brown defined a "bubble" as "massive price appreciation of an asset you don't own".
Sounds like some of you guys are "whistling in the dark".
No, we're laughing......... all the way to the bank.
Does that bank hand out monopoly money too?
Hard to tell the difference between that and US dollars these days.
Maybe that's why no one is exchanging their Bitcoin for either.
If people aren't exchanging it for real currency then what are they exchanging it for? Drugs? Grenade launchers? Other contraband? I thought the Silk Road was shut down by the feds.
You're taking my statement ("no one") too literally. Bitcoin buyers/holders are in control at the moment, and as long as the trajectory of the dollar is down, they're likely to remain so.
The monetary regime in my opinion is irredeemably broken. Besides the ordinary dramatic decline the dollar's purchasing power has experienced since 1973, the world's central banks have had to utilize ever increasing amounts of stimulus to avoid a deflationary vortex with only limited success, which they've also proven there's no way to retrieve.
The Federal Reserve pressed the peddle through the floorboards dramatically increasing the money supply, and is adding more each and every business day.
(https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2) The amount of excess liquidity in the system is unfathomable.
Banks are under incredible pressure to put the money out at ever lower yields with cash continuing to cascade in between bonds being called, mortgage prepayments, money market fund outflows, and now there's another round of stimulus payments that is almost certain now to be followed by at least one more near term.
It is pressure like this that led Europe to negative yields. Are we in the U.S. following suit?
The full impact of this stimulus has yet to be recognized to an appreciable degree in the financial markets.
Stocks, which have become detached from fundamentals, are acting more like technically traded commodities, as all this cash is struggling to find new homes.
Which brings us to PMs and cryptocurrencies. Gold has been in a trading range for the past several months, despite the dollar's continued weakness, greatly underperforming both cryptos and stocks. This suggests to me that there's a different dynamic at hand, which I believe can be attributed to the mindset of those who have embraced tech thoroughly in their lifestyles.
Not to upset anyone, as I am staunchly in favor of having a high proportion of my investments in PMs, but many now look at gold like a fossil fueled vehicle, ...something that in time is to become a thing of the past.
Cryptocurrencies have already shown that they're certainly vulnerable to events that cause extreme dislocation and maybe in the future, complete collapse; however, their acceptance and attraction at the moment are only gaining increasing amounts of attention.
It all comes down to whether these trends continue for years to come or not.
So, with my forming the opinion this week that they will, I put my first $s into Ethereum and Bitcoin this week--money I can afford to lose if I'm wrong.
Wouldnt the Gold actually... eventually... come out ahead as bit coin... money... will just remain a current currency and the coin will never become more readily available?
@PwrHsePro said:
Wouldnt the Gold actually... eventually... come out ahead as bit coin... money... will just remain a current currency and the coin will never become more readily available?
There are plenty of EMP proof storage solutions available for data systems / storage, so I don’t lose sleepover that possibility. Fiber optics are also EMP proof, and most networks run over them.
Comments
No. Not BS at all. The price is rising because of speculative demand. That is masking the intentional printing of more blocks/BTC.
The number is not decreasing because of the shrinking supply. I mean, it is, but it is built in to the formula. The payout drops 50% every 4 years until 2140 by design. This is effectively moving the decimal point on BTC value. Now 0.1 BTC does what 1.0 BTC used to do. That is equivalent to having 10x as much BTC.
Now, that doesn't make me bitcoin skeptical. However, I think this "limited supply" argument is a straw man. It's not a "limited supply" when the central "bank" can manipulate the value making smaller and smaller units.
Most of the rise in BTC is due to speculative demand which masks the natural inflating of the value that is going on. When 0.1 BTC does what 1.0 BTC used to do, then your $100 BTC is now a $1000 BTC. This is the opposite of a stable currency.
Can a very sophisticated hacker (state sponsored or otherwise) disrupt the bitcoin?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
To be fair, melted gold is still gold.
But it would take a much bigger event than 1859 to manage to wipe out all data on the planet with all the redundancies you mention.
It's also worth mentioning that if such a huge EM event happened, your bank balance and your stock portfolio and your bond portfolio all disappear also since they all exist as strictly digital assets these days. They don't issue stock certificates anymore, for example, and the Treasury doesn't issue paper bonds except for some EE for gift giving.
It is a question of this "limited supply" argument. It isn't a "limited supply", it is an "infinitely divisible" supply.
Now, to some extent, that constant divisibility increases the $ denominated value as it is currently set up. 0.1 BTC does what 1.0 BTC used to do. But it is not "limited supply", it is intentional manipulation of the value. By design, bitcoin is being inflated in value by 50% every 4 years.
But such manipulation, though it favors increasing value now, is still manipulation. Specifically, it is manipulation of supply on a scale the Fed has never dreamed of.
I prefer ETH to BTC. I'm not even a BTC skeptic. However, I don't buy the "limited supply" when you effectively are creating more blocks and more BTC by intentionally manipulating the payout rate. When there were 21 million BTC (max) and the payout was 50 BTC per block, there were a maximum of 400,000 blocks. The blocks are the actual "unit of work". Now that we are down to 6.25 BTC, there are effectively 3 million (round numbers) blocks. 4 years from now, the payout will be 3.125 BTC and there are effectively 7 million blocks.
Again, not really an argument against BTC by itself. But it is an argument against "limited supply".
If I turn a 100 ton supply of gold bars into 1 oz coins, I still have a 100 ton supply of gold.
Who claimed it was a stable currency? It's supply is limited. Two different things. ALL of the price rise is due to speculative demand. There is no natural price inflating going on.
"How many times can a man turn his head and pretend he just doesn’t see?” - Bob Dylan
That ignores the value judgment associated with it.
The actual unit of work here is not the BTC, it is the blocks that are unencrypted. It is these that are expanding.
If you want to use the gold bar metaphor which is fundamentally flawed, it is equivalent to dividing your 100 ton supply of gold bars into 1 oz coins, each of which has the same value as the original 100 tons.
You have a system that once contained only 400,000 blocks worth of BTC, that now contains 3 million blocks of BTC which in 4 years will contain 6 million blocks of BTC.
.> @jmlanzaf said:
Melted gold is still gold, but there are disaster scenarios where recovery of said gold (to a specific owner) would probably cost more than it's worth, or impossible even, say in a thermonuclear explosion. There have been two of those in populated areas since 1859.
Paying people less to mine something is not equivalent to inflating that thing.
The situation is exactly analogous to gold. There is a capped fixed supply of total gold, already mined and still in the ground. Over time the "pay" for mining goes down because the more easily accessible gold is gone. At some point, miners decide it's not cost-effective to continue operations. Such economic decisions are also based on the dollar value of the commodity at the time, whether that commodity is gold or Bitcoin.
If there is a thermonuclear explosion there will be many more to follow and I'm pretty sure BT will be worthless at that point and hopefully your gold interest (if it even matters) will be accessible. If I was lucky enough to have bought some BT in the beginning I would have sold it the first time it started dropping from 20K. If I had the money to buy into it now, I would not. Too risky for the little guy.
Remember the movie "The Book of Eli" in the aftermath the only commodities were water, the bible, and of course Mila Kunis
Why do you prefer ETH?
"inflating" might be the wrong word to use here as it brings a lot of baggage with it.
Comparisons to gold are also full of baggage and perhaps misleading given the non-physical nature of BTC.
The Ethereum network is an open-source block chain platform designed so that it can be adapted by other users. So, for example Docusign uses the ethereum network as a way of validating signatures on contracts. As such, there are real applications using the technology. Bitcoin doesn't have any application other than the actual "mining" of the bitcoin itself.
I can envision - and I've been wrong before - that the Ethereum network could become a financial platform that banks and brokers use to conduct business. There is no similar way to use bitcoin as it is designed.
https://www.bitrates.com/guides/ethereum/what-are-smart-contracts-how-they-work
I have much greater confidence that the ownership of AMZN or APPL would not just disappear compared to a digital currency.
The main point of the disaster discussion (for me, anyway) was to point out that physical assets are as vulnerable to loss as electronic assets. Cataclysmic disasters are so rare that it doesn't make sense to live in fear of them. As such, I'm not going to engage in any more discussion of specific scenarios except to say that assumptions about what they'd do to the value of specific assets are essentially guesswork.
When Bitcoin went to $20k in 2017, it was an obvious mania. It was the talk of every holiday party, CNBC started showing the price in real-time, and every mom and pop had to get in on the action. If I'd owned any at the time, I'd have sold. The current move is primarily based on large institutional buying and is therefore much more sustainable. An old top acts as price resistance. Once Bitcoin broke through $20k, it was a major technical buy signal, and the safest time to purchase it in years. If it pulls back to $20k and holds above, I'd advise jumping in with both feet!
The ownership of AMZN and APPL are pretty much stored the same way that ownership of BTC is stored, which is the point.
I'd also point out that the huge EM event that fried everything would pretty much make AMZN and APPL worthless as they are digital companies.
Well, the thread is about comparing gold to Bitcoin, after all.
I think the analogy is apt, for the reasons I cited above. Both are assets with constrained supply. Bitcoin has far more utility in the modern economy and that is why I believe it will handily outperform gold price-wise. OTOH, I think it makes sense to hold both assets, as Bitcoin is more volatile and crypto is a rapidly changing landscape.
You really think the ownership of a $2 Trillion company would just be lost? You think people would just forget overnight that Jeff Bezos owns AMZN or Elon Musk would just fail to own TSLA. BlackRock and Vanguard would no longer own 5-10% of most publicly traded companies.
A real operating company that makes things and performs services that people value is not a “digital company” that just fails to exist one day like a man-made currency.
Jeff Bezos does not own AMZN. Elon Musk does not own TSLA. Those are publicly traded companies. The ownership of the company's shares is registered and stored digitally.
Bitcoin is not a digital entity. It is an asset that is owned. The ownership - like TSLA stock - is registered digitally. It isn't that the currency itself disappears, it's that the ownership record gets lost. The same applies to all of your banking. There isn't a pile of money in a bank vault with your name on it. There is a digital record of your being owed a certain number of dollars.
Do I think they would be lost in an EM storm? Unlikely due to system redundancy. But I also don't think the ownership of the BTC would be lost under the same circumstances. [Please remember the context of this discussion.]
And, yes, I do believe that if an EM event wipes out all the digital information, you will lose your Bitcoin and your bank accounts and your stocks and bonds and anything stored digitally. People don't have paper back-up anymore. They have magnetic back-up.
Yup. Crazy, isn't it?
I was talking to a guy the other day who does bitcoin mining. I told him I looked into it but the electricity costs were ridiculous. He runs several mining setups and uses it to heat his house in the winter.
https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption
I started the thread on nov 25 with bitcoin at 19,000. A little over a month later it is at $31,000. I understand the skeptics but the reality is anyone who bought a month ago could sell today with a 63% gain. And buy that nice $10 gold proof in the OP with $12,000 left over.
@gazes it doesn’t worry you that it moved ~50% in a month?
Does Bitcoin at $31k gain any more utility than Bitcoin at $15k? Did gold also move 50%, perhaps due to massive global inflation?
If you’re honest, have you or anyone else you know ever used it for a transaction (other than maybe freeing your computer from ransomeware?)
Everyone I know holds it like an asset, but they tell me it’s going up because “everyone will be using this soon instead of dollars”.
Like any bubble, the trick is knowing when to get out.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
About a week ago on CNBC, Josh Brown defined a "bubble" as "massive price appreciation of an asset you don't own".
Am i worried? If i had alot of money in it i would be holding my breath on the rollercoaster ride (i dont though). My post was just an observation---the gain as of today is real. It is also very liquid---someone can sell this in a second and make a nice gain. My guess is that at some point it will be down to 10,000 and up to 100,000. When and what order? I have no idea.
Perfect!
"A single anonymous market manipulator caused bitcoin to top $20,000 two years ago, study shows":
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/04/study-single-anonymous-market-manipulator-pushed-bitcoin-to-20000.html
"Majority of bitcoin trading is a hoax, new study finds":
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/22/majority-of-bitcoin-trading-is-a-hoax-new-study-finds.html
"Most Bitcoin Trading Faked by Unregulated Exchanges, Study Finds":
https://www.wsj.com/articles/most-bitcoin-trading-faked-by-unregulated-exchanges-study-finds-11553259600?mod=hp_lead_pos7
The back story: Tether is supposedly another virtual currency that can be exchanged for Bitcoin. Unlike Bitcoin, Tether is purportedly tied to an actual currency reserve; however, repeated requests for transparency and audit through the years have never been fulfilled. Now it appears (based on the study at least) that Tether and a corporate alter ego manipulated the market for Bitcoin and is responsible for most of the last sharp price increase (back in 2017-2018). Can anyone say pump and dump?
Edited to add: Oh yeah, the other two companies are being investigated for fraud by the U.S. Department of Justice and the New York Attorney General's Office. Need I say more?
There have been countless great long-term investments that experienced huge short-term spikes, often followed by corrections and consolidation. Nothing to worry about in and of itself.
Bitcoin at $31k does have more utility in the sense that it indicates the base of holders is expanding.
Gold probably hasn't moved much because there are now better alternatives for hedging fiat currencies.
Yes, I've transacted in Bitcoin and (increasingly) will going forward.
Bitcoin is not the best crypto for small daily transactions, for technical reasons. The average transaction size is large and relatively infrequent. Think of a bank wire... without the bank. That still represents a lot more utility than gold offers.
I understand you can buy fractions. I may have to jump on the wagon for a while
Sounds like some of you guys are "whistling in the dark".
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
From what I've read, it seems more likely that people will be using bitcoin instead of gold. Already, a fairly large percentage of bitcoins are held by large and institutional investors, and not actively traded.
I bought some Bitcoin during the last run up a few years ago, and sold enough near the top to get my original investment out. I’ve just been letting my profits ride... it’s been pretty fun to watch.
No, we're laughing......... all the way to the bank.
Does that bank hand out monopoly money too?
I just bought another token amount ($1k) as a "terminator trade". I'm really rooting for a sizeable correction at this point, but the momentum probably carries it higher short-term. I'm guessing it'll test $50k at some point this year. Barring some seismic shift in the cryto and/or general economic landscapes, I don't see it retreating below $20k again (for long).
One man's opinion.
Why would it stop at $50,000?
Why not $500,000, or $50,000,000?
Once nothing is worth something,
it seems it can be "worth" anything
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Hard to tell the difference between that and US dollars these days.
Maybe that's why no one is exchanging their Bitcoin for either.
If people aren't exchanging it for real currency then what are they exchanging it for? Drugs? Grenade launchers? Other contraband? I thought the Silk Road was shut down by the feds.
It's hard to argue with where it was and where it seems to be going. I'm not gonna put all my eggs in one basket and I will the Vegas rule which is - Only bring what you can afford to lose.
The plains Indians probably felt the same way about the crazy white people scrambling for the yellow rocks.
Lots of "nothings" are worth something. All it takes is people wanting them.
You're taking my statement ("no one") too literally. Bitcoin buyers/holders are in control at the moment, and as long as the trajectory of the dollar is down, they're likely to remain so.
One other thing---if my worst problem is I have an asset that moved up 50% in one month---i'm ok with it
I’d probably feel the same way! Here’s hoping you guys can top-tick it.
At the start of this thread the price between the gold proof coin and bitcoin price were equal at ($19,000)
Today (January 8, 5:28 AM EST), a single bitcoin ($39,907) is more than twice the value of a gold proof coin ($19,000).
The monetary regime in my opinion is irredeemably broken. Besides the ordinary dramatic decline the dollar's purchasing power has experienced since 1973, the world's central banks have had to utilize ever increasing amounts of stimulus to avoid a deflationary vortex with only limited success, which they've also proven there's no way to retrieve.
The Federal Reserve pressed the peddle through the floorboards dramatically increasing the money supply, and is adding more each and every business day.
(https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2) The amount of excess liquidity in the system is unfathomable.
Banks are under incredible pressure to put the money out at ever lower yields with cash continuing to cascade in between bonds being called, mortgage prepayments, money market fund outflows, and now there's another round of stimulus payments that is almost certain now to be followed by at least one more near term.
It is pressure like this that led Europe to negative yields. Are we in the U.S. following suit?
The full impact of this stimulus has yet to be recognized to an appreciable degree in the financial markets.
Stocks, which have become detached from fundamentals, are acting more like technically traded commodities, as all this cash is struggling to find new homes.
Which brings us to PMs and cryptocurrencies. Gold has been in a trading range for the past several months, despite the dollar's continued weakness, greatly underperforming both cryptos and stocks. This suggests to me that there's a different dynamic at hand, which I believe can be attributed to the mindset of those who have embraced tech thoroughly in their lifestyles.
Not to upset anyone, as I am staunchly in favor of having a high proportion of my investments in PMs, but many now look at gold like a fossil fueled vehicle, ...something that in time is to become a thing of the past.
Cryptocurrencies have already shown that they're certainly vulnerable to events that cause extreme dislocation and maybe in the future, complete collapse; however, their acceptance and attraction at the moment are only gaining increasing amounts of attention.
It all comes down to whether these trends continue for years to come or not.
So, with my forming the opinion this week that they will, I put my first $s into Ethereum and Bitcoin this week--money I can afford to lose if I'm wrong.
Wouldnt the Gold actually... eventually... come out ahead as bit coin... money... will just remain a current currency and the coin will never become more readily available?
I mainly collect raw Ancients, PCGS Mercury Dimes, and raw CSA'S... but have misc other sets...Jeffhttps://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/mysetregistry/set/215647https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/mysetregistry/showcase/8378
You're ignoring demand.
There are plenty of EMP proof storage solutions available for data systems / storage, so I don’t lose sleepover that possibility. Fiber optics are also EMP proof, and most networks run over them.
While you guys were arguing my bitcoin doubled. Keep arguing, please.
"How many times can a man turn his head and pretend he just doesn’t see?” - Bob Dylan