@AUandAG said:
Mid 70's and I understand the crypto markets and just can't bring myself into investing real money into something that does not produce a product or service.
bob
There has been no such thing as 'real' money worldwide for decades.
@Cougar1978 said:
Not a speculator on crypto nor is it for me.
A friend in coin club borrowed money invest in coins in 89. Then came the 89 coin market crash and he had to file bankruptcy. But at least those still had a value even if just 20-40c on dollar. Could Crypto go to zero?
Lots of investors in FTX found out the hard way. I would never buy or invest in anything that hackers could access remotely. A sucker's bet imo. Yes, I know some have made out handsomely on these, but all Ponzi schems start out the same, and end the same.
No one invested in FTX. Users opened accounts and transferred funds to a Bahamas-based exchange and blindly trusted their legitimacy and solvency when they chose to leave their assets in the control of the exchange (in violation of the top tenant of crypto trading). It's not really a ponzi scheme, it would be no different than you use Ameritrade or Fidelity or any other company for your IRA or just investing in general. If they go out of business, your funds will be combined with everyone else's deposits and all of the firm's assets and paid out to creditors. I think when Peregrine went BK I got about 30% of my money back. Doesn't look like FTX creditors will be as lucky.
@AUandAG said:
Mid 70's and I understand the crypto markets and just can't bring myself into investing real money into something that does not produce a product or service.
bob
There has been no such thing as 'real' money worldwide for decades.
@Cougar1978 said:
Not a speculator on crypto nor is it for me.
A friend in coin club borrowed money invest in coins in 89. Then came the 89 coin market crash and he had to file bankruptcy. But at least those still had a value even if just 20-40c on dollar. Could Crypto go to zero?
Lots of investors in FTX found out the hard way. I would never buy or invest in anything that hackers could access remotely. A sucker's bet imo. Yes, I know some have made out handsomely on these, but all Ponzi schems start out the same, and end the same.
No one invested in FTX. Users opened accounts and transferred funds to a Bahamas-based exchange and blindly trusted their legitimacy and solvency when they chose to leave their assets in the control of the exchange (in violation of the top tenant of crypto trading). It's not really a ponzi scheme, it would be no different than you use Ameritrade or Fidelity or any other company for your IRA or just investing in general. If they go out of business, your funds will be combined with everyone else's deposits and all of the firm's assets and paid out to creditors. I think when Peregrine went BK I got about 30% of my money back. Doesn't look like FTX creditors will be as lucky.
Quite a few well known people including Tom Brady were given an equity stake in FTX as well as crypto.
Some of your posts are patently false. I would be careful as you may mislead people to deleterious effect.
I spent about $200 on various crypto through Coinbase about a year ago. You know when it was going crazy. I was skeptical so I only spent what I was willing to lose entirely. It increased to a value of $308.51. Currently it's worth $57.69. So yea.... I should have had a nice steak dinner. Alas, as I said. I only put in what I was willing to lose so I'm not to upset. I knew it could/probably would happen.
Collector of randomness. Photographer at PCGS. Lover of Harry Potter.
@fathom said:
Quite a few well known people including Tom Brady were given an equity stake in FTX as well as crypto.
I would consider getting compensated with equity different than investing. I don't think Batumi was referring to Tom Brady or even the institutional partners and investors.
Some of your posts are patently false. I would be careful as you may mislead people to deleterious effect.
@AUandAG said:
Mid 70's and I understand the crypto markets and just can't bring myself into investing real money into something that does not produce a product or service.
bob
There has been no such thing as 'real' money worldwide for decades.
@Cougar1978 said:
Not a speculator on crypto nor is it for me.
A friend in coin club borrowed money invest in coins in 89. Then came the 89 coin market crash and he had to file bankruptcy. But at least those still had a value even if just 20-40c on dollar. Could Crypto go to zero?
Lots of investors in FTX found out the hard way. I would never buy or invest in anything that hackers could access remotely. A sucker's bet imo. Yes, I know some have made out handsomely on these, but all Ponzi schems start out the same, and end the same.
No one invested in FTX. Users opened accounts and transferred funds to a Bahamas-based exchange and blindly trusted their legitimacy and solvency when they chose to leave their assets in the control of the exchange (in violation of the top tenant of crypto trading). It's not really a ponzi scheme, it would be no different than you use Ameritrade or Fidelity or any other company for your IRA or just investing in general. If they go out of business, your funds will be combined with everyone else's deposits and all of the firm's assets and paid out to creditors. I think when Peregrine went BK I got about 30% of my money back. Doesn't look like FTX creditors will be as lucky.
Quite a few well known people including Tom Brady were given an equity stake in FTX as well as crypto.
Some of your posts are patently false. I would be careful as you may mislead people to deleterious effect.
I've yet to see a "patently false" statement other than some of the anti-crypto comments.
@OAKSTAR said:
You can take one thing to the bank @ProofCollection. No one and I mean NO ONE understands crypto!
You ask 10 guys about crypto, you get 10 different answers!!!.........Guaranteed!!
Ask 10 people how the Federal Reserve works and you probably will have the same problem.
Well here it is. Wow. Sooooo easy and look, you can start throwing away small amounts so you get practice for losing big chunks.
This appeared on an app’s advertising reel , this morning 😂😂😂😂😂🙃
If I were to ever play with crypto I think the most I'd do is fool around with the crypto equivalent of penny stocks that have a nil downside and put in a sell order if it ever hit, say, a buck or something. I'm just not a bandwagon guy.
@AUandAG said:
Mid 70's and I understand the crypto markets and just can't bring myself into investing real money into something that does not produce a product or service.
bob
There has been no such thing as 'real' money worldwide for decades.
@Cougar1978 said:
Not a speculator on crypto nor is it for me.
A friend in coin club borrowed money invest in coins in 89. Then came the 89 coin market crash and he had to file bankruptcy. But at least those still had a value even if just 20-40c on dollar. Could Crypto go to zero?
Lots of investors in FTX found out the hard way. I would never buy or invest in anything that hackers could access remotely. A sucker's bet imo. Yes, I know some have made out handsomely on these, but all Ponzi schems start out the same, and end the same.
No one invested in FTX. Users opened accounts and transferred funds to a Bahamas-based exchange and blindly trusted their legitimacy and solvency when they chose to leave their assets in the control of the exchange (in violation of the top tenant of crypto trading). It's not really a ponzi scheme, it would be no different than you use Ameritrade or Fidelity or any other company for your IRA or just investing in general. If they go out of business, your funds will be combined with everyone else's deposits and all of the firm's assets and paid out to creditors. I think when Peregrine went BK I got about 30% of my money back. Doesn't look like FTX creditors will be as lucky.
Quite a few well known people including Tom Brady were given an equity stake in FTX as well as crypto.
Some of your posts are patently false. I would be careful as you may mislead people to deleterious effect.
I've yet to see a "patently false" statement other than some of the anti-crypto comments.
@OAKSTAR said:
You can take one thing to the bank @ProofCollection. No one and I mean NO ONE understands crypto!
You ask 10 guys about crypto, you get 10 different answers!!!.........Guaranteed!!
Ask 10 people how the Federal Reserve works and you probably will have the same problem.
The clear insinuation that crypto is safe once you place in a private wallet is pure nonsense. The statement that exchanges are the only risk is just not true. These are patent falsehoods and misleading.
@pmh1nic said:
I think there is a difference in hyping assets that have held value for centuries versus hyping an asset that most people really don't understand and that has only been around for 17 years. Try as it might the global acceptance of Bitcoin has been minimal and those that do accept it, realizing the volatility of the "currency", immediately convert it back to fiat.
What is the difference? Most people don't have a great understanding of most investments they make. From buying common date dipped Morgan and Peace dollars for $100+ to investing in startups and gambling in the highly regulated stock market, there's always been a lot of uneducated investment decisions going on. Crypto is just one more option in the grand scheme of things.
Beyond that the whole idea of a decentralized monetary system that is unregulated by the major governments of the world is a display of ignorance regarding why governments exist and the extent of their power, power that in large part extends from their ability to control monetary policy. This all sounds good to 21 year old college students but is foolishness to anyone that has a basic understanding of the global power structure. This is not a knock on blockchain technology and potential applications for that technology. It is a knock on the idea that that technology is the pathway to economic nirvana.
Crypto is sure a challenge to the global power structure, but as you pointed out the technology is young and we are probably just on the first iterations of something that will continue to evolve. One thing is certain: central bank currencies are doomed to fail. It's kind of nice to know that there is an alternative. And it's also nice to have a way to transfer value almost instantly across the globe with no 3rd party involvement, no 3rd party risk, and no censorship. It's pretty powerful when you think about it.
The difference is history. Plenty of history with PM’s, real estate, stocks, bonds, etc. versus a very volatile short history with crypto. The average person has some understand of how those other assets are created and traded versus crypto.
Crypto will never be allowed to grow beyond a novelty asset until governments can monitor, regulate, tax and ultimately control it. How many Fortune 500 companies give their employees the option to be paid in crypto? Does the SSA have any plans to offer that option to those collecting Social Security?
Again, some form of digital currency is in our future but it’s not going to be decentralized, unregulated and without the ability to be monitored and most importantly TAXED by governments. Anyone that says otherwise is living in a fantasy world.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@AUandAG said:
Mid 70's and I understand the crypto markets and just can't bring myself into investing real money into something that does not produce a product or service.
bob
There has been no such thing as 'real' money worldwide for decades.
@Cougar1978 said:
Not a speculator on crypto nor is it for me.
A friend in coin club borrowed money invest in coins in 89. Then came the 89 coin market crash and he had to file bankruptcy. But at least those still had a value even if just 20-40c on dollar. Could Crypto go to zero?
Lots of investors in FTX found out the hard way. I would never buy or invest in anything that hackers could access remotely. A sucker's bet imo. Yes, I know some have made out handsomely on these, but all Ponzi schems start out the same, and end the same.
No one invested in FTX. Users opened accounts and transferred funds to a Bahamas-based exchange and blindly trusted their legitimacy and solvency when they chose to leave their assets in the control of the exchange (in violation of the top tenant of crypto trading). It's not really a ponzi scheme, it would be no different than you use Ameritrade or Fidelity or any other company for your IRA or just investing in general. If they go out of business, your funds will be combined with everyone else's deposits and all of the firm's assets and paid out to creditors. I think when Peregrine went BK I got about 30% of my money back. Doesn't look like FTX creditors will be as lucky.
Quite a few well known people including Tom Brady were given an equity stake in FTX as well as crypto.
Some of your posts are patently false. I would be careful as you may mislead people to deleterious effect.
I've yet to see a "patently false" statement other than some of the anti-crypto comments.
@OAKSTAR said:
You can take one thing to the bank @ProofCollection. No one and I mean NO ONE understands crypto!
You ask 10 guys about crypto, you get 10 different answers!!!.........Guaranteed!!
Ask 10 people how the Federal Reserve works and you probably will have the same problem.
The clear insinuation that crypto is safe once you place in a private wallet is pure nonsense. The statement that exchanges are the only risk is just not true. These are patent falsehoods and misleading.
It depends on what you mean as "safe". It is as safe as your checking account. It's value isn't guaranteed but that is a separate issue.
@AUandAG said:
Mid 70's and I understand the crypto markets and just can't bring myself into investing real money into something that does not produce a product or service.
bob
There has been no such thing as 'real' money worldwide for decades.
@Cougar1978 said:
Not a speculator on crypto nor is it for me.
A friend in coin club borrowed money invest in coins in 89. Then came the 89 coin market crash and he had to file bankruptcy. But at least those still had a value even if just 20-40c on dollar. Could Crypto go to zero?
Lots of investors in FTX found out the hard way. I would never buy or invest in anything that hackers could access remotely. A sucker's bet imo. Yes, I know some have made out handsomely on these, but all Ponzi schems start out the same, and end the same.
No one invested in FTX. Users opened accounts and transferred funds to a Bahamas-based exchange and blindly trusted their legitimacy and solvency when they chose to leave their assets in the control of the exchange (in violation of the top tenant of crypto trading). It's not really a ponzi scheme, it would be no different than you use Ameritrade or Fidelity or any other company for your IRA or just investing in general. If they go out of business, your funds will be combined with everyone else's deposits and all of the firm's assets and paid out to creditors. I think when Peregrine went BK I got about 30% of my money back. Doesn't look like FTX creditors will be as lucky.
Quite a few well known people including Tom Brady were given an equity stake in FTX as well as crypto.
Some of your posts are patently false. I would be careful as you may mislead people to deleterious effect.
I've yet to see a "patently false" statement other than some of the anti-crypto comments.
@OAKSTAR said:
You can take one thing to the bank @ProofCollection. No one and I mean NO ONE understands crypto!
You ask 10 guys about crypto, you get 10 different answers!!!.........Guaranteed!!
Ask 10 people how the Federal Reserve works and you probably will have the same problem.
The clear insinuation that crypto is safe once you place in a private wallet is pure nonsense. The statement that exchanges are the only risk is just not true. These are patent falsehoods and misleading.
It depends on what you mean as "safe". It is as safe as your checking account. It's value isn't guaranteed but that is a separate issue.
The exchanges aren’t FDIC insured. As you said, the value isn’t guaranteed but the value of the dollar has never seen the type of devaluations that Bitcoin has seen over the last year.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@fathom said:
The clear insinuation that crypto is safe once you place in a private wallet is pure nonsense. The statement that exchanges are the only risk is just not true. These are patent falsehoods and misleading.
The insinuation is that you can avoid risk of loss such as we saw with FTX by holding your own crypto. Just like holding cash, coins, or bullion, you of course bear all responsibility for the security of your personal holdings of crypto. I don't believe I stated anywhere that it exchange risk was the only risk associated with crypto. I believe the only safe asset to hold is USD in an FDIC or FSLIC insured bank account, up to the limit of course, and that's only because of the insurance, and any other asset that is insured against loss/theft.
@pmh1nic said:
The difference is history. Plenty of history with PM’s, real estate, stocks, bonds, etc. versus a very volatile short history with crypto. The average person has some understand of how those other assets are created and traded versus crypto.
OK, so because it's new and maybe a little more complex than other assets we should have a prohibition on "hyping" new or complex assets? Where do you draw the line? And what are you advocating for? More regulation to protect consumers from themselves?
Crypto will never be allowed to grow beyond a novelty asset until governments can monitor, regulate, tax and ultimately control it. How many Fortune 500 companies give their employees the option to be paid in crypto? Does the SSA have any plans to offer that option to those collecting Social Security?
I wouldn't say never. Due to the decentralized nature it can grow unabated. Governments can already monitor, regulate, and tax crypto transactions. The US govt is doing it now. There are several theories and evidence that the US government created Bitcoin, the motivation being that it's far easier to track than cash, but that's beside the point. The only thing they can't do is control it (meaning software updates and supply). I don't know why they need to though. I'd note that many of the same issues apply to bullion.
Again, some form of digital currency is in our future but it’s not going to be decentralized, unregulated and without the ability to be monitored and most importantly TAXED by governments. Anyone that says otherwise is living in a fantasy world.
I think it's already been established here there there will be a digital dollar that will be equivalent to the dollar in your pocket. No debate there.
@pmh1nic said:
The exchanges aren’t FDIC insured. As you said, the value isn’t guaranteed but the value of the dollar has never seen the type of devaluations that Bitcoin has seen over the last year.
And neither are stock trading and other investment accounts. The value of the dollar also hasn't seen the type of increases the Bitcoin has seen over the past decade either. I don't think it's exactly fair to only look at when Bitcoin has gone down and ignore the times it has gone up.
@fathom said:
The clear insinuation that crypto is safe once you place in a private wallet is pure nonsense. The statement that exchanges are the only risk is just not true. These are patent falsehoods and misleading.
The insinuation is that you can avoid risk of loss such as we saw with FTX by holding your own crypto. Just like holding cash, coins, or bullion, you of course bear all responsibility for the security of your personal holdings of crypto. I don't believe I stated anywhere that it exchange risk was the only risk associated with crypto. I believe the only safe asset to hold is USD in an FDIC or FSLIC insured bank account, up to the limit of course, and that's only because of the insurance, and any other asset that is insured against loss/theft.
@pmh1nic said:
The difference is history. Plenty of history with PM’s, real estate, stocks, bonds, etc. versus a very volatile short history with crypto. The average person has some understand of how those other assets are created and traded versus crypto.
OK, so because it's new and maybe a little more complex than other assets we should have a prohibition on "hyping" new or complex assets? Where do you draw the line? And what are you advocating for? More regulation to protect consumers from themselves?
Crypto will never be allowed to grow beyond a novelty asset until governments can monitor, regulate, tax and ultimately control it. How many Fortune 500 companies give their employees the option to be paid in crypto? Does the SSA have any plans to offer that option to those collecting Social Security?
I wouldn't say never. Due to the decentralized nature it can grow unabated. Governments can already monitor, regulate, and tax crypto transactions. The US govt is doing it now. There are several theories and evidence that the US government created Bitcoin, the motivation being that it's far easier to track than cash, but that's beside the point. The only thing they can't do is control it (meaning software updates and supply). I don't know why they need to though. I'd note that many of the same issues apply to bullion.
Again, some form of digital currency is in our future but it’s not going to be decentralized, unregulated and without the ability to be monitored and most importantly TAXED by governments. Anyone that says otherwise is living in a fantasy world.
I think it's already been established here there there will be a digital dollar that will be equivalent to the dollar in your pocket. No debate there.
@pmh1nic said:
The exchanges aren’t FDIC insured. As you said, the value isn’t guaranteed but the value of the dollar has never seen the type of devaluations that Bitcoin has seen over the last year.
And neither are stock trading and other investment accounts. The value of the dollar also hasn't seen the type of increases the Bitcoin has seen over the past decade either. I don't think it's exactly fair to only look at when Bitcoin has gone down and ignore the times it has gone up.
I have nothing against new but the new has to convince my that it is a viable replacement for the old before I'm going to invest or rely on it. That hasn't happened and the events over the last year have pushed me further away from that acceptance.
Crypto may be "allowed" to grow but that allowance is going to come from major governments and financial institutions not from Michael Saylor, Kevin O'Leary and 101 YouTube influencers that don't understand the technology and apparently the power dynamics behind money and who controls it.
My reference to FDIC was related to a comment about bank accounts not investing.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@hvellente said:
Dr. Paul Krugman published an interesting and relevant editorial in today's New York Times. Before I quote the article, here's some background on Dr. Krugman:
He "is distinguished professor in the Graduate Center Economics Ph.D. program and distinguished scholar at the Luxembourg Income Study Center at the City University of New York. In addition, he is professor emeritus at the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs. In 2008, Mr. Krugman was the sole recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on international trade theory. Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from M.I.T. in 1977. He has taught at Yale, M.I.T. and Stanford. At M.I.T. he became the Ford International Professor of Economics."
Below, please find a selection of relevant quotes from the aforesaid editorial:
"Recent events have made clear the need to regulate crypto ... it also seems likely that the industry couldn’t survive regulation."
"Still, asset prices plunge all the time. People who bought stock in Meta, the company formerly known as Facebook, at its peak last year have lost around as much as investors in Bitcoin have."
"So falling prices needn’t mean that cryptocurrencies are doomed. Crypto boosters surely won’t give up."
"The question we should ask is why institutions like FTX or Terra ... were created in the first place."
"... the whole idea was that electronic tokens whose validity was established with techniques borrowed from cryptography would make it possible for people to bypass financial institutions."
"It has never been clear exactly why anyone other than criminals would want to do this. Still, the idea of a monetary system that wouldn’t require trust in financial institutions was interesting, and arguably worth trying."
"After 14 years, however, cryptocurrencies have made almost no inroads into the traditional role of money. They’re too awkward to use for ordinary transactions. Their values are too unstable. In fact, relatively few investors can even be bothered to hold their crypto keys themselves — too much risk of losing them by, say, putting them on a hard drive that ends up in a landfill."
"Instead, cryptocurrencies are largely purchased through exchanges like Coinbase and, yes, FTX, which take your money and hold crypto tokens in your name."
"These exchanges are — wait for it — financial institutions, whose ability to attract investors depends on — wait for it again — those investors’ trust. In other words, the crypto ecosystem has basically evolved into exactly what it was supposed to replace: a system of financial intermediaries whose ability to operate depends on their perceived trustworthiness."
"As boosters love to remind us, previous predictions of crypto’s imminent demise have proved wrong. Indeed, the fact that Bitcoin and its rivals aren’t really usable as money needn’t mean that they become worthless — you can, after all, say the same thing about gold."
"But if the government finally moves in to regulate crypto firms ... it’s hard to see what advantage these firms would have over ordinary banks. Even if the value of Bitcoin doesn’t go to zero (which it still might), there’s a strong case that the crypto industry ... is headed for oblivion."
So, there you have it, from one very smart and highly-qualified expert in his field.
I sincrely doubt the article will sway any crypto boosters, but, luckily, I sincerely don't care
PS: I collect coins as a hobby, not an investment, and I have no interest in crypto beyond the comedy of its rise and fall.
PPS: I'm always surprised that so many boosters of gold, silver, and crypto - all of whom must have earned large fortunes in their fields through cunning and expertise - have time to sh*tpost in threads on a collectors forum. If you were really that successful in your respective investments I doubt you'd have time or interest in reading or contributing to this thread. But here you all are, crypto millionaires.
@hvellente said:
Dr. Paul Krugman published an interesting and relevant editorial in today's New York Times. Before I quote the article, here's some background on Dr. Krugman:
He "is distinguished professor in the Graduate Center Economics Ph.D. program and distinguished scholar at the Luxembourg Income Study Center at the City University of New York. In addition, he is professor emeritus at the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs. In 2008, Mr. Krugman was the sole recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on international trade theory. Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from M.I.T. in 1977. He has taught at Yale, M.I.T. and Stanford. At M.I.T. he became the Ford International Professor of Economics."
Below, please find a selection of relevant quotes from the aforesaid editorial:
"Recent events have made clear the need to regulate crypto ... it also seems likely that the industry couldn’t survive regulation."
"Still, asset prices plunge all the time. People who bought stock in Meta, the company formerly known as Facebook, at its peak last year have lost around as much as investors in Bitcoin have."
"So falling prices needn’t mean that cryptocurrencies are doomed. Crypto boosters surely won’t give up."
"The question we should ask is why institutions like FTX or Terra ... were created in the first place."
"... the whole idea was that electronic tokens whose validity was established with techniques borrowed from cryptography would make it possible for people to bypass financial institutions."
"It has never been clear exactly why anyone other than criminals would want to do this. Still, the idea of a monetary system that wouldn’t require trust in financial institutions was interesting, and arguably worth trying."
"After 14 years, however, cryptocurrencies have made almost no inroads into the traditional role of money. They’re too awkward to use for ordinary transactions. Their values are too unstable. In fact, relatively few investors can even be bothered to hold their crypto keys themselves — too much risk of losing them by, say, putting them on a hard drive that ends up in a landfill."
"Instead, cryptocurrencies are largely purchased through exchanges like Coinbase and, yes, FTX, which take your money and hold crypto tokens in your name."
"These exchanges are — wait for it — financial institutions, whose ability to attract investors depends on — wait for it again — those investors’ trust. In other words, the crypto ecosystem has basically evolved into exactly what it was supposed to replace: a system of financial intermediaries whose ability to operate depends on their perceived trustworthiness."
"As boosters love to remind us, previous predictions of crypto’s imminent demise have proved wrong. Indeed, the fact that Bitcoin and its rivals aren’t really usable as money needn’t mean that they become worthless — you can, after all, say the same thing about gold."
"But if the government finally moves in to regulate crypto firms ... it’s hard to see what advantage these firms would have over ordinary banks. Even if the value of Bitcoin doesn’t go to zero (which it still might), there’s a strong case that the crypto industry ... is headed for oblivion."
So, there you have it, from one very smart and highly-qualified expert in his field.
I sincrely doubt the article will sway any crypto boosters, but, luckily, I sincerely don't care
PS: I collect coins as a hobby, not an investment, and I have no interest in crypto beyond the comedy of its rise and fall.
PPS: I'm always surprised that so many boosters of gold, silver, and crypto - all of whom must have earned large fortunes in their fields through cunning and expertise - have time to sh*tpost in threads on a collectors forum. If you were really that successful in your respective investments I doubt you'd have time or interest in reading or contributing to this thread. But here you all are, crypto millionaires.
@pmh1nic said:
I have nothing against new but the new has to convince my that it is a viable replacement for the old before I'm going to invest or rely on it. That hasn't happened and the events over the last year have pushed me further away from that acceptance.
Why does it have to be a replacement? Why can't it be in addition to what's already there? Face it: Digital assets are a new asset class. It's not for everyone just like real estate or PMs aren't for every body. But if you want a diverse portfolio you will want to be in digital assets.
Crypto may be "allowed" to grow but that allowance is going to come from major governments and financial institutions not from Michael Saylor, Kevin O'Leary and 101 YouTube influencers that don't understand the technology and apparently the power dynamics behind money and who controls it.
You don't get it. Decentralized crypto networks can't be allowed or disallowed except through Internet access. If any government pulled Internet access there would be riots. What gives Bitcoin its value is the millions of users around the world. While a government can prohibit certain uses by licensed entities (mostly banks) within its borders, they can't stop a person with a computer and internet in country A from sending a Bitcoin to a person in country B and receiving something for it in return.
@hvellente said:
Dr. Paul Krugman published an interesting and relevant editorial in today's New York Times. Before I quote the article, here's some background on Dr. Krugman:
Nice article from what I can tell but I can't see it due to the pay wall. In your quotes there are a few inaccuracies or unfair statements so I'm not sure he can be entirely trusted.
"Recent events have made clear the need to regulate crypto ... it also seems likely that the industry couldn’t survive regulation."
I'd be curious what kind of regulation he's referring to. There are already plenty of regulations, the one that's really up in the air is the question about which cryptos are securities and the definitions thereof. Once that determination is made either the existing laws kick in or a new set of laws will be created. That will give US companies the direction the need to proceed into the space with confidence. Other regulations to require exchanges to hold crypto funds 1:1 with customer deposits would be helpful also, although all/most US exchanges claim to do this already. What else is needed?
It's really the lack of regulation that is killing the industry. Regulation will propel the space once US companies understand what they can and can't legally do.
"The question we should ask is why institutions like FTX or Terra ... were created in the first place."
He clearly doesn't understand that there are pros and cons to centralize and decentralized exchanges and there is a place for both. Terra was created because we don't have a crypto US dollar so the industry has had to step up and create one.
"... the whole idea was that electronic tokens whose validity was established with techniques borrowed from cryptography would make it possible for people to bypass financial institutions."
And it is possible. That doesn't mean the two can never intermingle.
"It has never been clear exactly why anyone other than criminals would want to do this. Still, the idea of a monetary system that wouldn’t require trust in financial institutions was interesting, and arguably worth trying."
I guess he already forgot about or doesn't remember when people tried to donate money to the protesting truckers in Canada and those donations were censored. Or he thinks we should continue to pay high fees and endure delays and inconvenience for transacting money when cheaper, faster, easier methods exist.
"After 14 years, however, cryptocurrencies have made almost no inroads into the traditional role of money. They’re too awkward to use for ordinary transactions. Their values are too unstable. In fact, relatively few investors can even be bothered to hold their crypto keys themselves — too much risk of losing them by, say, putting them on a hard drive that ends up in a landfill."
Again, the industry is young. The technology is improving and getting better. The Internet was pretty hard and awkward and slow to use in its early days too. Crypto today is already far easier to use than it was 5 years ago. There is no reason to expect that not to continue to improve.
"Instead, cryptocurrencies are largely purchased through exchanges like Coinbase and, yes, FTX, which take your money and hold crypto tokens in your name."
"These exchanges are — wait for it — financial institutions, whose ability to attract investors depends on — wait for it again — those investors’ trust. In other words, the crypto ecosystem has basically evolved into exactly what it was supposed to replace: a system of financial intermediaries whose ability to operate depends on their perceived trustworthiness."
While the exchanges will gladly store your crypto, you don't have to trust them for more than a few minutes if you don't want to. And if you eschew the CEX's, you can always use a DEX. Again there are places for both, each with their own pros and cons.
"As boosters love to remind us, previous predictions of crypto’s imminent demise have proved wrong. Indeed, the fact that Bitcoin and its rivals aren’t really usable as money needn’t mean that they become worthless — you can, after all, say the same thing about gold."
"But if the government finally moves in to regulate crypto firms ... it’s hard to see what advantage these firms would have over ordinary banks. Even if the value of Bitcoin doesn’t go to zero (which it still might), there’s a strong case that the crypto industry ... is headed for oblivion."
Again, what regulations?
although I couldn't see the article, just these quotes, I'm not sure that he's made the "strong case" that the industry is headed for oblivion. Amazon and Facebook were hiring crypto teams earlier this year. The biggest companies in the world have crypto plans including Elon. I don't see why any of that would have or will change.
So, there you have it, from one very smart and highly-qualified expert in his field.
I sincrely doubt the article will sway any crypto boosters, but, luckily, I sincerely don't care
PS: I collect coins as a hobby, not an investment, and I have no interest in crypto beyond the comedy of its rise and fall.
I'm curious why you think it's fallen? Because Bitcoin went from pennies to $69k and back down to $16k in just over a decade?
PPS: I'm always surprised that so many boosters of gold, silver, and crypto - all of whom must have earned large fortunes in their fields through cunning and expertise - have time to sh*tpost in threads on a collectors forum. If you were really that successful in your respective investments I doubt you'd have time or interest in reading or contributing to this thread. But here you all are, crypto millionaires.
I would argue that you have time to post because of success, not failure. Both can be true.
@ProofCollection said:
Nice article from what I can tell but I can't see it due to the pay wall. In your quotes there are a few inaccuracies or unfair statements so I'm not sure he can be entirely trusted.
Another vague, unsupported statement.
Paywall? It's the New York Times, go to the library and read a copy.
Meanwhile, please cite the "inaccuracies or unfair statements" among the quotes I cited. I'll wait here... still waiting...
Um, my entire post addressed them. Did you read it?
It's really the lack of regulation that is killing the industry. Regulation will propel the space once US companies understand what they can and can't legally do.
You make grandiose claims without any supporting evidence. The esteemed Dr. Krugman clearly wrote that crypto won't survive regulation. It's right there in the quotes I posted... On what grounds do you disagree with his argument? Can you cite a source with equal or similar qualification?
I'm in the industry. The evidence is empirical. Several crypto projects have launched and been attacked and shut down by the SEC. Several more companies have plans but because they don't know if the SEC will go after them, they are holding back or launching overseas. There are several overseas projects and exchanges which would would love to open to US customers but won't. Not because they don't want to comply with our laws but because there is no certainty about what the laws are.
"The question we should ask is why institutions like FTX or Terra ... were created in the first place."
He clearly doesn't understand that there are pros and cons to centralize and decentralized exchanges and there is a place for both. Terra was created because we don't have a crypto US dollar so the industry has had to step up and create one.
The NOBEL PRIZE winning professor doesn't understand ...????!!!
Obviously not. Otherwise why would he ask that question? Do you not believe me that there are pros and cons to centralized and decentralized exchanges? Will listing them out here? If there are advantages to be centralized would that not be a reason to create an institution like FTX? And how he could not see the utility of the Terra stable coin demonstrates either dishonesty or ignorance. The only valid reason against creating Terra was that there were already competitors so you could argue that yet another one wasn't needed.
"It has never been clear exactly why anyone other than criminals would want to do this. Still, the idea of a monetary system that wouldn’t require trust in financial institutions was interesting, and arguably worth trying."
I guess he already forgot about or doesn't remember when people tried to donate money to the protesting truckers in Canada and those donations were censored. Or he thinks we should continue to pay high fees and endure delays and inconvenience for transacting money when cheaper, faster, easier methods exist.
But the truckers were criminals, that's why the Canadian gov't blocked the donations. Besides, Krugman specifically said that crypto was interesting and arguably worth trying... it's right there!
It's disappointing and scary that people would support or justify the efforts of government to stop what is free speech. It shouldn't matter how you feel about that particular incident as you may support whatever the cause is next time. The freedom to support a group and the ability to receive support without the need for 3rd party support should be viewed as a valuable thing. Only tyrannical bureaucrats (and evidently nobel prize winners) should disagree.
I can't even continue... my head hurts after reading this. You really know more than the highly esteemed professor who wrote the article I quoted? I bow before you sir!
@pmh1nic said:
I have nothing against new but the new has to convince my that it is a viable replacement for the old before I'm going to invest or rely on it. That hasn't happened and the events over the last year have pushed me further away from that acceptance.
Why does it have to be a replacement? Why can't it be in addition to what's already there? Face it: Digital assets are a new asset class. It's not for everyone just like real estate or PMs aren't for every body. But if you want a diverse portfolio you will want to be in digital assets.
Crypto may be "allowed" to grow but that allowance is going to come from major governments and financial institutions not from Michael Saylor, Kevin O'Leary and 101 YouTube influencers that don't understand the technology and apparently the power dynamics behind money and who controls it.
You don't get it. Decentralized crypto networks can't be allowed or disallowed except through Internet access. If any government pulled Internet access there would be riots. What gives Bitcoin its value is the millions of users around the world. While a government can prohibit certain uses by licensed entities (mostly banks) within its borders, they can't stop a person with a computer and internet in country A from sending a Bitcoin to a person in country B and receiving something for it in return.
@hvellente said:
Dr. Paul Krugman published an interesting and relevant editorial in today's New York Times. Before I quote the article, here's some background on Dr. Krugman:
Nice article from what I can tell but I can't see it due to the pay wall. In your quotes there are a few inaccuracies or unfair statements so I'm not sure he can be entirely trusted.
"Recent events have made clear the need to regulate crypto ... it also seems likely that the industry couldn’t survive regulation."
I'd be curious what kind of regulation he's referring to. There are already plenty of regulations, the one that's really up in the air is the question about which cryptos are securities and the definitions thereof. Once that determination is made either the existing laws kick in or a new set of laws will be created. That will give US companies the direction the need to proceed into the space with confidence. Other regulations to require exchanges to hold crypto funds 1:1 with customer deposits would be helpful also, although all/most US exchanges claim to do this already. What else is needed?
It's really the lack of regulation that is killing the industry. Regulation will propel the space once US companies understand what they can and can't legally do.
"The question we should ask is why institutions like FTX or Terra ... were created in the first place."
He clearly doesn't understand that there are pros and cons to centralize and decentralized exchanges and there is a place for both. Terra was created because we don't have a crypto US dollar so the industry has had to step up and create one.
"... the whole idea was that electronic tokens whose validity was established with techniques borrowed from cryptography would make it possible for people to bypass financial institutions."
And it is possible. That doesn't mean the two can never intermingle.
"It has never been clear exactly why anyone other than criminals would want to do this. Still, the idea of a monetary system that wouldn’t require trust in financial institutions was interesting, and arguably worth trying."
I guess he already forgot about or doesn't remember when people tried to donate money to the protesting truckers in Canada and those donations were censored. Or he thinks we should continue to pay high fees and endure delays and inconvenience for transacting money when cheaper, faster, easier methods exist.
"After 14 years, however, cryptocurrencies have made almost no inroads into the traditional role of money. They’re too awkward to use for ordinary transactions. Their values are too unstable. In fact, relatively few investors can even be bothered to hold their crypto keys themselves — too much risk of losing them by, say, putting them on a hard drive that ends up in a landfill."
Again, the industry is young. The technology is improving and getting better. The Internet was pretty hard and awkward and slow to use in its early days too. Crypto today is already far easier to use than it was 5 years ago. There is no reason to expect that not to continue to improve.
"Instead, cryptocurrencies are largely purchased through exchanges like Coinbase and, yes, FTX, which take your money and hold crypto tokens in your name."
"These exchanges are — wait for it — financial institutions, whose ability to attract investors depends on — wait for it again — those investors’ trust. In other words, the crypto ecosystem has basically evolved into exactly what it was supposed to replace: a system of financial intermediaries whose ability to operate depends on their perceived trustworthiness."
While the exchanges will gladly store your crypto, you don't have to trust them for more than a few minutes if you don't want to. And if you eschew the CEX's, you can always use a DEX. Again there are places for both, each with their own pros and cons.
"As boosters love to remind us, previous predictions of crypto’s imminent demise have proved wrong. Indeed, the fact that Bitcoin and its rivals aren’t really usable as money needn’t mean that they become worthless — you can, after all, say the same thing about gold."
"But if the government finally moves in to regulate crypto firms ... it’s hard to see what advantage these firms would have over ordinary banks. Even if the value of Bitcoin doesn’t go to zero (which it still might), there’s a strong case that the crypto industry ... is headed for oblivion."
Again, what regulations?
although I couldn't see the article, just these quotes, I'm not sure that he's made the "strong case" that the industry is headed for oblivion. Amazon and Facebook were hiring crypto teams earlier this year. The biggest companies in the world have crypto plans including Elon. I don't see why any of that would have or will change.
So, there you have it, from one very smart and highly-qualified expert in his field.
I sincrely doubt the article will sway any crypto boosters, but, luckily, I sincerely don't care
PS: I collect coins as a hobby, not an investment, and I have no interest in crypto beyond the comedy of its rise and fall.
I'm curious why you think it's fallen? Because Bitcoin went from pennies to $69k and back down to $16k in just over a decade?
PPS: I'm always surprised that so many boosters of gold, silver, and crypto - all of whom must have earned large fortunes in their fields through cunning and expertise - have time to sh*tpost in threads on a collectors forum. If you were really that successful in your respective investments I doubt you'd have time or interest in reading or contributing to this thread. But here you all are, crypto millionaires.
I would argue that you have time to post because of success, not failure. Both can be true.
It's not going to be both because major governments are not going to share control of any significant segment of the economy with an unregulated form of commerce that cannot be monitored, taxed and controlled by those governments. Those digital assets rely on faith and faith in those digital assets have taken a beating over the last year.
The government can selective shutdown whatever they deem is undesirable. It's being done in China and it can be done here.
The value of all Bitcoin dropped from about $1.2 trillion a year ago to $318 billion today. That's less than gold, silver and even palladium. It's a novelty asset the value of which has dropped on the level of great depression era losses in the stock market.
Riots? Were there riots in 2008? Were there riots in 2020 when the government shut everything down due to the pandemic? The government will shut of access to "protect the public" and then develop a way to transfer those assets into the new government regulated and control digital currency at whatever rate they deem is fair.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
But for the record, Bitcoin has been a very good store of wealth but like with any asset it's a matter of timing. The reality is, raising interest rates is very bullish for the dollar so when you buy BTC with USD, you go long BTC and short the USD which was a bad move. The strong dollar has been bad for the price of many assets including stocks. The USD bull will continue as long as the fed keeps raising rates. It's not a reflection of the quality of other asset classes as it is just relative performance.
No, it hasn't. If it were a good store of wealth then you would be able to put $121,000 into Bitcoin and have great confidence that ten years from now you could take that Bitcoin and buy a Tesla Model X. Bitcoin has had an incredible return, but being able to buy 400 Teslas ten years from now with your Bitcoin would make it not a store of wealth.
The dollar is only middling good as a store of wealth. Even if the Fed achieves its goal and we reduce inflation to 2%, the $121,000 you bury in a coffee can in your backyard would only buy 82% of a Tesla in ten years. But at least it's fairly predictable. If you substitute "a basket of goods and services currently costing $121,000" for the Tesla you can reasonably assume you'll be able to buy between 50 and 110% of that basket. Not great, but far better range than Bitcoin.
This is why people seek out gold, in general, because the 50-110% range in the dollar is too much.
Edited to add:
Regulation is not a magic cure, BTW. I lost money with Peregrine when they went bankrupt. People lost tons with Madoff. If Ameritrade or Fidelity go broke you will lose funds.
Perhaps you don't understand how brokerage accounts work. Since you used Fidelity as an example, I'll just note that not only is your Fidelity account insured for $500,000 through SIPC, but they are also insured through Lloyd's of London for an aggregate $1 Billion over the $500,000 each.
This doesn't mean that you'll automatically recover the $200 per share you paid for Facebook, just that you'll get the 500 shares you purchased if Fidelity goes bankrupt.
@hvellente said:
Dr. Paul Krugman published an interesting and relevant editorial in today's New York Times. Before I quote the article, here's some background on Dr. Krugman:
He "is distinguished professor in the Graduate Center Economics Ph.D. program and distinguished scholar at the Luxembourg Income Study Center at the City University of New York. In addition, he is professor emeritus at the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs. In 2008, Mr. Krugman was the sole recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on international trade theory. Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from M.I.T. in 1977. He has taught at Yale, M.I.T. and Stanford. At M.I.T. he became the Ford International Professor of Economics."
This is the man who James Taranto (WSJ Opinion Journalist) calls "former Enron adviser Paul Krugman".
Riots? Were there riots in 2008? Were there riots in 2020 when the government shut everything down due to the pandemic? The government will shut of access to "protect the public" and then develop a way to transfer those assets into the new government regulated and control digital currency at whatever rate they deem is fair.
I don't remember about 2008, but I clearly remember the "mostly peaceful protests" in 2020. The ostensible causes were different, but few of the riots would have happened if people weren't locked down.
Actually, I think that article is far more balanced than your selective emphasis suggests.
Would you care to elucidate? Go on, I'll wait here... Meanwhile...
I was far less selective than your comment suggests. In fact, I was downright generous. For example, I purposefully included, and sometimes emphasized, the following quotes from the editorial:
"Still, asset prices plunge all the time. People who bought stock in Meta, the company formerly known as Facebook, at its peak last year have lost around as much as investors in Bitcoin have."
"So falling prices needn’t mean that cryptocurrencies are doomed."
"Still, the idea of a monetary system that wouldn’t require trust in financial institutions was interesting, and arguably worth trying."
"... previous predictions of crypto’s imminent demise have proved wrong. Indeed, the fact that Bitcoin and its rivals aren’t really usable as money needn’t mean that they become worthless — you can, after all, say the same thing about gold."
Taken out of context, any of these quotes would support the crypto fanaticism, and I included them here to balance the discussion.
So, what were you saying?
Exactly that. While he lands on a negative- and he has no crystal ball- he points out many positives. And he actually draws parallels between gold and crypto which would make most of the anti-crypto crowd blanch.
Edited to add:
Regulation is not a magic cure, BTW. I lost money with Peregrine when they went bankrupt. People lost tons with Madoff. If Ameritrade or Fidelity go broke you will lose funds.
Perhaps you don't understand how brokerage accounts work. Since you used Fidelity as an example, I'll just note that not only is your Fidelity account insured for $500,000 through SIPC, but they are also insured through Lloyd's of London for an aggregate $1 Billion over the $500,000 each.
This doesn't mean that you'll automatically recover the $200 per share you paid for Facebook, just that you'll get the 500 shares you purchased if Fidelity goes bankrupt.
If Fidelity fails, the government can't honor the SIPC pledge, and Lloyd's can't meet its obligations then we all have much bigger problems.
Thank you, I should have researched that more and wrongfully assumed that what happened to my Peregrine account would happen at other brokers. When I lost my Peregrine account I didn't have shares of anything in it but I certainly did not get my full account balance back. I'll have to figure out why my account wasn't covered by any insurance.
@pmh1nic said:
It's not going to be both because major governments are not going to share control of any significant segment of the economy with an unregulated form of commerce that cannot be monitored, taxed and controlled by those governments. Those digital assets rely on faith and faith in those digital assets have taken a beating over the last year.
You're still not admitting that there are plenty of forms of commerce that cannot be monitored, taxed, and controlled such as federal reserve notes and gold and silver bullion and do not recognize that crypto is not exempt from these things wither.
Monitoring: Crypto can be monitored far easier than cash, gold, or silver transactions as all transactions are visible on the public blockchain.
Taxation: The IRS is clear, the laws of taxation apply to all crypto transactions, just as they do cash transactions. There really is no difference except that US crypto exchanges will issue a 1099 at the end of the year and probably report cash withdrawals between the exchange and your bank; whereas if you deal in cash or gold or silver there is no need to involve a bank.
Controlled: It's not clear what you mean by control. For FRNs the control is only basic - they control the printing and bulk lending of federal reserve notes but once they are distributed they can't do much. Governments don't control gold or silver at all aside from what they decide to hold in reserves or sell from reserves. I'm not convinced governments are threatened because they can't control the supply of Bitcoin (no one does).
So now that I broke it down, what is it about crypto compared to cash or gold that is so threatening? Monitoring with crypto is superior. Taxation is the same or better. And for control they only difference is they don't control the supply (no one does). Am I missing something?
The government can selective shutdown whatever they deem is undesirable. It's being done in China and it can be done here.
The value of all Bitcoin dropped from about $1.2 trillion a year ago to $318 billion today. That's less than gold, silver and even palladium. It's a novelty asset the value of which has dropped on the level of great depression era losses in the stock market.
And your point? BTC hit a high of $19666 in Dec 2017 and a low and bottomed at $3122 (an ~84% drop) a year later and the proceeded to make new highs 3.5x higher than the 2017 high last year. I'm fully confident we'll see new highs in the next few years.
Amazon stock went from $.08 in 1997 to $5.65 in Dec 1999 and was back to $0.28 in Oct 2001. It was at $188 last year and is now about half that. Do you remember the negative talk about internet stocks in 2001? Sounds a little familiar doesn't it?
Investments go up and investments go down. Crypto has high beta (volatility) because it's still a small market and it's still easy to manipulate or be extra affected by a few large sales. I agree that crypto isn't for everyone but should probably be a portion of most people's portfolio just like metals for diversity. What will help reduce that vol is when regulation finally allows the big US institutions get involved. Total crypto market cap should go from less than $1T to $8T and higher. You won't want to miss out on that.
Riots? Were there riots in 2008? Were there riots in 2020 when the government shut everything down due to the pandemic? The government will shut of access to "protect the public" and then develop a way to transfer those assets into the new government regulated and control digital currency at whatever rate they deem is fair.
I'm not sure you read my comment correctly or maybe I was unclear. I am speculating that riots would result if the government took down the Internet. I think it's a more severe proposal than the events you mentioned as people would be impacted more. The masses are addicted to their social media and phones, if you took down the Internet that would leave much of the populous with nothing to do but riot until they get it back. I'll concede that it's just my own speculation, but either way I think my point is valid that it's not a realistic thing for our government to do.
You should get back to the basics, rather then all this mumbo jumbo! So crypto is short for cryptographic or cryptology, which insinuates an unbreakable code for encypher and decypher messages, aka your money. Only you, the user has the key to get in. Right?..........................wrong!
Disclaimer: I'm not a dealer, trader, grader, investor or professional numismatist. I'm just a hobbyist. (To protect me but mostly you! 🤣 )
@OAKSTAR said:
You should get back to the basics, rather then all this mumbo jumbo! So crypto is short for cryptographic or cryptology, which insinuates an unbreakable code for encypher and decypher messages, aka your money. Only you, the user has the key to get in. Right?..........................wrong!
This is strictly semantic and not really adding anything. But, addressing strictly semantics, cryptography does NOT insinuate an unbreakable code. Quite the contrary, cryptography implies the breaking of codes.
@OAKSTAR said:
You should get back to the basics, rather then all this mumbo jumbo! So crypto is short for cryptographic or cryptology, which insinuates an unbreakable code for encypher and decypher messages, aka your money. Only you, the user has the key to get in. Right?..........................wrong!
This is strictly semantic and not really adding anything. But, addressing strictly semantics, cryptography does NOT insinuate an unbreakable code. Quite the contrary, cryptography implies the breaking of codes.
Cryptocurrency, sometimes called crypto-currency or crypto, is any form of currency that exists digitally or virtually and uses cryptography to secure transactions. Secure means unbreakable code.
But we can agree to disagree.
Disclaimer: I'm not a dealer, trader, grader, investor or professional numismatist. I'm just a hobbyist. (To protect me but mostly you! 🤣 )
If I understand and explain it correctly, a cryptography algorithm takes an input (such as a private key) and provides a unique output (public address). The important part is that if you know the public address, there is no way to derive or figure out the input (key). this makes it highly secure. You could randomly generate keys until you get the output you are looking for, but with current computing resources that would take many lifetimes (I can't remember the figure but it's huge). When people get "hacked" it's not because someone guessed or figured out someone else's private keys.
Here's how you know it's secure: Anyone can look and find crypto wallets with millions or billions worth of crypto in them. Bitcoin wallet 34xp4vRoCGJym3xR7yCVPFHoCNxv4Twseo has $4B worth of bitcoin. If you can figure out the private key, it's all yours.
@OAKSTAR said:
You should get back to the basics, rather then all this mumbo jumbo! So crypto is short for cryptographic or cryptology, which insinuates an unbreakable code for encypher and decypher messages, aka your money. Only you, the user has the key to get in. Right?..........................wrong!
This is strictly semantic and not really adding anything. But, addressing strictly semantics, cryptography does NOT insinuate an unbreakable code. Quite the contrary, cryptography implies the breaking of codes.
Cryptocurrency, sometimes called crypto-currency or crypto, is any form of currency that exists digitally or virtually and uses cryptography to secure transactions. Secure means unbreakable code.
^^
If anybody actually watched this and explain to me like am a five year old as to how a bunch of kids managed to pull this kind of a scam off and why crypto is still the safest and greatest investment, it would be really great.
@vulcanize said:
Easy come easy go.................................
^^
If anybody actually watched this and explain to me like am a five year old as to how a bunch of kids managed to pull this kind of a scam off and why crypto is still the safest and greatest investment, it would be really great.
**Edited to add quote
"FTX" is not crypto in the same way that Vanguard or Fidelity or Bernie Madoff is not the S&P 500.
If you invest your money with a shady brokerage, like Bernie Madoff, and he steals your money, does that mean you shouldn't invest in stocks?
If you had your crypto in a private wallet, you lost NOTHING when FTX went under.
"FTX" is not crypto in the same way that Vanguard or Fidelity or Bernie Madoff is not the S&P 500.
If you invest your money with a shady brokerage, like Bernie Madoff, and he steals your money, does that mean you shouldn't invest in stocks?
If you had your crypto in a private wallet, you lost NOTHING when FTX went under.
So it is akin to saying that banks are not trustworthy, keep all your cash in your wallet. Not very feasible is it?
Do you keep all of your stock in your pocket? Kind of hard these days when they don't issue certificates anymore.
The point is that FTX isn't about crypto. FTX is about a scheming fraud like Bernie Madoff. Sam could have been running a stock scam just as easily. There's a reason why it is illegal to redistribute your depositors' money.
I get it. You hate the idea of crypto so you (and others) want to spin FTX into a morality play about crypto. But the fact is that there have been numerous stock frauds over the years as well as bank frauds. However we still have stock brokers and we still have banks.
I get it. You hate the idea of crypto so you (and others) want to spin FTX into a morality play about crypto. But the fact is that there have been numerous stock frauds over the years as well as bank frauds. However we still have stock brokers and we still have banks.
LOL. Typical assumption as always.
Incidentally, my introduction to crypto was in mid-2009 while surfing a conspiracy forum.
When "Satoshi Nakamoto" (be it a single person or group) first authored the bitcoin white paper, created and deployed bitcoin's original reference implementation devising the first blockchain database, there sure was a lot of excitement and hope till around spring of 2011.
Thereafter somehow it did not enthuse the same confidence levels as before due to blockchain creation errors, being compromised by miners creating forks etc.
The freaky ice storm in October of 2011 and hurricane Sandy in 2012 was sort of tipping point for me because there was no internet nor cell phone coverage due to emergency back up power supply to the cell towers were affected, cops controlling huge lines at the only gas station that was open in my neck of the woods accepting only cash since no ATM or POS gadgets worked etc.
Was a rough couple of days and my home was a transit camp for friends from both in state as well as out of state. Also dumped Sprint as cell phone service provider because they sucked during the emergency in the smart phone era.
@vulcanize said:
Easy come easy go.................................
^^
If anybody actually watched this and explain to me like am a five year old as to how a bunch of kids managed to pull this kind of a scam off and why crypto is still the safest and greatest investment, it would be really great.
**Edited to add quote
"FTX" is not crypto in the same way that Vanguard or Fidelity or Bernie Madoff is not the S&P 500.
If you invest your money with a shady brokerage, like Bernie Madoff, and he steals your money, does that mean you shouldn't invest in stocks?
If you had your crypto in a private wallet, you lost NOTHING when FTX went under.
I think we both know FTX was one of the largest crypto exchanges and Madoff had a minuscule share of the whole of private investment.
I get it. You hate the idea of crypto so you (and others) want to spin FTX into a morality play about crypto. But the fact is that there have been numerous stock frauds over the years as well as bank frauds. However we still have stock brokers and we still have banks.
LOL. Typical assumption as always.
Incidentally, my introduction to crypto was in mid-2009 while surfing a conspiracy forum.
When "Satoshi Nakamoto" (be it a single person or group) first authored the bitcoin white paper, created and deployed bitcoin's original reference implementation devising the first blockchain database, there sure was a lot of excitement and hope till around spring of 2011.
Thereafter somehow it did not enthuse the same confidence levels as before due to blockchain creation errors, being compromised by miners creating forks etc.
The freaky ice storm in October of 2011 and hurricane Sandy in 2012 was sort of tipping point for me because there was no internet nor cell phone coverage due to emergency back up power supply to the cell towers were affected, cops controlling huge lines at the only gas station that was open in my neck of the woods accepting only cash since no ATM or POS gadgets worked etc.
Was a rough couple of days and my home was a transit camp for friends from both in state as well as out of state. Also dumped Sprint as cell phone service provider because they sucked during the emergency in the smart phone era.
I'm not completely sold on it myself. I've airways liked Erhereum because it actually had an application (smart contracts). I've never been as convinced about BTC because it's sole advantage is being 1st in the space. The other ones are highly speculative, at best. However, I also don't completely dismiss them.
@vulcanize said:
Easy come easy go.................................
^^
If anybody actually watched this and explain to me like am a five year old as to how a bunch of kids managed to pull this kind of a scam off and why crypto is still the safest and greatest investment, it would be really great.
**Edited to add quote
"FTX" is not crypto in the same way that Vanguard or Fidelity or Bernie Madoff is not the S&P 500.
If you invest your money with a shady brokerage, like Bernie Madoff, and he steals your money, does that mean you shouldn't invest in stocks?
If you had your crypto in a private wallet, you lost NOTHING when FTX went under.
I think we both know FTX was one of the largest crypto exchanges and Madoff had a minuscule share of the whole of private investment.
The potential impact is apples and oranges.
Sure. But now you're just arguing over who is the bigger crook. The thievery is still the issue here, not the crypto itself.
@jmlanzaf said:
I'm not completely sold on it myself. I've airways liked Erhereum because it actually had an application (smart contracts). I've never been as convinced about BTC because it's sole advantage is being 1st in the space. The other ones are highly speculative, at best. However, I also don't completely dismiss them.
I think people overlook the value of network and the value of a network is the size and activity of its user base. This is why Twitter has value even though it is not profitable. And to digress a bit, I think Twitter can be profitable under the right leadership. If you think it's not valuable, ask any tech startup how badly they'd love to have a userbase the size of Twitter or BTC. When you have millions of users around the globe who hold and use BTC and believe in it's value, it just is. It's not unlike the userbase for the US Dollar. The whole globe (for now) believes that US federal reserve notes have value, and so it is, and so they do. In both cases this could change some day but for the foreseeable future it's fairly solid.
I feel the same way about ETH > BTC. I also feel there are some alts that may offer superior or alternative technology that if given more time may replace or supplant ETH, but I agree that is a bit speculative.
@jmlanzaf said:
I'm not completely sold on it myself. I've airways liked Erhereum because it actually had an application (smart contracts). I've never been as convinced about BTC because it's sole advantage is being 1st in the space. The other ones are highly speculative, at best. However, I also don't completely dismiss them.
So you are playing devil's advocate eh!!!!
Anyways, what was very interesting is the timing of last week's news announcement about "Programmable Dollars" which makes me feel that there will surely be a few more hiccups for the unregulated sector of crypto, atleast in the US, if the 12 week test by the feds is highly successful.
@jmlanzaf said:
I'm not completely sold on it myself. I've airways liked Erhereum because it actually had an application (smart contracts). I've never been as convinced about BTC because it's sole advantage is being 1st in the space. The other ones are highly speculative, at best. However, I also don't completely dismiss them.
So you are playing devil's advocate eh!!!!
Anyways, what was very interesting is the timing of last week's news announcement about "Programmable Dollars" which makes me feel that there will surely be a few more hiccups for the unregulated sector of crypto, atleast in the US, if the 12 week test by the feds is highly successful.
Not at all. I've argued for a fair assessment of the space. Not loving something isn't the same as hating it.
@jmlanzaf said:
I'm not completely sold on it myself. I've airways liked Erhereum because it actually had an application (smart contracts). I've never been as convinced about BTC because it's sole advantage is being 1st in the space. The other ones are highly speculative, at best. However, I also don't completely dismiss them.
I think people overlook the value of network and the value of a network is the size and activity of its user base. This is why Twitter has value even though it is not profitable. And to digress a bit, I think Twitter can be profitable under the right leadership. If you think it's not valuable, ask any tech startup how badly they'd love to have a userbase the size of Twitter or BTC. When you have millions of users around the globe who hold and use BTC and believe in it's value, it just is. It's not unlike the userbase for the US Dollar. The whole globe (for now) believes that US federal reserve notes have value, and so it is, and so they do. In both cases this could change some day but for the foreseeable future it's fairly solid.
I feel the same way about ETH > BTC. I also feel there are some alts that may offer superior or alternative technology that if given more time may replace or supplant ETH, but I agree that is a bit speculative.
@jmlanzaf said:
I'm not completely sold on it myself. I've airways liked Erhereum because it actually had an application (smart contracts). I've never been as convinced about BTC because it's sole advantage is being 1st in the space. The other ones are highly speculative, at best. However, I also don't completely dismiss them.
I think people overlook the value of network and the value of a network is the size and activity of its user base. This is why Twitter has value even though it is not profitable. And to digress a bit, I think Twitter can be profitable under the right leadership. If you think it's not valuable, ask any tech startup how badly they'd love to have a userbase the size of Twitter or BTC. When you have millions of users around the globe who hold and use BTC and believe in it's value, it just is. It's not unlike the userbase for the US Dollar. The whole globe (for now) believes that US federal reserve notes have value, and so it is, and so they do. In both cases this could change some day but for the foreseeable future it's fairly solid.
I feel the same way about ETH > BTC. I also feel there are some alts that may offer superior or alternative technology that if given more time may replace or supplant ETH, but I agree that is a bit speculative.
@jmlanzaf said:
I'm not completely sold on it myself. I've airways liked Erhereum because it actually had an application (smart contracts). I've never been as convinced about BTC because it's sole advantage is being 1st in the space. The other ones are highly speculative, at best. However, I also don't completely dismiss them.
I think people overlook the value of network and the value of a network is the size and activity of its user base. This is why Twitter has value even though it is not profitable. And to digress a bit, I think Twitter can be profitable under the right leadership. If you think it's not valuable, ask any tech startup how badly they'd love to have a userbase the size of Twitter or BTC. When you have millions of users around the globe who hold and use BTC and believe in it's value, it just is. It's not unlike the userbase for the US Dollar. The whole globe (for now) believes that US federal reserve notes have value, and so it is, and so they do. In both cases this could change some day but for the foreseeable future it's fairly solid.
I feel the same way about ETH > BTC. I also feel there are some alts that may offer superior or alternative technology that if given more time may replace or supplant ETH, but I agree that is a bit speculative.
I’m not questioning blockchain technology. I’m questioning the idea that major governments are going to accept an avenue of commerce they can’t control and that was one of the major selling points of crypto as a currency. They government will let you plan in a small space that doesn’t threaten their control over the larger economy. The ideal of some global, decentralized currency outside of the control and ability to monitor and tax is a fairytale. There will be a digital currency but it will not be one outside of government control.
The investment side of crypto and the volatility that accompanied it works against it being a currency and calls into why is it an asset. It’s only an asset because someone believes there will be a global adoption of crypto (one of the numerous coins) and that someone will be willing to pay more for that hope a year from now so they can reap a profit. In one sense that’s the same as gold (hope for a higher price tomorrow) with one major exception. Gold has been trusted as a medium of exchange for thousands of years. It also has some practical applications and as an ornament. You can’t wear a Bitcoin necklace. The perceived value of a Bitcoin has dropped from $60K to 16K in a year. That tells me a lot of the folks that invested are still very unsure of it as an investment and long term store of wealth.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
Comments
No one invested in FTX. Users opened accounts and transferred funds to a Bahamas-based exchange and blindly trusted their legitimacy and solvency when they chose to leave their assets in the control of the exchange (in violation of the top tenant of crypto trading). It's not really a ponzi scheme, it would be no different than you use Ameritrade or Fidelity or any other company for your IRA or just investing in general. If they go out of business, your funds will be combined with everyone else's deposits and all of the firm's assets and paid out to creditors. I think when Peregrine went BK I got about 30% of my money back. Doesn't look like FTX creditors will be as lucky.
You can take one thing to the bank @ProofCollection. No one and I mean NO ONE understands crypto!
You ask 10 guys about crypto, you get 10 different answers!!!.........Guaranteed!!
Disclaimer: I'm not a dealer, trader, grader, investor or professional numismatist. I'm just a hobbyist. (To protect me but mostly you! 🤣 )
Quite a few well known people including Tom Brady were given an equity stake in FTX as well as crypto.
Some of your posts are patently false. I would be careful as you may mislead people to deleterious effect.
I spent about $200 on various crypto through Coinbase about a year ago. You know when it was going crazy. I was skeptical so I only spent what I was willing to lose entirely. It increased to a value of $308.51. Currently it's worth $57.69. So yea.... I should have had a nice steak dinner. Alas, as I said. I only put in what I was willing to lose so I'm not to upset. I knew it could/probably would happen.
Collector of randomness. Photographer at PCGS. Lover of Harry Potter.
I would consider getting compensated with equity different than investing. I don't think Batumi was referring to Tom Brady or even the institutional partners and investors.
Please identify, let's discuss.
I've yet to see a "patently false" statement other than some of the anti-crypto comments.
Ask 10 people how the Federal Reserve works and you probably will have the same problem.
Well here it is. Wow. Sooooo easy and look, you can start throwing away small amounts so you get practice for losing big chunks.
This appeared on an app’s advertising reel , this morning 😂😂😂😂😂🙃
🎶 shout shout, let it all out 🎶
If I were to ever play with crypto I think the most I'd do is fool around with the crypto equivalent of penny stocks that have a nil downside and put in a sell order if it ever hit, say, a buck or something. I'm just not a bandwagon guy.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
The clear insinuation that crypto is safe once you place in a private wallet is pure nonsense. The statement that exchanges are the only risk is just not true. These are patent falsehoods and misleading.
The difference is history. Plenty of history with PM’s, real estate, stocks, bonds, etc. versus a very volatile short history with crypto. The average person has some understand of how those other assets are created and traded versus crypto.
Crypto will never be allowed to grow beyond a novelty asset until governments can monitor, regulate, tax and ultimately control it. How many Fortune 500 companies give their employees the option to be paid in crypto? Does the SSA have any plans to offer that option to those collecting Social Security?
Again, some form of digital currency is in our future but it’s not going to be decentralized, unregulated and without the ability to be monitored and most importantly TAXED by governments. Anyone that says otherwise is living in a fantasy world.
It depends on what you mean as "safe". It is as safe as your checking account. It's value isn't guaranteed but that is a separate issue.
The exchanges aren’t FDIC insured. As you said, the value isn’t guaranteed but the value of the dollar has never seen the type of devaluations that Bitcoin has seen over the last year.
The insinuation is that you can avoid risk of loss such as we saw with FTX by holding your own crypto. Just like holding cash, coins, or bullion, you of course bear all responsibility for the security of your personal holdings of crypto. I don't believe I stated anywhere that it exchange risk was the only risk associated with crypto. I believe the only safe asset to hold is USD in an FDIC or FSLIC insured bank account, up to the limit of course, and that's only because of the insurance, and any other asset that is insured against loss/theft.
OK, so because it's new and maybe a little more complex than other assets we should have a prohibition on "hyping" new or complex assets? Where do you draw the line? And what are you advocating for? More regulation to protect consumers from themselves?
I wouldn't say never. Due to the decentralized nature it can grow unabated. Governments can already monitor, regulate, and tax crypto transactions. The US govt is doing it now. There are several theories and evidence that the US government created Bitcoin, the motivation being that it's far easier to track than cash, but that's beside the point. The only thing they can't do is control it (meaning software updates and supply). I don't know why they need to though. I'd note that many of the same issues apply to bullion.
I think it's already been established here there there will be a digital dollar that will be equivalent to the dollar in your pocket. No debate there.
And neither are stock trading and other investment accounts. The value of the dollar also hasn't seen the type of increases the Bitcoin has seen over the past decade either. I don't think it's exactly fair to only look at when Bitcoin has gone down and ignore the times it has gone up.
I have nothing against new but the new has to convince my that it is a viable replacement for the old before I'm going to invest or rely on it. That hasn't happened and the events over the last year have pushed me further away from that acceptance.
Crypto may be "allowed" to grow but that allowance is going to come from major governments and financial institutions not from Michael Saylor, Kevin O'Leary and 101 YouTube influencers that don't understand the technology and apparently the power dynamics behind money and who controls it.
My reference to FDIC was related to a comment about bank accounts not investing.
Actually, I think that article is far more balanced than your selective emphasis suggests.
PPS the more successful you are, the more time you have to post on forums. Less successful people are to busy working to bother with forums.
Why does it have to be a replacement? Why can't it be in addition to what's already there? Face it: Digital assets are a new asset class. It's not for everyone just like real estate or PMs aren't for every body. But if you want a diverse portfolio you will want to be in digital assets.
You don't get it. Decentralized crypto networks can't be allowed or disallowed except through Internet access. If any government pulled Internet access there would be riots. What gives Bitcoin its value is the millions of users around the world. While a government can prohibit certain uses by licensed entities (mostly banks) within its borders, they can't stop a person with a computer and internet in country A from sending a Bitcoin to a person in country B and receiving something for it in return.
Nice article from what I can tell but I can't see it due to the pay wall. In your quotes there are a few inaccuracies or unfair statements so I'm not sure he can be entirely trusted.
I'd be curious what kind of regulation he's referring to. There are already plenty of regulations, the one that's really up in the air is the question about which cryptos are securities and the definitions thereof. Once that determination is made either the existing laws kick in or a new set of laws will be created. That will give US companies the direction the need to proceed into the space with confidence. Other regulations to require exchanges to hold crypto funds 1:1 with customer deposits would be helpful also, although all/most US exchanges claim to do this already. What else is needed?
It's really the lack of regulation that is killing the industry. Regulation will propel the space once US companies understand what they can and can't legally do.
He clearly doesn't understand that there are pros and cons to centralize and decentralized exchanges and there is a place for both. Terra was created because we don't have a crypto US dollar so the industry has had to step up and create one.
And it is possible. That doesn't mean the two can never intermingle.
I guess he already forgot about or doesn't remember when people tried to donate money to the protesting truckers in Canada and those donations were censored. Or he thinks we should continue to pay high fees and endure delays and inconvenience for transacting money when cheaper, faster, easier methods exist.
Again, the industry is young. The technology is improving and getting better. The Internet was pretty hard and awkward and slow to use in its early days too. Crypto today is already far easier to use than it was 5 years ago. There is no reason to expect that not to continue to improve.
While the exchanges will gladly store your crypto, you don't have to trust them for more than a few minutes if you don't want to. And if you eschew the CEX's, you can always use a DEX. Again there are places for both, each with their own pros and cons.
Again, what regulations?
although I couldn't see the article, just these quotes, I'm not sure that he's made the "strong case" that the industry is headed for oblivion. Amazon and Facebook were hiring crypto teams earlier this year. The biggest companies in the world have crypto plans including Elon. I don't see why any of that would have or will change.
I'm curious why you think it's fallen? Because Bitcoin went from pennies to $69k and back down to $16k in just over a decade?
I would argue that you have time to post because of success, not failure. Both can be true.
Um, my entire post addressed them. Did you read it?
I'm in the industry. The evidence is empirical. Several crypto projects have launched and been attacked and shut down by the SEC. Several more companies have plans but because they don't know if the SEC will go after them, they are holding back or launching overseas. There are several overseas projects and exchanges which would would love to open to US customers but won't. Not because they don't want to comply with our laws but because there is no certainty about what the laws are.
Obviously not. Otherwise why would he ask that question? Do you not believe me that there are pros and cons to centralized and decentralized exchanges? Will listing them out here? If there are advantages to be centralized would that not be a reason to create an institution like FTX? And how he could not see the utility of the Terra stable coin demonstrates either dishonesty or ignorance. The only valid reason against creating Terra was that there were already competitors so you could argue that yet another one wasn't needed.
It's disappointing and scary that people would support or justify the efforts of government to stop what is free speech. It shouldn't matter how you feel about that particular incident as you may support whatever the cause is next time. The freedom to support a group and the ability to receive support without the need for 3rd party support should be viewed as a valuable thing. Only tyrannical bureaucrats (and evidently nobel prize winners) should disagree.
Thank you.
Easy come easy go.................................
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/quarters/PCGS-2020-quarter-quest/album/247091
It's not going to be both because major governments are not going to share control of any significant segment of the economy with an unregulated form of commerce that cannot be monitored, taxed and controlled by those governments. Those digital assets rely on faith and faith in those digital assets have taken a beating over the last year.
The government can selective shutdown whatever they deem is undesirable. It's being done in China and it can be done here.
The value of all Bitcoin dropped from about $1.2 trillion a year ago to $318 billion today. That's less than gold, silver and even palladium. It's a novelty asset the value of which has dropped on the level of great depression era losses in the stock market.
Riots? Were there riots in 2008? Were there riots in 2020 when the government shut everything down due to the pandemic? The government will shut of access to "protect the public" and then develop a way to transfer those assets into the new government regulated and control digital currency at whatever rate they deem is fair.
No, it hasn't. If it were a good store of wealth then you would be able to put $121,000 into Bitcoin and have great confidence that ten years from now you could take that Bitcoin and buy a Tesla Model X. Bitcoin has had an incredible return, but being able to buy 400 Teslas ten years from now with your Bitcoin would make it not a store of wealth.
The dollar is only middling good as a store of wealth. Even if the Fed achieves its goal and we reduce inflation to 2%, the $121,000 you bury in a coffee can in your backyard would only buy 82% of a Tesla in ten years. But at least it's fairly predictable. If you substitute "a basket of goods and services currently costing $121,000" for the Tesla you can reasonably assume you'll be able to buy between 50 and 110% of that basket. Not great, but far better range than Bitcoin.
This is why people seek out gold, in general, because the 50-110% range in the dollar is too much.
Perhaps you don't understand how brokerage accounts work. Since you used Fidelity as an example, I'll just note that not only is your Fidelity account insured for $500,000 through SIPC, but they are also insured through Lloyd's of London for an aggregate $1 Billion over the $500,000 each.
This doesn't mean that you'll automatically recover the $200 per share you paid for Facebook, just that you'll get the 500 shares you purchased if Fidelity goes bankrupt.
personal.fidelity.com/misc/ekits/pdf/safeguarding_your_account.pdf
If Fidelity fails, the government can't honor the SIPC pledge, and Lloyd's can't meet its obligations then we all have much bigger problems.
This is the man who James Taranto (WSJ Opinion Journalist) calls "former Enron adviser Paul Krugman".
I don't remember about 2008, but I clearly remember the "mostly peaceful protests" in 2020. The ostensible causes were different, but few of the riots would have happened if people weren't locked down.
Exactly that. While he lands on a negative- and he has no crystal ball- he points out many positives. And he actually draws parallels between gold and crypto which would make most of the anti-crypto crowd blanch.
Really? You think it is absurd that wealthy people have more leisure time? It is self evident.
Could you cite a source that demonstrates that successful investors do NOT post on forums?
I'll wait here.
Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Russian oligarchs are all cruising around in their yachts not working a second job to pay the rent.
Thank you, I should have researched that more and wrongfully assumed that what happened to my Peregrine account would happen at other brokers. When I lost my Peregrine account I didn't have shares of anything in it but I certainly did not get my full account balance back. I'll have to figure out why my account wasn't covered by any insurance.
You're still not admitting that there are plenty of forms of commerce that cannot be monitored, taxed, and controlled such as federal reserve notes and gold and silver bullion and do not recognize that crypto is not exempt from these things wither.
Monitoring: Crypto can be monitored far easier than cash, gold, or silver transactions as all transactions are visible on the public blockchain.
Taxation: The IRS is clear, the laws of taxation apply to all crypto transactions, just as they do cash transactions. There really is no difference except that US crypto exchanges will issue a 1099 at the end of the year and probably report cash withdrawals between the exchange and your bank; whereas if you deal in cash or gold or silver there is no need to involve a bank.
Controlled: It's not clear what you mean by control. For FRNs the control is only basic - they control the printing and bulk lending of federal reserve notes but once they are distributed they can't do much. Governments don't control gold or silver at all aside from what they decide to hold in reserves or sell from reserves. I'm not convinced governments are threatened because they can't control the supply of Bitcoin (no one does).
So now that I broke it down, what is it about crypto compared to cash or gold that is so threatening? Monitoring with crypto is superior. Taxation is the same or better. And for control they only difference is they don't control the supply (no one does). Am I missing something?
It can be done but only with limited effect. https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Cryptocurrencies/Chinese-crypto-activity-slows-but-not-dead-despite-ban Tagline: Government curbs seen as 'ineffective or loosely enforced'
And your point? BTC hit a high of $19666 in Dec 2017 and a low and bottomed at $3122 (an ~84% drop) a year later and the proceeded to make new highs 3.5x higher than the 2017 high last year. I'm fully confident we'll see new highs in the next few years.
Amazon stock went from $.08 in 1997 to $5.65 in Dec 1999 and was back to $0.28 in Oct 2001. It was at $188 last year and is now about half that. Do you remember the negative talk about internet stocks in 2001? Sounds a little familiar doesn't it?
Investments go up and investments go down. Crypto has high beta (volatility) because it's still a small market and it's still easy to manipulate or be extra affected by a few large sales. I agree that crypto isn't for everyone but should probably be a portion of most people's portfolio just like metals for diversity. What will help reduce that vol is when regulation finally allows the big US institutions get involved. Total crypto market cap should go from less than $1T to $8T and higher. You won't want to miss out on that.
I'm not sure you read my comment correctly or maybe I was unclear. I am speculating that riots would result if the government took down the Internet. I think it's a more severe proposal than the events you mentioned as people would be impacted more. The masses are addicted to their social media and phones, if you took down the Internet that would leave much of the populous with nothing to do but riot until they get it back. I'll concede that it's just my own speculation, but either way I think my point is valid that it's not a realistic thing for our government to do.
Great thread!
Early in my career I learned about solutions in search of problems. Some were. Some were not.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
You should get back to the basics, rather then all this mumbo jumbo! So crypto is short for cryptographic or cryptology, which insinuates an unbreakable code for encypher and decypher messages, aka your money. Only you, the user has the key to get in. Right?..........................wrong!
Disclaimer: I'm not a dealer, trader, grader, investor or professional numismatist. I'm just a hobbyist. (To protect me but mostly you! 🤣 )
This is strictly semantic and not really adding anything. But, addressing strictly semantics, cryptography does NOT insinuate an unbreakable code. Quite the contrary, cryptography implies the breaking of codes.
Cryptocurrency, sometimes called crypto-currency or crypto, is any form of currency that exists digitally or virtually and uses cryptography to secure transactions. Secure means unbreakable code.
But we can agree to disagree.
Disclaimer: I'm not a dealer, trader, grader, investor or professional numismatist. I'm just a hobbyist. (To protect me but mostly you! 🤣 )
If I understand and explain it correctly, a cryptography algorithm takes an input (such as a private key) and provides a unique output (public address). The important part is that if you know the public address, there is no way to derive or figure out the input (key). this makes it highly secure. You could randomly generate keys until you get the output you are looking for, but with current computing resources that would take many lifetimes (I can't remember the figure but it's huge). When people get "hacked" it's not because someone guessed or figured out someone else's private keys.
Here's how you know it's secure: Anyone can look and find crypto wallets with millions or billions worth of crypto in them. Bitcoin wallet 34xp4vRoCGJym3xR7yCVPFHoCNxv4Twseo has $4B worth of bitcoin. If you can figure out the private key, it's all yours.
..
^^
If anybody actually watched this and explain to me like am a five year old as to how a bunch of kids managed to pull this kind of a scam off and why crypto is still the safest and greatest investment, it would be really great.
**Edited to add quote
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/quarters/PCGS-2020-quarter-quest/album/247091
"FTX" is not crypto in the same way that Vanguard or Fidelity or Bernie Madoff is not the S&P 500.
If you invest your money with a shady brokerage, like Bernie Madoff, and he steals your money, does that mean you shouldn't invest in stocks?
If you had your crypto in a private wallet, you lost NOTHING when FTX went under.
So it is akin to saying that banks are not trustworthy, keep all your cash in your wallet. Not very feasible is it?
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/quarters/PCGS-2020-quarter-quest/album/247091
Banks aren't trustworthy (remember washington mutual?). In the US at least the government insures accounts up to $250k (?), so that helps. Here's list of hundreds of bank failures since 2008: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bank_failures_in_the_United_States_(2008–present)
Do you keep all of your stock in your pocket? Kind of hard these days when they don't issue certificates anymore.
The point is that FTX isn't about crypto. FTX is about a scheming fraud like Bernie Madoff. Sam could have been running a stock scam just as easily. There's a reason why it is illegal to redistribute your depositors' money.
I get it. You hate the idea of crypto so you (and others) want to spin FTX into a morality play about crypto. But the fact is that there have been numerous stock frauds over the years as well as bank frauds. However we still have stock brokers and we still have banks.
LOL. Typical assumption as always.
Incidentally, my introduction to crypto was in mid-2009 while surfing a conspiracy forum.
When "Satoshi Nakamoto" (be it a single person or group) first authored the bitcoin white paper, created and deployed bitcoin's original reference implementation devising the first blockchain database, there sure was a lot of excitement and hope till around spring of 2011.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterizzo/2021/04/26/10-years-ago-today-bitcoin-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-sent-his-final-message/
Thereafter somehow it did not enthuse the same confidence levels as before due to blockchain creation errors, being compromised by miners creating forks etc.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/02/19/239592/once-hailed-as-unhackable-blockchains-are-now-getting-hacked/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mariagraciasantillanalinares/2022/06/24/hackers-steal-another-100-million-in-crypto-from-a-blockchain-transfer-protocol-total-lost-in-2022-above-1-billion/
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/10/hackers-have-stolen-1point4-billion-this-year-using-crypto-bridges.html
The freaky ice storm in October of 2011 and hurricane Sandy in 2012 was sort of tipping point for me because there was no internet nor cell phone coverage due to emergency back up power supply to the cell towers were affected, cops controlling huge lines at the only gas station that was open in my neck of the woods accepting only cash since no ATM or POS gadgets worked etc.
Was a rough couple of days and my home was a transit camp for friends from both in state as well as out of state. Also dumped Sprint as cell phone service provider because they sucked during the emergency in the smart phone era.
https://www.sharecast.com/promoted/international-economic/what-would-happen-to-bitcoin-if-there-were-no-internet.html
https://www.techopedia.com/can-the-blockchain-be-hacked/2/33623
https://www.epiqglobal.com/en-us/resource-center/articles/blockchain-can-be-hacked
So yeah, call me a skeptic
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/quarters/PCGS-2020-quarter-quest/album/247091
I think we both know FTX was one of the largest crypto exchanges and Madoff had a minuscule share of the whole of private investment.
The potential impact is apples and oranges.
I'm not completely sold on it myself. I've airways liked Erhereum because it actually had an application (smart contracts). I've never been as convinced about BTC because it's sole advantage is being 1st in the space. The other ones are highly speculative, at best. However, I also don't completely dismiss them.
Sure. But now you're just arguing over who is the bigger crook. The thievery is still the issue here, not the crypto itself.
I think people overlook the value of network and the value of a network is the size and activity of its user base. This is why Twitter has value even though it is not profitable. And to digress a bit, I think Twitter can be profitable under the right leadership. If you think it's not valuable, ask any tech startup how badly they'd love to have a userbase the size of Twitter or BTC. When you have millions of users around the globe who hold and use BTC and believe in it's value, it just is. It's not unlike the userbase for the US Dollar. The whole globe (for now) believes that US federal reserve notes have value, and so it is, and so they do. In both cases this could change some day but for the foreseeable future it's fairly solid.
I feel the same way about ETH > BTC. I also feel there are some alts that may offer superior or alternative technology that if given more time may replace or supplant ETH, but I agree that is a bit speculative.
So you are playing devil's advocate eh!!!!
Anyways, what was very interesting is the timing of last week's news announcement about "Programmable Dollars" which makes me feel that there will surely be a few more hiccups for the unregulated sector of crypto, atleast in the US, if the 12 week test by the feds is highly successful.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/quarters/PCGS-2020-quarter-quest/album/247091
Not at all. I've argued for a fair assessment of the space. Not loving something isn't the same as hating it.
I’m not questioning blockchain technology. I’m questioning the idea that major governments are going to accept an avenue of commerce they can’t control and that was one of the major selling points of crypto as a currency. They government will let you plan in a small space that doesn’t threaten their control over the larger economy. The ideal of some global, decentralized currency outside of the control and ability to monitor and tax is a fairytale. There will be a digital currency but it will not be one outside of government control.
The investment side of crypto and the volatility that accompanied it works against it being a currency and calls into why is it an asset. It’s only an asset because someone believes there will be a global adoption of crypto (one of the numerous coins) and that someone will be willing to pay more for that hope a year from now so they can reap a profit. In one sense that’s the same as gold (hope for a higher price tomorrow) with one major exception. Gold has been trusted as a medium of exchange for thousands of years. It also has some practical applications and as an ornament. You can’t wear a Bitcoin necklace. The perceived value of a Bitcoin has dropped from $60K to 16K in a year. That tells me a lot of the folks that invested are still very unsure of it as an investment and long term store of wealth.