@LanceNewmanOCC said:
first time seeing one of his vids but i like the presentation and how clear he speaks and seems to cover the gist of it pretty well.
I thought of posting that clip on here earlier but held back.
ya, i've pretty much watched all his vids for past 12+ months. i don't recall when i started but it's been a while.
no shortage of material for content, unfortunately.
kind of amazing how incestuous the various crypto "businesses" were invested in others, so that when one fell, it either pulled the other down significantly or drowned it altogether.
this in an indirect way kinda supports my lottery theory in that you JUST CANNOT give average people any large sum of money. you have to LEARN how to be wealthy. (there is obviously a lot more to be said but i've already said enough."
ya, i've pretty much watched all his vids for past 12+ months. i don't recall when i started but it's been a while.
no shortage of material for content, unfortunately.
kind of amazing how incestuous the various crypto "businesses" were invested in others, so that when one fell, it either pulled the other down significantly or drowned it altogether.
this in an indirect way kinda supports my lottery theory in that you JUST CANNOT give average people any large sum of money. you have to LEARN how to be wealthy. (there is obviously a lot more to be said but i've already said enough."
It's not much different than the banks who are tied together with a quadrillion in derivatives.
@pmh1nic said:
Agree. Convenience is a critical factor in getting folks to adapt to a new system. Add a few horror stories of folks unable to retrieve their funds or the horror stories of an SBF (goes well beyond FTX) and I think you have enough to drive most folks away from a system that isn't perceived as convenient or safe.
Um, Cryptocurrency is about as convenient as it gets for sending money to someone, particularly tiny or large amounts.
The traditional banking system has driven me away with its fees, delays, and restrictions. Very inconvenient. I feel the funds in my crypto wallet are safer than the dollar bills in my safe at home or in the wallet I carry. I would definitely feel safer using crypto to make a transaction from anywhere with internet access and not having to carry large amounts of fiat around.
Actually it's not convenient which is why many if not most folks either haven't done it or opted to use an exchange. Beyond that many of those that dumped money into crypto over the last couple of years didn't do it as a means of exchange but as an investment hoping to realize the massive gains touted by the crypto hawks.
There are transaction delays and cost involved in using crypto as payment. It doesn't happen instantaneously.
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
@pmh1nic said:
Agree. Convenience is a critical factor in getting folks to adapt to a new system. Add a few horror stories of folks unable to retrieve their funds or the horror stories of an SBF (goes well beyond FTX) and I think you have enough to drive most folks away from a system that isn't perceived as convenient or safe.
Um, Cryptocurrency is about as convenient as it gets for sending money to someone, particularly tiny or large amounts.
The traditional banking system has driven me away with its fees, delays, and restrictions. Very inconvenient. I feel the funds in my crypto wallet are safer than the dollar bills in my safe at home or in the wallet I carry. I would definitely feel safer using crypto to make a transaction from anywhere with internet access and not having to carry large amounts of fiat around.
Actually it's not convenient which is why many if not most folks either haven't done it or opted to use an exchange. Beyond that many of those that dumped money into crypto over the last couple of years didn't do it as a means of exchange but as an investment hoping to realize the massive gains touted by the crypto hawks.
There are transaction delays and cost involved in using crypto as payment. It doesn't happen instantaneously.
@pmh1nic said:
How serious they are isn't for me to judge. The fact is there are many of them who promote themselves as in the know, that have convinced many to put their money in Bitcoin claiming it's a great investment and/or solid long-term store of wealth. Many of those folks have gotten burned and some burned badly.
And the home shopping network and other TV shopping channels (and newspaper ads) promote terrible overpriced coin investments as well, but most on this board do not dwell on what those hucksters are promoting despite the people who buy that stuff also getting burned. Instead we dismiss what they say and make fun of them, which is what you should do too.
I'm talking about anything that will have a significant place in commerce. Governments are not going to give up control of their money making machine. It's the fuel that keeps the machine operating and nothing is going to interrupt their ability to control it whether it's Bitcoin or anything else.
Bitcoin can be a prevalant alternative payment system and governments don't have to give up control of their money printing machines, both of these statements can be true. Since each government decides what forms of payment to accept for payment of taxes, your last statement (nothing is going to interrupt...) is undeniable.
It's early and we're already seeing the clamoring for government control. A tremendous amount of damage was done by SBF and his team of scammers.
Government control of that which cannot be controlled (decentralized crypto-currency)? People will always clamor for a nanny state to keep us from making bad decisions and hurting ourselves, but I don't want to live in that world. This entertaining 2m video dropped today and explains this brilliantly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWc6DOYQPbU
Question for you. Why did so many folks go to an exchange rather than manage their own wallets?
@LanceNewmanOCC answered this perfectly. As technology evolves we all need to adapt and learn new skills, such as how to keep our online information safe, how to not fall for phishing emails and scams, etc. Just like there is a little bit of learning how to protect the federal reserve notes in your wallet from being misplaced or stolen, there is effort for digital assets too. Some people embrace this more than others. Some take the risks of keeping assets on a foreign exchange more seriously than others. You can take the view that we need government to keep us from hurting ourselves or you can side with personal responsibility and Darwin.
You don't justify one terrible asset by bringing up other terrible assets. You don't validate the hawking of one bad investment by talking up how others have hyped bad investments.
Prevalent??? Define prevalent.
Bitcoin can NEVER be a significant factor in commerce outside the government's ability to control it. If it can't be controlled by government there won't be mass acceptance. By mass acceptance I mean Fortune 500 companies are paying folks in Bitcoin, governments are paying their employees in Bitcoin and people are receiving their government benefits in Bitcoin. One statistic I read was Fortune 500 companies make up 2/3 of the U.S. GDP. Add government employees and those receiving government benefits and that's the vast majority of the economy, and the rest of the economy is not going to be functioning on a different system.
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
@pmh1nic said:
Agree. Convenience is a critical factor in getting folks to adapt to a new system. Add a few horror stories of folks unable to retrieve their funds or the horror stories of an SBF (goes well beyond FTX) and I think you have enough to drive most folks away from a system that isn't perceived as convenient or safe.
Um, Cryptocurrency is about as convenient as it gets for sending money to someone, particularly tiny or large amounts.
The traditional banking system has driven me away with its fees, delays, and restrictions. Very inconvenient. I feel the funds in my crypto wallet are safer than the dollar bills in my safe at home or in the wallet I carry. I would definitely feel safer using crypto to make a transaction from anywhere with internet access and not having to carry large amounts of fiat around.
Actually it's not convenient which is why many if not most folks either haven't done it or opted to use an exchange. Beyond that many of those that dumped money into crypto over the last couple of years didn't do it as a means of exchange but as an investment hoping to realize the massive gains touted by the crypto hawks.
There are transaction delays and cost involved in using crypto as payment. It doesn't happen instantaneously.
Completely untrue. Do more research.
You do the research and show me contrary evidence. The flood of money into crypto over the last two years has been driven by investor hype. No one is going to be using anything as volatile as Bitcoin to transact business absent their ability to immediately turn it back into dollars. Just ask Elon Musk. I'm not trading an asset for "currency" that has the real potential to devalue 50% over six months. Bitcoin has no legitimacy as a currency given the volatility and it's limited acceptance.
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
@pmh1nic said:
Agree. Convenience is a critical factor in getting folks to adapt to a new system. Add a few horror stories of folks unable to retrieve their funds or the horror stories of an SBF (goes well beyond FTX) and I think you have enough to drive most folks away from a system that isn't perceived as convenient or safe.
Um, Cryptocurrency is about as convenient as it gets for sending money to someone, particularly tiny or large amounts.
The traditional banking system has driven me away with its fees, delays, and restrictions. Very inconvenient. I feel the funds in my crypto wallet are safer than the dollar bills in my safe at home or in the wallet I carry. I would definitely feel safer using crypto to make a transaction from anywhere with internet access and not having to carry large amounts of fiat around.
Actually it's not convenient which is why many if not most folks either haven't done it or opted to use an exchange. Beyond that many of those that dumped money into crypto over the last couple of years didn't do it as a means of exchange but as an investment hoping to realize the massive gains touted by the crypto hawks.
There are transaction delays and cost involved in using crypto as payment. It doesn't happen instantaneously.
Completely untrue. Do more research.
You do the research and show me contrary evidence. The flood of money into crypto over the last two years has been driven by investor hype. No one is going to be using anything as volatile as Bitcoin to transact business absent their ability to immediately turn it back into dollars. Just ask Elon Musk. I'm not trading an asset for "currency" that has the real potential to devalue 50% over six months. Bitcoin has no legitimacy as a currency given the volatility and it's limited acceptance.
It is VERY easy to do a peer-to-peer transfer of crypto. I did the research. I did the transfer. It's no harder than PayPal, which most forumites have mastered.
@pmh1nic said:
Agree. Convenience is a critical factor in getting folks to adapt to a new system. Add a few horror stories of folks unable to retrieve their funds or the horror stories of an SBF (goes well beyond FTX) and I think you have enough to drive most folks away from a system that isn't perceived as convenient or safe.
Um, Cryptocurrency is about as convenient as it gets for sending money to someone, particularly tiny or large amounts.
The traditional banking system has driven me away with its fees, delays, and restrictions. Very inconvenient. I feel the funds in my crypto wallet are safer than the dollar bills in my safe at home or in the wallet I carry. I would definitely feel safer using crypto to make a transaction from anywhere with internet access and not having to carry large amounts of fiat around.
Actually it's not convenient which is why many if not most folks either haven't done it or opted to use an exchange. Beyond that many of those that dumped money into crypto over the last couple of years didn't do it as a means of exchange but as an investment hoping to realize the massive gains touted by the crypto hawks.
There are transaction delays and cost involved in using crypto as payment. It doesn't happen instantaneously.
Completely untrue. Do more research.
You do the research and show me contrary evidence. The flood of money into crypto over the last two years has been driven by investor hype. No one is going to be using anything as volatile as Bitcoin to transact business absent their ability to immediately turn it back into dollars. Just ask Elon Musk. I'm not trading an asset for "currency" that has the real potential to devalue 50% over six months. Bitcoin has no legitimacy as a currency given the volatility and it's limited acceptance.
It is VERY easy to do a peer-to-peer transfer of crypto. I did the research. I did the transfer. It's no harder than PayPal, which most forumites have mastered.
As the saying goes, if it was easy everyone would be doing it. Bitcoin has been around for 17 years. A tiny percentage of commerce is conducted using. You have a handful of businesses accepting it for payment. When I see 7/11 accepting it, when my Fortune 500 employer gives me an option for paying me, I'll know it's arrived. Until then enjoy your peer to peer transactions.
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
@pmh1nic said:
Agree. Convenience is a critical factor in getting folks to adapt to a new system. Add a few horror stories of folks unable to retrieve their funds or the horror stories of an SBF (goes well beyond FTX) and I think you have enough to drive most folks away from a system that isn't perceived as convenient or safe.
Um, Cryptocurrency is about as convenient as it gets for sending money to someone, particularly tiny or large amounts.
The traditional banking system has driven me away with its fees, delays, and restrictions. Very inconvenient. I feel the funds in my crypto wallet are safer than the dollar bills in my safe at home or in the wallet I carry. I would definitely feel safer using crypto to make a transaction from anywhere with internet access and not having to carry large amounts of fiat around.
Actually it's not convenient which is why many if not most folks either haven't done it or opted to use an exchange. Beyond that many of those that dumped money into crypto over the last couple of years didn't do it as a means of exchange but as an investment hoping to realize the massive gains touted by the crypto hawks.
There are transaction delays and cost involved in using crypto as payment. It doesn't happen instantaneously.
Completely untrue. Do more research.
You do the research and show me contrary evidence. The flood of money into crypto over the last two years has been driven by investor hype. No one is going to be using anything as volatile as Bitcoin to transact business absent their ability to immediately turn it back into dollars. Just ask Elon Musk. I'm not trading an asset for "currency" that has the real potential to devalue 50% over six months. Bitcoin has no legitimacy as a currency given the volatility and it's limited acceptance.
It is VERY easy to do a peer-to-peer transfer of crypto. I did the research. I did the transfer. It's no harder than PayPal, which most forumites have mastered.
As the saying goes, if it was easy everyone would be doing it. Bitcoin has been around for 17 years. A tiny percentage of commerce is conducted using. You have a handful of businesses accepting it for payment. When I see 7/11 accepting it, when my Fortune 500 employer gives me an option for paying me, I'll know it's arrived. Until then enjoy your peer to peer transactions.
That's nonsense. Skydiving is easy. Not everyone does it. Where you were and are wrong is assuming that it is difficult and that's why it hasn't been adopted. It hasn't been adopted for dozens of reasons, such as skepticism.
Are YOU only not using it because of how hard it is to use? [Dare you to say "yes".]
@moursund said:
I rather consider cryptocurrency to be a pyramid scheme.
like the dollar?
Not really. They force you to use the dollar... and they promise you that you lose 2% of its value every year. It's arguably worse than a Ponzi scheme. In a Ponzi scheme you actually choose to enter and have some probability of gain.
@jmlanzaf said:
In a Ponzi scheme you actually choose to enter and have some probability of gain.
But you have to get in early for that to work. If you're too late, you're too late. Would you pay 10,000 bitcoins for pizza?
The guy who bought pizza with Bitcoin was a programmer and early miner named Laszlo Hanyecz. Hanyecz made a post on a Bitcoin forum offering 10k Bitcoin for two large pizzas. Eventually someone took him up on his offer and delivered two Papa Johns pizzas. At the time, 10,000 Bitcoin was worth $41.
@jmlanzaf said:
In a Ponzi scheme you actually choose to enter and have some probability of gain.
But you have to get in early for that to work. If you're too late, you're too late. Would you pay 10,000 bitcoins for pizza?
The guy who bought pizza with Bitcoin was a programmer and early miner named Laszlo Hanyecz. Hanyecz made a post on a Bitcoin forum offering 10k Bitcoin for two large pizzas. Eventually someone took him up on his offer and delivered two Papa Johns pizzas. At the time, 10,000 Bitcoin was worth $41.
May 19, 2022
Yes. But no matter when you jump in on the dollar, you lose 2%+ per year.
@jmlanzaf said:
In a Ponzi scheme you actually choose to enter and have some probability of gain.
But you have to get in early for that to work. If you're too late, you're too late. Would you pay 10,000 bitcoins for pizza?
The guy who bought pizza with Bitcoin was a programmer and early miner named Laszlo Hanyecz. Hanyecz made a post on a Bitcoin forum offering 10k Bitcoin for two large pizzas. Eventually someone took him up on his offer and delivered two Papa Johns pizzas. At the time, 10,000 Bitcoin was worth $41.
May 19, 2022
Yes. But no matter when you jump in on the dollar, you lose 2%+ per year.
@moursund said:
I rather consider cryptocurrency to be a pyramid scheme.
like the dollar?
Not really. They force you to use the dollar... and they promise you that you lose 2% of its value every year. It's arguably worse than a Ponzi scheme. In a Ponzi scheme you actually choose to enter and have some probability of gain.
Not true. The government has a goal that you will lose 2%/year, but there is nothing like a guarantee.
@moursund said:
I rather consider cryptocurrency to be a pyramid scheme.
like the dollar?
Not really. They force you to use the dollar... and they promise you that you lose 2% of its value every year. It's arguably worse than a Ponzi scheme. In a Ponzi scheme you actually choose to enter and have some probability of gain.
Not true. The government has a goal that you will lose 2%/year, but there is nothing like a guarantee.
@pmh1nic said:
Agree. Convenience is a critical factor in getting folks to adapt to a new system. Add a few horror stories of folks unable to retrieve their funds or the horror stories of an SBF (goes well beyond FTX) and I think you have enough to drive most folks away from a system that isn't perceived as convenient or safe.
Um, Cryptocurrency is about as convenient as it gets for sending money to someone, particularly tiny or large amounts.
The traditional banking system has driven me away with its fees, delays, and restrictions. Very inconvenient. I feel the funds in my crypto wallet are safer than the dollar bills in my safe at home or in the wallet I carry. I would definitely feel safer using crypto to make a transaction from anywhere with internet access and not having to carry large amounts of fiat around.
Actually it's not convenient which is why many if not most folks either haven't done it or opted to use an exchange. Beyond that many of those that dumped money into crypto over the last couple of years didn't do it as a means of exchange but as an investment hoping to realize the massive gains touted by the crypto hawks.
There are transaction delays and cost involved in using crypto as payment. It doesn't happen instantaneously.
Clearly you've never used it or you wouldn't be saying that. If you gave me your BTC address, I could send you $1M in BTC and you'd have a confirmation within minutes with only a few dollar fee. But, it's Sunday afternoon. If I wanted to send you $1M, I'd have to wait until Monday morning at 9am, I'd have to drive to my bank (and back), spend at least a half hour waiting in line and and working with a banker to fill out the bank wire form, probably have to wait for the branch manager to authorize it, then maybe, just maybe you'll have the money on Monday afternoon and you'll have paid $30-50 for a domestic wire fee. The alternative is to write a check, stick it in the mail, 3 or 4 days later you get it, deposit it in your account, and then when the bank decides to clear it you can spend it. So, again, which one is faster, easier, and more convenient?
And as @jmlanzaf answered very well, difficulty of use isn't stopping anyone from using it.
@jmlanzaf said:
Yes. But no matter when you jump in on the dollar, you lose 2%+ per year.
And even then that's only if you calculate it the way the government does, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
@pmh1nic said:
You don't justify one terrible asset by bringing up other terrible assets. You don't validate the hawking of one bad investment by talking up how others have hyped bad investments.
Nice diversion attempt. You were talking about the crypto hucksters and I replied with a point about rare coin hucksters. The point stands that it doesn't matter what the hucksters say it doesn't change the merits of the investment being promoted, and we shouldn't give their hype much credence, but you keep doing it.
Prevalent??? Define prevalent.
Prevalent: in general use or acceptance.
Bitcoin can NEVER be a significant factor in commerce outside the government's ability to control it. If it can't be controlled by government there won't be mass acceptance.
That's not the government's decision to make. If "the people" decided to use pretty rocks or shells for commerce, there's nothing the government can do to stop us.
By mass acceptance I mean Fortune 500 companies are paying folks in Bitcoin, governments are paying their employees in Bitcoin and people are receiving their government benefits in Bitcoin. One statistic I read was Fortune 500 companies make up 2/3 of the U.S. GDP. Add government employees and those receiving government benefits and that's the vast majority of the economy, and the rest of the economy is not going to be functioning on a different system.
That's silly. Paypal is prevalent and widely used and available, but no employer pays people through Paypal either, yet I can use it as a payment method on almost every retailer's website.
@pmh1nic said:
Agree. Convenience is a critical factor in getting folks to adapt to a new system. Add a few horror stories of folks unable to retrieve their funds or the horror stories of an SBF (goes well beyond FTX) and I think you have enough to drive most folks away from a system that isn't perceived as convenient or safe.
Um, Cryptocurrency is about as convenient as it gets for sending money to someone, particularly tiny or large amounts.
The traditional banking system has driven me away with its fees, delays, and restrictions. Very inconvenient. I feel the funds in my crypto wallet are safer than the dollar bills in my safe at home or in the wallet I carry. I would definitely feel safer using crypto to make a transaction from anywhere with internet access and not having to carry large amounts of fiat around.
Actually it's not convenient which is why many if not most folks either haven't done it or opted to use an exchange. Beyond that many of those that dumped money into crypto over the last couple of years didn't do it as a means of exchange but as an investment hoping to realize the massive gains touted by the crypto hawks.
There are transaction delays and cost involved in using crypto as payment. It doesn't happen instantaneously.
Completely untrue. Do more research.
You do the research and show me contrary evidence. The flood of money into crypto over the last two years has been driven by investor hype. No one is going to be using anything as volatile as Bitcoin to transact business absent their ability to immediately turn it back into dollars. Just ask Elon Musk. I'm not trading an asset for "currency" that has the real potential to devalue 50% over six months. Bitcoin has no legitimacy as a currency given the volatility and it's limited acceptance.
It is VERY easy to do a peer-to-peer transfer of crypto. I did the research. I did the transfer. It's no harder than PayPal, which most forumites have mastered.
As the saying goes, if it was easy everyone would be doing it. Bitcoin has been around for 17 years. A tiny percentage of commerce is conducted using. You have a handful of businesses accepting it for payment. When I see 7/11 accepting it, when my Fortune 500 employer gives me an option for paying me, I'll know it's arrived. Until then enjoy your peer to peer transactions.
That's nonsense. Skydiving is easy. Not everyone does it. Where you were and are wrong is assuming that it is difficult and that's why it hasn't been adopted. It hasn't been adopted for dozens of reasons, such as skepticism.
Are YOU only not using it because of how hard it is to use? [Dare you to say "yes".]
A woeful poor analogy. Actually a pretty ridiculous analogy. Skydiving isn't an essential part of every day life. Buying and selling is. Beyond that (if you really knew anything about what skills are requirec to skydive) you would never say it is easy. There is a tremendous amount of planning and preparation that goes into skydiving. It's NOT just about pulling a cord...smh.
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
@pmh1nic said:
Agree. Convenience is a critical factor in getting folks to adapt to a new system. Add a few horror stories of folks unable to retrieve their funds or the horror stories of an SBF (goes well beyond FTX) and I think you have enough to drive most folks away from a system that isn't perceived as convenient or safe.
Um, Cryptocurrency is about as convenient as it gets for sending money to someone, particularly tiny or large amounts.
The traditional banking system has driven me away with its fees, delays, and restrictions. Very inconvenient. I feel the funds in my crypto wallet are safer than the dollar bills in my safe at home or in the wallet I carry. I would definitely feel safer using crypto to make a transaction from anywhere with internet access and not having to carry large amounts of fiat around.
Actually it's not convenient which is why many if not most folks either haven't done it or opted to use an exchange. Beyond that many of those that dumped money into crypto over the last couple of years didn't do it as a means of exchange but as an investment hoping to realize the massive gains touted by the crypto hawks.
There are transaction delays and cost involved in using crypto as payment. It doesn't happen instantaneously.
Clearly you've never used it or you wouldn't be saying that. If you gave me your BTC address, I could send you $1M in BTC and you'd have a confirmation within minutes with only a few dollar fee. But, it's Sunday afternoon. If I wanted to send you $1M, I'd have to wait until Monday morning at 9am, I'd have to drive to my bank (and back), spend at least a half hour waiting in line and and working with a banker to fill out the bank wire form, probably have to wait for the branch manager to authorize it, then maybe, just maybe you'll have the money on Monday afternoon and you'll have paid $30-50 for a domestic wire fee. The alternative is to write a check, stick it in the mail, 3 or 4 days later you get it, deposit it in your account, and then when the bank decides to clear it you can spend it. So, again, which one is faster, easier, and more convenient?
And as @jmlanzaf answered very well, difficulty of use isn't stopping anyone from using it.
@jmlanzaf said:
Yes. But no matter when you jump in on the dollar, you lose 2%+ per year.
And even then that's only if you calculate it the way the government does, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
@pmh1nic said:
You don't justify one terrible asset by bringing up other terrible assets. You don't validate the hawking of one bad investment by talking up how others have hyped bad investments.
Nice diversion attempt. You were talking about the crypto hucksters and I replied with a point about rare coin hucksters. The point stands that it doesn't matter what the hucksters say it doesn't change the merits of the investment being promoted, and we shouldn't give their hype much credence, but you keep doing it.
Prevalent??? Define prevalent.
Prevalent: in general use or acceptance.
Bitcoin can NEVER be a significant factor in commerce outside the government's ability to control it. If it can't be controlled by government there won't be mass acceptance.
That's not the government's decision to make. If "the people" decided to use pretty rocks or shells for commerce, there's nothing the government can do to stop us.
By mass acceptance I mean Fortune 500 companies are paying folks in Bitcoin, governments are paying their employees in Bitcoin and people are receiving their government benefits in Bitcoin. One statistic I read was Fortune 500 companies make up 2/3 of the U.S. GDP. Add government employees and those receiving government benefits and that's the vast majority of the economy, and the rest of the economy is not going to be functioning on a different system.
That's silly. Paypal is prevalent and widely used and available, but no employer pays people through Paypal either, yet I can use it as a payment method on almost every retailer's website.
Millions of folks decided it wasn't convenient and chose to go through an exchange. There are fees and there are delays. We're talking about day to day transactions not million dollar transfers.
No switch. You tried to justify the existence of crypto hawkers by bringing in coin hawkers. You don't justify one type of hawking by referring another type of hawking.
Not silly at all. I don't define PayPal as prevalent. There were 19 billion PayPal transactions in 2021. That is a miniscule proportion of transactions done worldwide. In contrast Visa had
13 trillion transactions in 2021. Again, when major corporations and governments start transacting in Bitcoin you'll have something to talk about. But that's not going to happen.
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
@ms71 said:
I just don't understand all the arguing about crypto. If you like it, play it! If you don't like it, don't play it! Problem solved. Why the need to convince others of its worthiness or unworthiness?
Actually yes I think now the horse has been beaten ad nauseum.
And now we get to hear from the genius SBF about how he absconded with monies to play his pyramid game.
Hey like it's been said so many times when things are up everything is golden, when valuations plummet run for cover.
Crypto is becoming an answer to a question fewer and fewer people are asking.
@moursund said:
I rather consider cryptocurrency to be a pyramid scheme.
like the dollar?
Not really. They force you to use the dollar... and they promise you that you lose 2% of its value every year. It's arguably worse than a Ponzi scheme. In a Ponzi scheme you actually choose to enter and have some probability of gain.
Not true. The government has a goal that you will lose 2%/year, but there is nothing like a guarantee.
@moursund said:
I rather consider cryptocurrency to be a pyramid scheme.
like the dollar?
Not really. They force you to use the dollar... and they promise you that you lose 2% of its value every year. It's arguably worse than a Ponzi scheme. In a Ponzi scheme you actually choose to enter and have some probability of gain.
Not true. The government has a goal that you will lose 2%/year, but there is nothing like a guarantee.
True. Sometimes it is much more than tat.> @pmh1nic said:
@pmh1nic said:
Agree. Convenience is a critical factor in getting folks to adapt to a new system. Add a few horror stories of folks unable to retrieve their funds or the horror stories of an SBF (goes well beyond FTX) and I think you have enough to drive most folks away from a system that isn't perceived as convenient or safe.
>
Are YOU only not using it because of how hard it is to use? [Dare you to say "yes".]
A woeful poor analogy. Actually a pretty ridiculous analogy. Skydiving isn't an essential part of every day life. Buying and selling is. Beyond that (if you really knew anything about what skills are requirec to skydive) you would never say it is easy. There is a tremendous amount of planning and preparation that goes into skydiving. It's NOT just about pulling a cord...smh.
I guess you know nothing about skydiving either. You can go to the airport and in 3 hours be jumping out of a plane - mandatory safety training.
But the point was, is, and remains unanswered by you - the usual dodge of a direct answer when you know it destroys your argument. YOU don't refuse to use BTC because it is hard. YOU refuse it because you are skeptical. In fact, BTC is easy to use - as easy as PayPal. But the ease of use won't get you to use it. And it isn't the (incorrectly alleged) difficulty in use that prevents its being used.
And NO ONE wants you to use it. I don't. I don't even want you to embrace it. However, it would be nice if you stopped making up facts to support your biases. BTC is as easy to use as Venmo or PayPal. Doesn't mean YOU should use it. But it is NOT hard.
@pmh1nic said:
Agree. Convenience is a critical factor in getting folks to adapt to a new system. Add a few horror stories of folks unable to retrieve their funds or the horror stories of an SBF (goes well beyond FTX) and I think you have enough to drive most folks away from a system that isn't perceived as convenient or safe.
Um, Cryptocurrency is about as convenient as it gets for sending money to someone, particularly tiny or large amounts.
The traditional banking system has driven me away with its fees, delays, and restrictions. Very inconvenient. I feel the funds in my crypto wallet are safer than the dollar bills in my safe at home or in the wallet I carry. I would definitely feel safer using crypto to make a transaction from anywhere with internet access and not having to carry large amounts of fiat around.
Actually it's not convenient which is why many if not most folks either haven't done it or opted to use an exchange. Beyond that many of those that dumped money into crypto over the last couple of years didn't do it as a means of exchange but as an investment hoping to realize the massive gains touted by the crypto hawks.
There are transaction delays and cost involved in using crypto as payment. It doesn't happen instantaneously.
Clearly you've never used it or you wouldn't be saying that. If you gave me your BTC address, I could send you $1M in BTC and you'd have a confirmation within minutes with only a few dollar fee. But, it's Sunday afternoon. If I wanted to send you $1M, I'd have to wait until Monday morning at 9am, I'd have to drive to my bank (and back), spend at least a half hour waiting in line and and working with a banker to fill out the bank wire form, probably have to wait for the branch manager to authorize it, then maybe, just maybe you'll have the money on Monday afternoon and you'll have paid $30-50 for a domestic wire fee. The alternative is to write a check, stick it in the mail, 3 or 4 days later you get it, deposit it in your account, and then when the bank decides to clear it you can spend it. So, again, which one is faster, easier, and more convenient?
And as @jmlanzaf answered very well, difficulty of use isn't stopping anyone from using it.
@jmlanzaf said:
Yes. But no matter when you jump in on the dollar, you lose 2%+ per year.
And even then that's only if you calculate it the way the government does, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
@pmh1nic said:
You don't justify one terrible asset by bringing up other terrible assets. You don't validate the hawking of one bad investment by talking up how others have hyped bad investments.
Nice diversion attempt. You were talking about the crypto hucksters and I replied with a point about rare coin hucksters. The point stands that it doesn't matter what the hucksters say it doesn't change the merits of the investment being promoted, and we shouldn't give their hype much credence, but you keep doing it.
Prevalent??? Define prevalent.
Prevalent: in general use or acceptance.
Bitcoin can NEVER be a significant factor in commerce outside the government's ability to control it. If it can't be controlled by government there won't be mass acceptance.
That's not the government's decision to make. If "the people" decided to use pretty rocks or shells for commerce, there's nothing the government can do to stop us.
By mass acceptance I mean Fortune 500 companies are paying folks in Bitcoin, governments are paying their employees in Bitcoin and people are receiving their government benefits in Bitcoin. One statistic I read was Fortune 500 companies make up 2/3 of the U.S. GDP. Add government employees and those receiving government benefits and that's the vast majority of the economy, and the rest of the economy is not going to be functioning on a different system.
That's silly. Paypal is prevalent and widely used and available, but no employer pays people through Paypal either, yet I can use it as a payment method on almost every retailer's website.
Millions of folks decided it wasn't convenient and chose to go through an exchange. There are fees and there are delays. We're talking about day to day transactions not million dollar transfers.
No switch. You tried to justify the existence of crypto hawkers by bringing in coin hawkers. You don't justify one type of hawking by referring another type of hawking.
Not silly at all. I don't define PayPal as prevalent. There were 19 billion PayPal transactions in 2021. That is a miniscule proportion of transactions done worldwide. In contrast Visa had
13 trillion transactions in 2021. Again, when major corporations and governments start transacting in Bitcoin you'll have something to talk about. But that's not going to happen.
lmfao - PayPal isn't "prevalent"? I guess cash isn't prevalent either since most transactions aren't in cash.
"Another proof that cash is no longer king: Only 14% of American consumers use it for all their weekly purchases, according to the Pew Research Center. At the same time, 44% confirmed they use cash for some purchases, while 41% hardly ever use it." [fortunly.com]
@moursund said:
I rather consider cryptocurrency to be a pyramid scheme.
like the dollar?
Not really. They force you to use the dollar... and they promise you that you lose 2% of its value every year. It's arguably worse than a Ponzi scheme. In a Ponzi scheme you actually choose to enter and have some probability of gain.
Not true. The government has a goal that you will lose 2%/year, but there is nothing like a guarantee.
True. Sometimes it is much more than tat.> @pmh1nic said:
@pmh1nic said:
Agree. Convenience is a critical factor in getting folks to adapt to a new system. Add a few horror stories of folks unable to retrieve their funds or the horror stories of an SBF (goes well beyond FTX) and I think you have enough to drive most folks away from a system that isn't perceived as convenient or safe.
>
Are YOU only not using it because of how hard it is to use? [Dare you to say "yes".]
A woeful poor analogy. Actually a pretty ridiculous analogy. Skydiving isn't an essential part of every day life. Buying and selling is. Beyond that (if you really knew anything about what skills are requirec to skydive) you would never say it is easy. There is a tremendous amount of planning and preparation that goes into skydiving. It's NOT just about pulling a cord...smh.
I guess you know nothing about skydiving either. You can go to the airport and in 3 hours be jumping out of a plane - mandatory safety training.
But the point was, is, and remains unanswered by you - the usual dodge of a direct answer when you know it destroys your argument. YOU don't refuse to use BTC because it is hard. YOU refuse it because you are skeptical. In fact, BTC is easy to use - as easy as PayPal. But the ease of use won't get you to use it. And it isn't the (incorrectly alleged) difficulty in use that prevents its being used.
And NO ONE wants you to use it. I don't. I don't even want you to embrace it. However, it would be nice if you stopped making up facts to support your biases. BTC is as easy to use as Venmo or PayPal. Doesn't mean YOU should use it. But it is NOT hard.
First, that's not skydiving. That's being a skydiving passenger. And as a passenger you have no idea what it took to prepare for your being a passenger, from packing the parachute to flying the plane.
Second, the Bitcoin is neither convenient or secure. The fact that exchanges exist is evidence it's not easy and the fact that those exchanges have lost tens of billions in customer assets is evidence ite not secure.
Third, I have not made up any facts. The central point is Bitcoin and no other crypto that isn't controlled by government is going to become a primary means of commerce. It isn't now and never will be.
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
@pmh1nic said:
Agree. Convenience is a critical factor in getting folks to adapt to a new system. Add a few horror stories of folks unable to retrieve their funds or the horror stories of an SBF (goes well beyond FTX) and I think you have enough to drive most folks away from a system that isn't perceived as convenient or safe.
Um, Cryptocurrency is about as convenient as it gets for sending money to someone, particularly tiny or large amounts.
The traditional banking system has driven me away with its fees, delays, and restrictions. Very inconvenient. I feel the funds in my crypto wallet are safer than the dollar bills in my safe at home or in the wallet I carry. I would definitely feel safer using crypto to make a transaction from anywhere with internet access and not having to carry large amounts of fiat around.
Actually it's not convenient which is why many if not most folks either haven't done it or opted to use an exchange. Beyond that many of those that dumped money into crypto over the last couple of years didn't do it as a means of exchange but as an investment hoping to realize the massive gains touted by the crypto hawks.
There are transaction delays and cost involved in using crypto as payment. It doesn't happen instantaneously.
Clearly you've never used it or you wouldn't be saying that. If you gave me your BTC address, I could send you $1M in BTC and you'd have a confirmation within minutes with only a few dollar fee. But, it's Sunday afternoon. If I wanted to send you $1M, I'd have to wait until Monday morning at 9am, I'd have to drive to my bank (and back), spend at least a half hour waiting in line and and working with a banker to fill out the bank wire form, probably have to wait for the branch manager to authorize it, then maybe, just maybe you'll have the money on Monday afternoon and you'll have paid $30-50 for a domestic wire fee. The alternative is to write a check, stick it in the mail, 3 or 4 days later you get it, deposit it in your account, and then when the bank decides to clear it you can spend it. So, again, which one is faster, easier, and more convenient?
And as @jmlanzaf answered very well, difficulty of use isn't stopping anyone from using it.
@jmlanzaf said:
Yes. But no matter when you jump in on the dollar, you lose 2%+ per year.
And even then that's only if you calculate it the way the government does, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
@pmh1nic said:
You don't justify one terrible asset by bringing up other terrible assets. You don't validate the hawking of one bad investment by talking up how others have hyped bad investments.
Nice diversion attempt. You were talking about the crypto hucksters and I replied with a point about rare coin hucksters. The point stands that it doesn't matter what the hucksters say it doesn't change the merits of the investment being promoted, and we shouldn't give their hype much credence, but you keep doing it.
Prevalent??? Define prevalent.
Prevalent: in general use or acceptance.
Bitcoin can NEVER be a significant factor in commerce outside the government's ability to control it. If it can't be controlled by government there won't be mass acceptance.
That's not the government's decision to make. If "the people" decided to use pretty rocks or shells for commerce, there's nothing the government can do to stop us.
By mass acceptance I mean Fortune 500 companies are paying folks in Bitcoin, governments are paying their employees in Bitcoin and people are receiving their government benefits in Bitcoin. One statistic I read was Fortune 500 companies make up 2/3 of the U.S. GDP. Add government employees and those receiving government benefits and that's the vast majority of the economy, and the rest of the economy is not going to be functioning on a different system.
That's silly. Paypal is prevalent and widely used and available, but no employer pays people through Paypal either, yet I can use it as a payment method on almost every retailer's website.
Millions of folks decided it wasn't convenient and chose to go through an exchange. There are fees and there are delays. We're talking about day to day transactions not million dollar transfers.
No switch. You tried to justify the existence of crypto hawkers by bringing in coin hawkers. You don't justify one type of hawking by referring another type of hawking.
Not silly at all. I don't define PayPal as prevalent. There were 19 billion PayPal transactions in 2021. That is a miniscule proportion of transactions done worldwide. In contrast Visa had
13 trillion transactions in 2021. Again, when major corporations and governments start transacting in Bitcoin you'll have something to talk about. But that's not going to happen.
lmfao - PayPal isn't "prevalent"? I guess cash isn't prevalent either since most transactions aren't in cash.
"Another proof that cash is no longer king: Only 14% of American consumers use it for all their weekly purchases, according to the Pew Research Center. At the same time, 44% confirmed they use cash for some purchases, while 41% hardly ever use it." [fortunly.com]
Using words like prevalent is meaningless. What is more "prevalent" 19 billion transactions (Visa) or 13 trillion PayPal)? The fact is you have no context in which to claim PayPal is prevalent. Do you know how many cash transactions occurred in 2021?
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
By mass acceptance I mean Fortune 500 companies are paying folks in Bitcoin, governments are paying their employees in Bitcoin and people are receiving their government benefits in Bitcoin. One statistic I read was Fortune 500 companies make up 2/3 of the U.S. GDP. Add government employees and those receiving government benefits and that's the vast majority of the economy, and the rest of the economy is not going to be functioning on a different system.
That's silly. Paypal is prevalent and widely used and available, but no employer pays people through Paypal either, yet I can use it as a payment method on almost every retailer's website.
But this is an entire non sequitur. Paypal is [a] prevalent and widely used and available way to transfer dollars. You allege that no employer uses Paypal to pay people IN DOLLARS, yet every retailer will allow you to pay IN DOLLARS with Paypal as a payment method.
There. Now we have restored this to apples to apples.
@pmh1nic said:
Agree. Convenience is a critical factor in getting folks to adapt to a new system. Add a few horror stories of folks unable to retrieve their funds or the horror stories of an SBF (goes well beyond FTX) and I think you have enough to drive most folks away from a system that isn't perceived as convenient or safe.
Um, Cryptocurrency is about as convenient as it gets for sending money to someone, particularly tiny or large amounts.
The traditional banking system has driven me away with its fees, delays, and restrictions. Very inconvenient. I feel the funds in my crypto wallet are safer than the dollar bills in my safe at home or in the wallet I carry. I would definitely feel safer using crypto to make a transaction from anywhere with internet access and not having to carry large amounts of fiat around.
Actually it's not convenient which is why many if not most folks either haven't done it or opted to use an exchange. Beyond that many of those that dumped money into crypto over the last couple of years didn't do it as a means of exchange but as an investment hoping to realize the massive gains touted by the crypto hawks.
There are transaction delays and cost involved in using crypto as payment. It doesn't happen instantaneously.
Clearly you've never used it or you wouldn't be saying that. If you gave me your BTC address, I could send you $1M in BTC and you'd have a confirmation within minutes with only a few dollar fee. But, it's Sunday afternoon. If I wanted to send you $1M, I'd have to wait until Monday morning at 9am, I'd have to drive to my bank (and back), spend at least a half hour waiting in line and and working with a banker to fill out the bank wire form, probably have to wait for the branch manager to authorize it, then maybe, just maybe you'll have the money on Monday afternoon and you'll have paid $30-50 for a domestic wire fee. The alternative is to write a check, stick it in the mail, 3 or 4 days later you get it, deposit it in your account, and then when the bank decides to clear it you can spend it. So, again, which one is faster, easier, and more convenient?
And as @jmlanzaf answered very well, difficulty of use isn't stopping anyone from using it.
@jmlanzaf said:
Yes. But no matter when you jump in on the dollar, you lose 2%+ per year.
And even then that's only if you calculate it the way the government does, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
@pmh1nic said:
You don't justify one terrible asset by bringing up other terrible assets. You don't validate the hawking of one bad investment by talking up how others have hyped bad investments.
Nice diversion attempt. You were talking about the crypto hucksters and I replied with a point about rare coin hucksters. The point stands that it doesn't matter what the hucksters say it doesn't change the merits of the investment being promoted, and we shouldn't give their hype much credence, but you keep doing it.
Prevalent??? Define prevalent.
Prevalent: in general use or acceptance.
Bitcoin can NEVER be a significant factor in commerce outside the government's ability to control it. If it can't be controlled by government there won't be mass acceptance.
That's not the government's decision to make. If "the people" decided to use pretty rocks or shells for commerce, there's nothing the government can do to stop us.
By mass acceptance I mean Fortune 500 companies are paying folks in Bitcoin, governments are paying their employees in Bitcoin and people are receiving their government benefits in Bitcoin. One statistic I read was Fortune 500 companies make up 2/3 of the U.S. GDP. Add government employees and those receiving government benefits and that's the vast majority of the economy, and the rest of the economy is not going to be functioning on a different system.
That's silly. Paypal is prevalent and widely used and available, but no employer pays people through Paypal either, yet I can use it as a payment method on almost every retailer's website.
Millions of folks decided it wasn't convenient and chose to go through an exchange. There are fees and there are delays. We're talking about day to day transactions not million dollar transfers.
No switch. You tried to justify the existence of crypto hawkers by bringing in coin hawkers. You don't justify one type of hawking by referring another type of hawking.
Not silly at all. I don't define PayPal as prevalent. There were 19 billion PayPal transactions in 2021. That is a miniscule proportion of transactions done worldwide. In contrast Visa had
13 trillion transactions in 2021. Again, when major corporations and governments start transacting in Bitcoin you'll have something to talk about. But that's not going to happen.
lmfao - PayPal isn't "prevalent"? I guess cash isn't prevalent either since most transactions aren't in cash.
"Another proof that cash is no longer king: Only 14% of American consumers use it for all their weekly purchases, according to the Pew Research Center. At the same time, 44% confirmed they use cash for some purchases, while 41% hardly ever use it." [fortunly.com]
Using words like prevalent is meaningless. What is more "prevalent" 19 billion transactions (Visa) or 13 trillion PayPal)? The fact is you have no context in which to claim PayPal is prevalent. Do you know how many cash transactions occurred in 2021?
I think you have you numbers switched.
"Prevalent" as in "accepted by most large retailers on their websites".
By the way, you just acknowledged that PayPal is "prevalent", otherwise how could Visa be "more prevalent".
Sitting back and toasting VICTORY! So sweet the taste... I'm going to buy champagne with PayPal and a gold victory medal with BTC.
@pmh1nic said:
Agree. Convenience is a critical factor in getting folks to adapt to a new system. Add a few horror stories of folks unable to retrieve their funds or the horror stories of an SBF (goes well beyond FTX) and I think you have enough to drive most folks away from a system that isn't perceived as convenient or safe.
Um, Cryptocurrency is about as convenient as it gets for sending money to someone, particularly tiny or large amounts.
The traditional banking system has driven me away with its fees, delays, and restrictions. Very inconvenient. I feel the funds in my crypto wallet are safer than the dollar bills in my safe at home or in the wallet I carry. I would definitely feel safer using crypto to make a transaction from anywhere with internet access and not having to carry large amounts of fiat around.
Actually it's not convenient which is why many if not most folks either haven't done it or opted to use an exchange. Beyond that many of those that dumped money into crypto over the last couple of years didn't do it as a means of exchange but as an investment hoping to realize the massive gains touted by the crypto hawks.
There are transaction delays and cost involved in using crypto as payment. It doesn't happen instantaneously.
Clearly you've never used it or you wouldn't be saying that. If you gave me your BTC address, I could send you $1M in BTC and you'd have a confirmation within minutes with only a few dollar fee. But, it's Sunday afternoon. If I wanted to send you $1M, I'd have to wait until Monday morning at 9am, I'd have to drive to my bank (and back), spend at least a half hour waiting in line and and working with a banker to fill out the bank wire form, probably have to wait for the branch manager to authorize it, then maybe, just maybe you'll have the money on Monday afternoon and you'll have paid $30-50 for a domestic wire fee. The alternative is to write a check, stick it in the mail, 3 or 4 days later you get it, deposit it in your account, and then when the bank decides to clear it you can spend it. So, again, which one is faster, easier, and more convenient?
And as @jmlanzaf answered very well, difficulty of use isn't stopping anyone from using it.
@jmlanzaf said:
Yes. But no matter when you jump in on the dollar, you lose 2%+ per year.
And even then that's only if you calculate it the way the government does, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
@pmh1nic said:
You don't justify one terrible asset by bringing up other terrible assets. You don't validate the hawking of one bad investment by talking up how others have hyped bad investments.
Nice diversion attempt. You were talking about the crypto hucksters and I replied with a point about rare coin hucksters. The point stands that it doesn't matter what the hucksters say it doesn't change the merits of the investment being promoted, and we shouldn't give their hype much credence, but you keep doing it.
Prevalent??? Define prevalent.
Prevalent: in general use or acceptance.
Bitcoin can NEVER be a significant factor in commerce outside the government's ability to control it. If it can't be controlled by government there won't be mass acceptance.
That's not the government's decision to make. If "the people" decided to use pretty rocks or shells for commerce, there's nothing the government can do to stop us.
By mass acceptance I mean Fortune 500 companies are paying folks in Bitcoin, governments are paying their employees in Bitcoin and people are receiving their government benefits in Bitcoin. One statistic I read was Fortune 500 companies make up 2/3 of the U.S. GDP. Add government employees and those receiving government benefits and that's the vast majority of the economy, and the rest of the economy is not going to be functioning on a different system.
That's silly. Paypal is prevalent and widely used and available, but no employer pays people through Paypal either, yet I can use it as a payment method on almost every retailer's website.
Millions of folks decided it wasn't convenient and chose to go through an exchange. There are fees and there are delays. We're talking about day to day transactions not million dollar transfers.
No switch. You tried to justify the existence of crypto hawkers by bringing in coin hawkers. You don't justify one type of hawking by referring another type of hawking.
Not silly at all. I don't define PayPal as prevalent. There were 19 billion PayPal transactions in 2021. That is a miniscule proportion of transactions done worldwide. In contrast Visa had
13 trillion transactions in 2021. Again, when major corporations and governments start transacting in Bitcoin you'll have something to talk about. But that's not going to happen.
lmfao - PayPal isn't "prevalent"? I guess cash isn't prevalent either since most transactions aren't in cash.
"Another proof that cash is no longer king: Only 14% of American consumers use it for all their weekly purchases, according to the Pew Research Center. At the same time, 44% confirmed they use cash for some purchases, while 41% hardly ever use it." [fortunly.com]
Using words like prevalent is meaningless. What is more "prevalent" 19 billion transactions (Visa) or 13 trillion PayPal)? The fact is you have no context in which to claim PayPal is prevalent. Do you know how many cash transactions occurred in 2021?
I think you have you numbers switched.
"Prevalent" as in "accepted by most large retailers on their websites".
By the way, you just acknowledged that PayPal is "prevalent", otherwise how could Visa be "more prevalent".
Sitting back and toasting VICTORY! So sweet the taste... I'm going to buy champagne with PayPal and a gold victory medal with BTC.> @pmh1nic said:
@moursund said:
I rather consider cryptocurrency to be a pyramid scheme.
like the dollar?
Not really. They force you to use the dollar... and they promise you that you lose 2% of its value every year. It's arguably worse than a Ponzi scheme. In a Ponzi scheme you actually choose to enter and have some probability of gain.
Not true. The government has a goal that you will lose 2%/year, but there is nothing like a guarantee.
True. Sometimes it is much more than tat.> @pmh1nic said:
@pmh1nic said:
Agree. Convenience is a critical factor in getting folks to adapt to a new system. Add a few horror stories of folks unable to retrieve their funds or the horror stories of an SBF (goes well beyond FTX) and I think you have enough to drive most folks away from a system that isn't perceived as convenient or safe.
>
Are YOU only not using it because of how hard it is to use? [Dare you to say "yes".]
A woeful poor analogy. Actually a pretty ridiculous analogy. Skydiving isn't an essential part of every day life. Buying and selling is. Beyond that (if you really knew anything about what skills are requirec to skydive) you would never say it is easy. There is a tremendous amount of planning and preparation that goes into skydiving. It's NOT just about pulling a cord...smh.
I guess you know nothing about skydiving either. You can go to the airport and in 3 hours be jumping out of a plane - mandatory safety training.
But the point was, is, and remains unanswered by you - the usual dodge of a direct answer when you know it destroys your argument. YOU don't refuse to use BTC because it is hard. YOU refuse it because you are skeptical. In fact, BTC is easy to use - as easy as PayPal. But the ease of use won't get you to use it. And it isn't the (incorrectly alleged) difficulty in use that prevents its being used.
And NO ONE wants you to use it. I don't. I don't even want you to embrace it. However, it would be nice if you stopped making up facts to support your biases. BTC is as easy to use as Venmo or PayPal. Doesn't mean YOU should use it. But it is NOT hard.
First, that's not skydiving. That's being a skydiving passenger. And as a passenger you have no idea what it took to prepare for your being a passenger, from packing the parachute to flying the plane.
Second, the Bitcoin is neither convenient or secure. The fact that exchanges exist is evidence it's not easy and the fact that those exchanges have lost tens of billions in customer assets is evidence ite not secure.
Third, I have not made up any facts. The central point is Bitcoin and no other crypto that isn't controlled by government is going to become a primary means of commerce. It isn't now and never will be.
Do you just spend all day redefining terms? If I call the airport, I sign up to "skydive" not be a "skydiving passenger". I'm jumping out of a frigging plane, why do I have to pack my own chute? Do you have to build your own car in order to be a driver? I guess you're just an "automotive passenger". So please stay off the road, I prefer that all cars have drivers.
By mass acceptance I mean Fortune 500 companies are paying folks in Bitcoin, governments are paying their employees in Bitcoin and people are receiving their government benefits in Bitcoin. One statistic I read was Fortune 500 companies make up 2/3 of the U.S. GDP. Add government employees and those receiving government benefits and that's the vast majority of the economy, and the rest of the economy is not going to be functioning on a different system.
That's silly. Paypal is prevalent and widely used and available, but no employer pays people through Paypal either, yet I can use it as a payment method on almost every retailer's website.
But this is an entire non sequitur. Paypal is [a] prevalent and widely used and available way to transfer dollars. You allege that no employer uses Paypal to pay people IN DOLLARS, yet every retailer will allow you to pay IN DOLLARS with Paypal as a payment method.
There. Now we have restored this to apples to apples.
It's non sequitur for two reasons. Whatever payments are done via PayPal they pale in comparison to transactions done via other modes of payment. Beyond that PayPal is vying to become the standard method of payment worldwide. The argument shifted from Bitcoin being the future of world commerce to Bitcoin being prevalent.
Again, my argument has been and still is that no form of commerce is going to replace the dollar that cannot be controlled (regulated, monitored, taxed and manipulated) by governments. ProofCollection has degraded the discussion from Bitcoin being a major factor in commerce to "prevalent" with the meaning of prevalent being whatever he wants to make it.
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
@pmh1nic said:
Agree. Convenience is a critical factor in getting folks to adapt to a new system. Add a few horror stories of folks unable to retrieve their funds or the horror stories of an SBF (goes well beyond FTX) and I think you have enough to drive most folks away from a system that isn't perceived as convenient or safe.
Um, Cryptocurrency is about as convenient as it gets for sending money to someone, particularly tiny or large amounts.
The traditional banking system has driven me away with its fees, delays, and restrictions. Very inconvenient. I feel the funds in my crypto wallet are safer than the dollar bills in my safe at home or in the wallet I carry. I would definitely feel safer using crypto to make a transaction from anywhere with internet access and not having to carry large amounts of fiat around.
Actually it's not convenient which is why many if not most folks either haven't done it or opted to use an exchange. Beyond that many of those that dumped money into crypto over the last couple of years didn't do it as a means of exchange but as an investment hoping to realize the massive gains touted by the crypto hawks.
There are transaction delays and cost involved in using crypto as payment. It doesn't happen instantaneously.
Clearly you've never used it or you wouldn't be saying that. If you gave me your BTC address, I could send you $1M in BTC and you'd have a confirmation within minutes with only a few dollar fee. But, it's Sunday afternoon. If I wanted to send you $1M, I'd have to wait until Monday morning at 9am, I'd have to drive to my bank (and back), spend at least a half hour waiting in line and and working with a banker to fill out the bank wire form, probably have to wait for the branch manager to authorize it, then maybe, just maybe you'll have the money on Monday afternoon and you'll have paid $30-50 for a domestic wire fee. The alternative is to write a check, stick it in the mail, 3 or 4 days later you get it, deposit it in your account, and then when the bank decides to clear it you can spend it. So, again, which one is faster, easier, and more convenient?
And as @jmlanzaf answered very well, difficulty of use isn't stopping anyone from using it.
@jmlanzaf said:
Yes. But no matter when you jump in on the dollar, you lose 2%+ per year.
And even then that's only if you calculate it the way the government does, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
@pmh1nic said:
You don't justify one terrible asset by bringing up other terrible assets. You don't validate the hawking of one bad investment by talking up how others have hyped bad investments.
Nice diversion attempt. You were talking about the crypto hucksters and I replied with a point about rare coin hucksters. The point stands that it doesn't matter what the hucksters say it doesn't change the merits of the investment being promoted, and we shouldn't give their hype much credence, but you keep doing it.
Prevalent??? Define prevalent.
Prevalent: in general use or acceptance.
Bitcoin can NEVER be a significant factor in commerce outside the government's ability to control it. If it can't be controlled by government there won't be mass acceptance.
That's not the government's decision to make. If "the people" decided to use pretty rocks or shells for commerce, there's nothing the government can do to stop us.
By mass acceptance I mean Fortune 500 companies are paying folks in Bitcoin, governments are paying their employees in Bitcoin and people are receiving their government benefits in Bitcoin. One statistic I read was Fortune 500 companies make up 2/3 of the U.S. GDP. Add government employees and those receiving government benefits and that's the vast majority of the economy, and the rest of the economy is not going to be functioning on a different system.
That's silly. Paypal is prevalent and widely used and available, but no employer pays people through Paypal either, yet I can use it as a payment method on almost every retailer's website.
Millions of folks decided it wasn't convenient and chose to go through an exchange. There are fees and there are delays. We're talking about day to day transactions not million dollar transfers.
No switch. You tried to justify the existence of crypto hawkers by bringing in coin hawkers. You don't justify one type of hawking by referring another type of hawking.
Not silly at all. I don't define PayPal as prevalent. There were 19 billion PayPal transactions in 2021. That is a miniscule proportion of transactions done worldwide. In contrast Visa had
13 trillion transactions in 2021. Again, when major corporations and governments start transacting in Bitcoin you'll have something to talk about. But that's not going to happen.
lmfao - PayPal isn't "prevalent"? I guess cash isn't prevalent either since most transactions aren't in cash.
"Another proof that cash is no longer king: Only 14% of American consumers use it for all their weekly purchases, according to the Pew Research Center. At the same time, 44% confirmed they use cash for some purchases, while 41% hardly ever use it." [fortunly.com]
Using words like prevalent is meaningless. What is more "prevalent" 19 billion transactions (Visa) or 13 trillion PayPal)? The fact is you have no context in which to claim PayPal is prevalent. Do you know how many cash transactions occurred in 2021?
I think you have you numbers switched.
"Prevalent" as in "accepted by most large retailers on their websites".
By the way, you just acknowledged that PayPal is "prevalent", otherwise how could Visa be "more prevalent".
Sitting back and toasting VICTORY! So sweet the taste... I'm going to buy champagne with PayPal and a gold victory medal with BTC.> @pmh1nic said:
@moursund said:
I rather consider cryptocurrency to be a pyramid scheme.
like the dollar?
Not really. They force you to use the dollar... and they promise you that you lose 2% of its value every year. It's arguably worse than a Ponzi scheme. In a Ponzi scheme you actually choose to enter and have some probability of gain.
Not true. The government has a goal that you will lose 2%/year, but there is nothing like a guarantee.
True. Sometimes it is much more than tat.> @pmh1nic said:
@pmh1nic said:
Agree. Convenience is a critical factor in getting folks to adapt to a new system. Add a few horror stories of folks unable to retrieve their funds or the horror stories of an SBF (goes well beyond FTX) and I think you have enough to drive most folks away from a system that isn't perceived as convenient or safe.
>
Are YOU only not using it because of how hard it is to use? [Dare you to say "yes".]
A woeful poor analogy. Actually a pretty ridiculous analogy. Skydiving isn't an essential part of every day life. Buying and selling is. Beyond that (if you really knew anything about what skills are requirec to skydive) you would never say it is easy. There is a tremendous amount of planning and preparation that goes into skydiving. It's NOT just about pulling a cord...smh.
I guess you know nothing about skydiving either. You can go to the airport and in 3 hours be jumping out of a plane - mandatory safety training.
But the point was, is, and remains unanswered by you - the usual dodge of a direct answer when you know it destroys your argument. YOU don't refuse to use BTC because it is hard. YOU refuse it because you are skeptical. In fact, BTC is easy to use - as easy as PayPal. But the ease of use won't get you to use it. And it isn't the (incorrectly alleged) difficulty in use that prevents its being used.
And NO ONE wants you to use it. I don't. I don't even want you to embrace it. However, it would be nice if you stopped making up facts to support your biases. BTC is as easy to use as Venmo or PayPal. Doesn't mean YOU should use it. But it is NOT hard.
First, that's not skydiving. That's being a skydiving passenger. And as a passenger you have no idea what it took to prepare for your being a passenger, from packing the parachute to flying the plane.
Second, the Bitcoin is neither convenient or secure. The fact that exchanges exist is evidence it's not easy and the fact that those exchanges have lost tens of billions in customer assets is evidence ite not secure.
Third, I have not made up any facts. The central point is Bitcoin and no other crypto that isn't controlled by government is going to become a primary means of commerce. It isn't now and never will be.
Do you just spend all day redefining terms? If I call the airport, I sign up to "skydive" not be a "skydiving passenger". I'm jumping out of a frigging plane, why do I have to pack my own chute? Do you have to build your own car in order to be a driver? I guess you're just an "automotive passenger". So please stay off the road, I prefer that all cars have drivers.
I don't have the numbers switched. Do some research.
I don't bring up the word "prevalent" and it really is a diversion from the fundamental discussion. The discussion was whether Bitcoin was going to replace the dollar or any other of the major currencies of the world. That's why ProofCollector reference El Salvador. That was his example of Bitcoin become a powerhouse in currency.
So safe your "prevalent" definition and argument for when it matters. In this discussion is was a diversion.
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
@pmh1nic said:
Agree. Convenience is a critical factor in getting folks to adapt to a new system. Add a few horror stories of folks unable to retrieve their funds or the horror stories of an SBF (goes well beyond FTX) and I think you have enough to drive most folks away from a system that isn't perceived as convenient or safe.
Um, Cryptocurrency is about as convenient as it gets for sending money to someone, particularly tiny or large amounts.
The traditional banking system has driven me away with its fees, delays, and restrictions. Very inconvenient. I feel the funds in my crypto wallet are safer than the dollar bills in my safe at home or in the wallet I carry. I would definitely feel safer using crypto to make a transaction from anywhere with internet access and not having to carry large amounts of fiat around.
Actually it's not convenient which is why many if not most folks either haven't done it or opted to use an exchange. Beyond that many of those that dumped money into crypto over the last couple of years didn't do it as a means of exchange but as an investment hoping to realize the massive gains touted by the crypto hawks.
There are transaction delays and cost involved in using crypto as payment. It doesn't happen instantaneously.
Clearly you've never used it or you wouldn't be saying that. If you gave me your BTC address, I could send you $1M in BTC and you'd have a confirmation within minutes with only a few dollar fee. But, it's Sunday afternoon. If I wanted to send you $1M, I'd have to wait until Monday morning at 9am, I'd have to drive to my bank (and back), spend at least a half hour waiting in line and and working with a banker to fill out the bank wire form, probably have to wait for the branch manager to authorize it, then maybe, just maybe you'll have the money on Monday afternoon and you'll have paid $30-50 for a domestic wire fee. The alternative is to write a check, stick it in the mail, 3 or 4 days later you get it, deposit it in your account, and then when the bank decides to clear it you can spend it. So, again, which one is faster, easier, and more convenient?
And as @jmlanzaf answered very well, difficulty of use isn't stopping anyone from using it.
@jmlanzaf said:
Yes. But no matter when you jump in on the dollar, you lose 2%+ per year.
And even then that's only if you calculate it the way the government does, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
@pmh1nic said:
You don't justify one terrible asset by bringing up other terrible assets. You don't validate the hawking of one bad investment by talking up how others have hyped bad investments.
Nice diversion attempt. You were talking about the crypto hucksters and I replied with a point about rare coin hucksters. The point stands that it doesn't matter what the hucksters say it doesn't change the merits of the investment being promoted, and we shouldn't give their hype much credence, but you keep doing it.
Prevalent??? Define prevalent.
Prevalent: in general use or acceptance.
Bitcoin can NEVER be a significant factor in commerce outside the government's ability to control it. If it can't be controlled by government there won't be mass acceptance.
That's not the government's decision to make. If "the people" decided to use pretty rocks or shells for commerce, there's nothing the government can do to stop us.
By mass acceptance I mean Fortune 500 companies are paying folks in Bitcoin, governments are paying their employees in Bitcoin and people are receiving their government benefits in Bitcoin. One statistic I read was Fortune 500 companies make up 2/3 of the U.S. GDP. Add government employees and those receiving government benefits and that's the vast majority of the economy, and the rest of the economy is not going to be functioning on a different system.
That's silly. Paypal is prevalent and widely used and available, but no employer pays people through Paypal either, yet I can use it as a payment method on almost every retailer's website.
Millions of folks decided it wasn't convenient and chose to go through an exchange. There are fees and there are delays. We're talking about day to day transactions not million dollar transfers.
No switch. You tried to justify the existence of crypto hawkers by bringing in coin hawkers. You don't justify one type of hawking by referring another type of hawking.
Not silly at all. I don't define PayPal as prevalent. There were 19 billion PayPal transactions in 2021. That is a miniscule proportion of transactions done worldwide. In contrast Visa had
13 trillion transactions in 2021. Again, when major corporations and governments start transacting in Bitcoin you'll have something to talk about. But that's not going to happen.
lmfao - PayPal isn't "prevalent"? I guess cash isn't prevalent either since most transactions aren't in cash.
"Another proof that cash is no longer king: Only 14% of American consumers use it for all their weekly purchases, according to the Pew Research Center. At the same time, 44% confirmed they use cash for some purchases, while 41% hardly ever use it." [fortunly.com]
Using words like prevalent is meaningless. What is more "prevalent" 19 billion transactions (Visa) or 13 trillion PayPal)? The fact is you have no context in which to claim PayPal is prevalent. Do you know how many cash transactions occurred in 2021?
I think you have you numbers switched.
"Prevalent" as in "accepted by most large retailers on their websites".
By the way, you just acknowledged that PayPal is "prevalent", otherwise how could Visa be "more prevalent".
Sitting back and toasting VICTORY! So sweet the taste... I'm going to buy champagne with PayPal and a gold victory medal with BTC.> @pmh1nic said:
@moursund said:
I rather consider cryptocurrency to be a pyramid scheme.
like the dollar?
Not really. They force you to use the dollar... and they promise you that you lose 2% of its value every year. It's arguably worse than a Ponzi scheme. In a Ponzi scheme you actually choose to enter and have some probability of gain.
Not true. The government has a goal that you will lose 2%/year, but there is nothing like a guarantee.
True. Sometimes it is much more than tat.> @pmh1nic said:
@pmh1nic said:
Agree. Convenience is a critical factor in getting folks to adapt to a new system. Add a few horror stories of folks unable to retrieve their funds or the horror stories of an SBF (goes well beyond FTX) and I think you have enough to drive most folks away from a system that isn't perceived as convenient or safe.
>
Are YOU only not using it because of how hard it is to use? [Dare you to say "yes".]
A woeful poor analogy. Actually a pretty ridiculous analogy. Skydiving isn't an essential part of every day life. Buying and selling is. Beyond that (if you really knew anything about what skills are requirec to skydive) you would never say it is easy. There is a tremendous amount of planning and preparation that goes into skydiving. It's NOT just about pulling a cord...smh.
I guess you know nothing about skydiving either. You can go to the airport and in 3 hours be jumping out of a plane - mandatory safety training.
But the point was, is, and remains unanswered by you - the usual dodge of a direct answer when you know it destroys your argument. YOU don't refuse to use BTC because it is hard. YOU refuse it because you are skeptical. In fact, BTC is easy to use - as easy as PayPal. But the ease of use won't get you to use it. And it isn't the (incorrectly alleged) difficulty in use that prevents its being used.
And NO ONE wants you to use it. I don't. I don't even want you to embrace it. However, it would be nice if you stopped making up facts to support your biases. BTC is as easy to use as Venmo or PayPal. Doesn't mean YOU should use it. But it is NOT hard.
First, that's not skydiving. That's being a skydiving passenger. And as a passenger you have no idea what it took to prepare for your being a passenger, from packing the parachute to flying the plane.
Second, the Bitcoin is neither convenient or secure. The fact that exchanges exist is evidence it's not easy and the fact that those exchanges have lost tens of billions in customer assets is evidence ite not secure.
Third, I have not made up any facts. The central point is Bitcoin and no other crypto that isn't controlled by government is going to become a primary means of commerce. It isn't now and never will be.
Do you just spend all day redefining terms? If I call the airport, I sign up to "skydive" not be a "skydiving passenger". I'm jumping out of a frigging plane, why do I have to pack my own chute? Do you have to build your own car in order to be a driver? I guess you're just an "automotive passenger". So please stay off the road, I prefer that all cars have drivers.
I don't have the numbers switched. Do some research.
I don't bring up the word "prevalent" and it really is a diversion from the fundamental discussion. The discussion was whether Bitcoin was going to replace the dollar or any other of the major currencies of the world. That's why ProofCollector reference El Salvador. That was his example of Bitcoin become a powerhouse in currency.
So safe your "prevalent" definition and argument for when it matters. In this discussion is was a diversion.
In your numbers, PayPal is larger than Visa which runs counter to your thesis and the actual numbers. The 19 billion goes with PayPal... or would you like to double down on the error. I offer a helpful edit and you just can't help but say "no".
You are the only one who has ever mentioned replacing a currency. Proofcollector has never suggested it.
By mass acceptance I mean Fortune 500 companies are paying folks in Bitcoin, governments are paying their employees in Bitcoin and people are receiving their government benefits in Bitcoin. One statistic I read was Fortune 500 companies make up 2/3 of the U.S. GDP. Add government employees and those receiving government benefits and that's the vast majority of the economy, and the rest of the economy is not going to be functioning on a different system.
That's silly. Paypal is prevalent and widely used and available, but no employer pays people through Paypal either, yet I can use it as a payment method on almost every retailer's website.
But this is an entire non sequitur. Paypal is [a] prevalent and widely used and available way to transfer dollars. You allege that no employer uses Paypal to pay people IN DOLLARS, yet every retailer will allow you to pay IN DOLLARS with Paypal as a payment method.
There. Now we have restored this to apples to apples.
It's non sequitur for two reasons. Whatever payments are done via PayPal they pale in comparison to transactions done via other modes of payment. Beyond that PayPal is vying to become the standard method of payment worldwide. The argument shifted from Bitcoin being the future of world commerce to Bitcoin being prevalent.
Again, my argument has been and still is that no form of commerce is going to replace the dollar that cannot be controlled (regulated, monitored, taxed and manipulated) by governments. ProofCollection has degraded the discussion from Bitcoin being a major factor in commerce to "prevalent" with the meaning of prevalent being whatever he wants to make it.
He did not say that. He said it could grow to be. He never said that it already was. He has said NUMEROUS times that we are early in the adoption.
@pmh1nic said:
Agree. Convenience is a critical factor in getting folks to adapt to a new system. Add a few horror stories of folks unable to retrieve their funds or the horror stories of an SBF (goes well beyond FTX) and I think you have enough to drive most folks away from a system that isn't perceived as convenient or safe.
Um, Cryptocurrency is about as convenient as it gets for sending money to someone, particularly tiny or large amounts.
The traditional banking system has driven me away with its fees, delays, and restrictions. Very inconvenient. I feel the funds in my crypto wallet are safer than the dollar bills in my safe at home or in the wallet I carry. I would definitely feel safer using crypto to make a transaction from anywhere with internet access and not having to carry large amounts of fiat around.
Actually it's not convenient which is why many if not most folks either haven't done it or opted to use an exchange. Beyond that many of those that dumped money into crypto over the last couple of years didn't do it as a means of exchange but as an investment hoping to realize the massive gains touted by the crypto hawks.
There are transaction delays and cost involved in using crypto as payment. It doesn't happen instantaneously.
Clearly you've never used it or you wouldn't be saying that. If you gave me your BTC address, I could send you $1M in BTC and you'd have a confirmation within minutes with only a few dollar fee. But, it's Sunday afternoon. If I wanted to send you $1M, I'd have to wait until Monday morning at 9am, I'd have to drive to my bank (and back), spend at least a half hour waiting in line and and working with a banker to fill out the bank wire form, probably have to wait for the branch manager to authorize it, then maybe, just maybe you'll have the money on Monday afternoon and you'll have paid $30-50 for a domestic wire fee. The alternative is to write a check, stick it in the mail, 3 or 4 days later you get it, deposit it in your account, and then when the bank decides to clear it you can spend it. So, again, which one is faster, easier, and more convenient?
And as @jmlanzaf answered very well, difficulty of use isn't stopping anyone from using it.
@jmlanzaf said:
Yes. But no matter when you jump in on the dollar, you lose 2%+ per year.
And even then that's only if you calculate it the way the government does, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
@pmh1nic said:
You don't justify one terrible asset by bringing up other terrible assets. You don't validate the hawking of one bad investment by talking up how others have hyped bad investments.
Nice diversion attempt. You were talking about the crypto hucksters and I replied with a point about rare coin hucksters. The point stands that it doesn't matter what the hucksters say it doesn't change the merits of the investment being promoted, and we shouldn't give their hype much credence, but you keep doing it.
Prevalent??? Define prevalent.
Prevalent: in general use or acceptance.
Bitcoin can NEVER be a significant factor in commerce outside the government's ability to control it. If it can't be controlled by government there won't be mass acceptance.
That's not the government's decision to make. If "the people" decided to use pretty rocks or shells for commerce, there's nothing the government can do to stop us.
By mass acceptance I mean Fortune 500 companies are paying folks in Bitcoin, governments are paying their employees in Bitcoin and people are receiving their government benefits in Bitcoin. One statistic I read was Fortune 500 companies make up 2/3 of the U.S. GDP. Add government employees and those receiving government benefits and that's the vast majority of the economy, and the rest of the economy is not going to be functioning on a different system.
That's silly. Paypal is prevalent and widely used and available, but no employer pays people through Paypal either, yet I can use it as a payment method on almost every retailer's website.
Millions of folks decided it wasn't convenient and chose to go through an exchange. There are fees and there are delays. We're talking about day to day transactions not million dollar transfers.
No switch. You tried to justify the existence of crypto hawkers by bringing in coin hawkers. You don't justify one type of hawking by referring another type of hawking.
Not silly at all. I don't define PayPal as prevalent. There were 19 billion PayPal transactions in 2021. That is a miniscule proportion of transactions done worldwide. In contrast Visa had
13 trillion transactions in 2021. Again, when major corporations and governments start transacting in Bitcoin you'll have something to talk about. But that's not going to happen.
lmfao - PayPal isn't "prevalent"? I guess cash isn't prevalent either since most transactions aren't in cash.
"Another proof that cash is no longer king: Only 14% of American consumers use it for all their weekly purchases, according to the Pew Research Center. At the same time, 44% confirmed they use cash for some purchases, while 41% hardly ever use it." [fortunly.com]
Using words like prevalent is meaningless. What is more "prevalent" 19 billion transactions (Visa) or 13 trillion PayPal)? The fact is you have no context in which to claim PayPal is prevalent. Do you know how many cash transactions occurred in 2021?
I think you have you numbers switched.
"Prevalent" as in "accepted by most large retailers on their websites".
By the way, you just acknowledged that PayPal is "prevalent", otherwise how could Visa be "more prevalent".
Sitting back and toasting VICTORY! So sweet the taste... I'm going to buy champagne with PayPal and a gold victory medal with BTC.> @pmh1nic said:
@moursund said:
I rather consider cryptocurrency to be a pyramid scheme.
like the dollar?
Not really. They force you to use the dollar... and they promise you that you lose 2% of its value every year. It's arguably worse than a Ponzi scheme. In a Ponzi scheme you actually choose to enter and have some probability of gain.
Not true. The government has a goal that you will lose 2%/year, but there is nothing like a guarantee.
True. Sometimes it is much more than tat.> @pmh1nic said:
@pmh1nic said:
Agree. Convenience is a critical factor in getting folks to adapt to a new system. Add a few horror stories of folks unable to retrieve their funds or the horror stories of an SBF (goes well beyond FTX) and I think you have enough to drive most folks away from a system that isn't perceived as convenient or safe.
>
Are YOU only not using it because of how hard it is to use? [Dare you to say "yes".]
A woeful poor analogy. Actually a pretty ridiculous analogy. Skydiving isn't an essential part of every day life. Buying and selling is. Beyond that (if you really knew anything about what skills are requirec to skydive) you would never say it is easy. There is a tremendous amount of planning and preparation that goes into skydiving. It's NOT just about pulling a cord...smh.
I guess you know nothing about skydiving either. You can go to the airport and in 3 hours be jumping out of a plane - mandatory safety training.
But the point was, is, and remains unanswered by you - the usual dodge of a direct answer when you know it destroys your argument. YOU don't refuse to use BTC because it is hard. YOU refuse it because you are skeptical. In fact, BTC is easy to use - as easy as PayPal. But the ease of use won't get you to use it. And it isn't the (incorrectly alleged) difficulty in use that prevents its being used.
And NO ONE wants you to use it. I don't. I don't even want you to embrace it. However, it would be nice if you stopped making up facts to support your biases. BTC is as easy to use as Venmo or PayPal. Doesn't mean YOU should use it. But it is NOT hard.
First, that's not skydiving. That's being a skydiving passenger. And as a passenger you have no idea what it took to prepare for your being a passenger, from packing the parachute to flying the plane.
Second, the Bitcoin is neither convenient or secure. The fact that exchanges exist is evidence it's not easy and the fact that those exchanges have lost tens of billions in customer assets is evidence ite not secure.
Third, I have not made up any facts. The central point is Bitcoin and no other crypto that isn't controlled by government is going to become a primary means of commerce. It isn't now and never will be.
Do you just spend all day redefining terms? If I call the airport, I sign up to "skydive" not be a "skydiving passenger". I'm jumping out of a frigging plane, why do I have to pack my own chute? Do you have to build your own car in order to be a driver? I guess you're just an "automotive passenger". So please stay off the road, I prefer that all cars have drivers.
I don't have the numbers switched. Do some research.
I don't bring up the word "prevalent" and it really is a diversion from the fundamental discussion. The discussion was whether Bitcoin was going to replace the dollar or any other of the major currencies of the world. That's why ProofCollector reference El Salvador. That was his example of Bitcoin become a powerhouse in currency.
So safe your "prevalent" definition and argument for when it matters. In this discussion is was a diversion.
In your numbers, PayPal is larger than Visa which runs counter to your thesis and the actual numbers. The 19 billion goes with PayPal... or would you like to double down on the error. I offer a helpful edit and you just can't help but say "no".
You are the only one who has ever mentioned replacing a currency. Proofcollector has never suggested it.
You can't make up your own facts. Visa did 13 trillion transactions in 2021, Paypal did 19 billion.
All the discussion of crypto replacing fiat, whether it's in digital or hard currency, is a discussion of crypto replacing currency.
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
By mass acceptance I mean Fortune 500 companies are paying folks in Bitcoin, governments are paying their employees in Bitcoin and people are receiving their government benefits in Bitcoin. One statistic I read was Fortune 500 companies make up 2/3 of the U.S. GDP. Add government employees and those receiving government benefits and that's the vast majority of the economy, and the rest of the economy is not going to be functioning on a different system.
That's silly. Paypal is prevalent and widely used and available, but no employer pays people through Paypal either, yet I can use it as a payment method on almost every retailer's website.
But this is an entire non sequitur. Paypal is [a] prevalent and widely used and available way to transfer dollars. You allege that no employer uses Paypal to pay people IN DOLLARS, yet every retailer will allow you to pay IN DOLLARS with Paypal as a payment method.
There. Now we have restored this to apples to apples.
It's non sequitur for two reasons. Whatever payments are done via PayPal they pale in comparison to transactions done via other modes of payment. Beyond that PayPal is vying to become the standard method of payment worldwide. The argument shifted from Bitcoin being the future of world commerce to Bitcoin being prevalent.
Again, my argument has been and still is that no form of commerce is going to replace the dollar that cannot be controlled (regulated, monitored, taxed and manipulated) by governments. ProofCollection has degraded the discussion from Bitcoin being a major factor in commerce to "prevalent" with the meaning of prevalent being whatever he wants to make it.
He did not say that. He said it could grow to be. He never said that it already was. He has said NUMEROUS times that we are early in the adoption.
Yes, and I'm say it's not.
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
@pmh1nic said:
Agree. Convenience is a critical factor in getting folks to adapt to a new system. Add a few horror stories of folks unable to retrieve their funds or the horror stories of an SBF (goes well beyond FTX) and I think you have enough to drive most folks away from a system that isn't perceived as convenient or safe.
Um, Cryptocurrency is about as convenient as it gets for sending money to someone, particularly tiny or large amounts.
The traditional banking system has driven me away with its fees, delays, and restrictions. Very inconvenient. I feel the funds in my crypto wallet are safer than the dollar bills in my safe at home or in the wallet I carry. I would definitely feel safer using crypto to make a transaction from anywhere with internet access and not having to carry large amounts of fiat around.
Actually it's not convenient which is why many if not most folks either haven't done it or opted to use an exchange. Beyond that many of those that dumped money into crypto over the last couple of years didn't do it as a means of exchange but as an investment hoping to realize the massive gains touted by the crypto hawks.
There are transaction delays and cost involved in using crypto as payment. It doesn't happen instantaneously.
Clearly you've never used it or you wouldn't be saying that. If you gave me your BTC address, I could send you $1M in BTC and you'd have a confirmation within minutes with only a few dollar fee. But, it's Sunday afternoon. If I wanted to send you $1M, I'd have to wait until Monday morning at 9am, I'd have to drive to my bank (and back), spend at least a half hour waiting in line and and working with a banker to fill out the bank wire form, probably have to wait for the branch manager to authorize it, then maybe, just maybe you'll have the money on Monday afternoon and you'll have paid $30-50 for a domestic wire fee. The alternative is to write a check, stick it in the mail, 3 or 4 days later you get it, deposit it in your account, and then when the bank decides to clear it you can spend it. So, again, which one is faster, easier, and more convenient?
And as @jmlanzaf answered very well, difficulty of use isn't stopping anyone from using it.
@jmlanzaf said:
Yes. But no matter when you jump in on the dollar, you lose 2%+ per year.
And even then that's only if you calculate it the way the government does, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
@pmh1nic said:
You don't justify one terrible asset by bringing up other terrible assets. You don't validate the hawking of one bad investment by talking up how others have hyped bad investments.
Nice diversion attempt. You were talking about the crypto hucksters and I replied with a point about rare coin hucksters. The point stands that it doesn't matter what the hucksters say it doesn't change the merits of the investment being promoted, and we shouldn't give their hype much credence, but you keep doing it.
Prevalent??? Define prevalent.
Prevalent: in general use or acceptance.
Bitcoin can NEVER be a significant factor in commerce outside the government's ability to control it. If it can't be controlled by government there won't be mass acceptance.
That's not the government's decision to make. If "the people" decided to use pretty rocks or shells for commerce, there's nothing the government can do to stop us.
By mass acceptance I mean Fortune 500 companies are paying folks in Bitcoin, governments are paying their employees in Bitcoin and people are receiving their government benefits in Bitcoin. One statistic I read was Fortune 500 companies make up 2/3 of the U.S. GDP. Add government employees and those receiving government benefits and that's the vast majority of the economy, and the rest of the economy is not going to be functioning on a different system.
That's silly. Paypal is prevalent and widely used and available, but no employer pays people through Paypal either, yet I can use it as a payment method on almost every retailer's website.
Millions of folks decided it wasn't convenient and chose to go through an exchange. There are fees and there are delays. We're talking about day to day transactions not million dollar transfers.
No switch. You tried to justify the existence of crypto hawkers by bringing in coin hawkers. You don't justify one type of hawking by referring another type of hawking.
Not silly at all. I don't define PayPal as prevalent. There were 19 billion PayPal transactions in 2021. That is a miniscule proportion of transactions done worldwide. In contrast Visa had
13 trillion transactions in 2021. Again, when major corporations and governments start transacting in Bitcoin you'll have something to talk about. But that's not going to happen.
lmfao - PayPal isn't "prevalent"? I guess cash isn't prevalent either since most transactions aren't in cash.
"Another proof that cash is no longer king: Only 14% of American consumers use it for all their weekly purchases, according to the Pew Research Center. At the same time, 44% confirmed they use cash for some purchases, while 41% hardly ever use it." [fortunly.com]
Using words like prevalent is meaningless. What is more "prevalent" 19 billion transactions (Visa) or 13 trillion PayPal)? The fact is you have no context in which to claim PayPal is prevalent. Do you know how many cash transactions occurred in 2021?
I think you have you numbers switched.
"Prevalent" as in "accepted by most large retailers on their websites".
By the way, you just acknowledged that PayPal is "prevalent", otherwise how could Visa be "more prevalent".
Sitting back and toasting VICTORY! So sweet the taste... I'm going to buy champagne with PayPal and a gold victory medal with BTC.> @pmh1nic said:
@moursund said:
I rather consider cryptocurrency to be a pyramid scheme.
like the dollar?
Not really. They force you to use the dollar... and they promise you that you lose 2% of its value every year. It's arguably worse than a Ponzi scheme. In a Ponzi scheme you actually choose to enter and have some probability of gain.
Not true. The government has a goal that you will lose 2%/year, but there is nothing like a guarantee.
True. Sometimes it is much more than tat.> @pmh1nic said:
@pmh1nic said:
Agree. Convenience is a critical factor in getting folks to adapt to a new system. Add a few horror stories of folks unable to retrieve their funds or the horror stories of an SBF (goes well beyond FTX) and I think you have enough to drive most folks away from a system that isn't perceived as convenient or safe.
>
Are YOU only not using it because of how hard it is to use? [Dare you to say "yes".]
A woeful poor analogy. Actually a pretty ridiculous analogy. Skydiving isn't an essential part of every day life. Buying and selling is. Beyond that (if you really knew anything about what skills are requirec to skydive) you would never say it is easy. There is a tremendous amount of planning and preparation that goes into skydiving. It's NOT just about pulling a cord...smh.
I guess you know nothing about skydiving either. You can go to the airport and in 3 hours be jumping out of a plane - mandatory safety training.
But the point was, is, and remains unanswered by you - the usual dodge of a direct answer when you know it destroys your argument. YOU don't refuse to use BTC because it is hard. YOU refuse it because you are skeptical. In fact, BTC is easy to use - as easy as PayPal. But the ease of use won't get you to use it. And it isn't the (incorrectly alleged) difficulty in use that prevents its being used.
And NO ONE wants you to use it. I don't. I don't even want you to embrace it. However, it would be nice if you stopped making up facts to support your biases. BTC is as easy to use as Venmo or PayPal. Doesn't mean YOU should use it. But it is NOT hard.
First, that's not skydiving. That's being a skydiving passenger. And as a passenger you have no idea what it took to prepare for your being a passenger, from packing the parachute to flying the plane.
Second, the Bitcoin is neither convenient or secure. The fact that exchanges exist is evidence it's not easy and the fact that those exchanges have lost tens of billions in customer assets is evidence ite not secure.
Third, I have not made up any facts. The central point is Bitcoin and no other crypto that isn't controlled by government is going to become a primary means of commerce. It isn't now and never will be.
Do you just spend all day redefining terms? If I call the airport, I sign up to "skydive" not be a "skydiving passenger". I'm jumping out of a frigging plane, why do I have to pack my own chute? Do you have to build your own car in order to be a driver? I guess you're just an "automotive passenger". So please stay off the road, I prefer that all cars have drivers.
I don't have the numbers switched. Do some research.
I don't bring up the word "prevalent" and it really is a diversion from the fundamental discussion. The discussion was whether Bitcoin was going to replace the dollar or any other of the major currencies of the world. That's why ProofCollector reference El Salvador. That was his example of Bitcoin become a powerhouse in currency.
So safe your "prevalent" definition and argument for when it matters. In this discussion is was a diversion.
In your numbers, PayPal is larger than Visa which runs counter to your thesis and the actual numbers. The 19 billion goes with PayPal... or would you like to double down on the error. I offer a helpful edit and you just can't help but say "no".
You are the only one who has ever mentioned replacing a currency. Proofcollector has never suggested it.
You can't make up your own facts. Visa did 13 trillion transactions in 2021, Paypal did 19 billion.
All the discussion of crypto replacing fiat, whether it's in digital or hard currency, is a discussion of crypto replacing currency.
I know. Go read what you wrote. You wrote it the opposite. Jesus, I not only have to proofread and fact check but then argue with you to read your own post. You wrote:
"..19 billion transactions (Visa) or 13 trillionPaypal)"
Your numbers are switched.
I'll accept your retraction and apology whenever you are ready to offer it.
@pmh1nic said:
Agree. Convenience is a critical factor in getting folks to adapt to a new system. Add a few horror stories of folks unable to retrieve their funds or the horror stories of an SBF (goes well beyond FTX) and I think you have enough to drive most folks away from a system that isn't perceived as convenient or safe.
Um, Cryptocurrency is about as convenient as it gets for sending money to someone, particularly tiny or large amounts.
The traditional banking system has driven me away with its fees, delays, and restrictions. Very inconvenient. I feel the funds in my crypto wallet are safer than the dollar bills in my safe at home or in the wallet I carry. I would definitely feel safer using crypto to make a transaction from anywhere with internet access and not having to carry large amounts of fiat around.
Actually it's not convenient which is why many if not most folks either haven't done it or opted to use an exchange. Beyond that many of those that dumped money into crypto over the last couple of years didn't do it as a means of exchange but as an investment hoping to realize the massive gains touted by the crypto hawks.
There are transaction delays and cost involved in using crypto as payment. It doesn't happen instantaneously.
Clearly you've never used it or you wouldn't be saying that. If you gave me your BTC address, I could send you $1M in BTC and you'd have a confirmation within minutes with only a few dollar fee. But, it's Sunday afternoon. If I wanted to send you $1M, I'd have to wait until Monday morning at 9am, I'd have to drive to my bank (and back), spend at least a half hour waiting in line and and working with a banker to fill out the bank wire form, probably have to wait for the branch manager to authorize it, then maybe, just maybe you'll have the money on Monday afternoon and you'll have paid $30-50 for a domestic wire fee. The alternative is to write a check, stick it in the mail, 3 or 4 days later you get it, deposit it in your account, and then when the bank decides to clear it you can spend it. So, again, which one is faster, easier, and more convenient?
And as @jmlanzaf answered very well, difficulty of use isn't stopping anyone from using it.
@jmlanzaf said:
Yes. But no matter when you jump in on the dollar, you lose 2%+ per year.
And even then that's only if you calculate it the way the government does, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
@pmh1nic said:
You don't justify one terrible asset by bringing up other terrible assets. You don't validate the hawking of one bad investment by talking up how others have hyped bad investments.
Nice diversion attempt. You were talking about the crypto hucksters and I replied with a point about rare coin hucksters. The point stands that it doesn't matter what the hucksters say it doesn't change the merits of the investment being promoted, and we shouldn't give their hype much credence, but you keep doing it.
Prevalent??? Define prevalent.
Prevalent: in general use or acceptance.
Bitcoin can NEVER be a significant factor in commerce outside the government's ability to control it. If it can't be controlled by government there won't be mass acceptance.
That's not the government's decision to make. If "the people" decided to use pretty rocks or shells for commerce, there's nothing the government can do to stop us.
By mass acceptance I mean Fortune 500 companies are paying folks in Bitcoin, governments are paying their employees in Bitcoin and people are receiving their government benefits in Bitcoin. One statistic I read was Fortune 500 companies make up 2/3 of the U.S. GDP. Add government employees and those receiving government benefits and that's the vast majority of the economy, and the rest of the economy is not going to be functioning on a different system.
That's silly. Paypal is prevalent and widely used and available, but no employer pays people through Paypal either, yet I can use it as a payment method on almost every retailer's website.
Millions of folks decided it wasn't convenient and chose to go through an exchange. There are fees and there are delays. We're talking about day to day transactions not million dollar transfers.
No switch. You tried to justify the existence of crypto hawkers by bringing in coin hawkers. You don't justify one type of hawking by referring another type of hawking.
Not silly at all. I don't define PayPal as prevalent. There were 19 billion PayPal transactions in 2021. That is a miniscule proportion of transactions done worldwide. In contrast Visa had
13 trillion transactions in 2021. Again, when major corporations and governments start transacting in Bitcoin you'll have something to talk about. But that's not going to happen.
lmfao - PayPal isn't "prevalent"? I guess cash isn't prevalent either since most transactions aren't in cash.
"Another proof that cash is no longer king: Only 14% of American consumers use it for all their weekly purchases, according to the Pew Research Center. At the same time, 44% confirmed they use cash for some purchases, while 41% hardly ever use it." [fortunly.com]
Using words like prevalent is meaningless. What is more "prevalent" 19 billion transactions (Visa) or 13 trillion PayPal)? The fact is you have no context in which to claim PayPal is prevalent. Do you know how many cash transactions occurred in 2021?
I think you have you numbers switched.
"Prevalent" as in "accepted by most large retailers on their websites".
By the way, you just acknowledged that PayPal is "prevalent", otherwise how could Visa be "more prevalent".
Sitting back and toasting VICTORY! So sweet the taste... I'm going to buy champagne with PayPal and a gold victory medal with BTC.> @pmh1nic said:
@moursund said:
I rather consider cryptocurrency to be a pyramid scheme.
like the dollar?
Not really. They force you to use the dollar... and they promise you that you lose 2% of its value every year. It's arguably worse than a Ponzi scheme. In a Ponzi scheme you actually choose to enter and have some probability of gain.
Not true. The government has a goal that you will lose 2%/year, but there is nothing like a guarantee.
True. Sometimes it is much more than tat.> @pmh1nic said:
@pmh1nic said:
Agree. Convenience is a critical factor in getting folks to adapt to a new system. Add a few horror stories of folks unable to retrieve their funds or the horror stories of an SBF (goes well beyond FTX) and I think you have enough to drive most folks away from a system that isn't perceived as convenient or safe.
>
Are YOU only not using it because of how hard it is to use? [Dare you to say "yes".]
A woeful poor analogy. Actually a pretty ridiculous analogy. Skydiving isn't an essential part of every day life. Buying and selling is. Beyond that (if you really knew anything about what skills are requirec to skydive) you would never say it is easy. There is a tremendous amount of planning and preparation that goes into skydiving. It's NOT just about pulling a cord...smh.
I guess you know nothing about skydiving either. You can go to the airport and in 3 hours be jumping out of a plane - mandatory safety training.
But the point was, is, and remains unanswered by you - the usual dodge of a direct answer when you know it destroys your argument. YOU don't refuse to use BTC because it is hard. YOU refuse it because you are skeptical. In fact, BTC is easy to use - as easy as PayPal. But the ease of use won't get you to use it. And it isn't the (incorrectly alleged) difficulty in use that prevents its being used.
And NO ONE wants you to use it. I don't. I don't even want you to embrace it. However, it would be nice if you stopped making up facts to support your biases. BTC is as easy to use as Venmo or PayPal. Doesn't mean YOU should use it. But it is NOT hard.
First, that's not skydiving. That's being a skydiving passenger. And as a passenger you have no idea what it took to prepare for your being a passenger, from packing the parachute to flying the plane.
Second, the Bitcoin is neither convenient or secure. The fact that exchanges exist is evidence it's not easy and the fact that those exchanges have lost tens of billions in customer assets is evidence ite not secure.
Third, I have not made up any facts. The central point is Bitcoin and no other crypto that isn't controlled by government is going to become a primary means of commerce. It isn't now and never will be.
Do you just spend all day redefining terms? If I call the airport, I sign up to "skydive" not be a "skydiving passenger". I'm jumping out of a frigging plane, why do I have to pack my own chute? Do you have to build your own car in order to be a driver? I guess you're just an "automotive passenger". So please stay off the road, I prefer that all cars have drivers.
I don't have the numbers switched. Do some research.
I don't bring up the word "prevalent" and it really is a diversion from the fundamental discussion. The discussion was whether Bitcoin was going to replace the dollar or any other of the major currencies of the world. That's why ProofCollector reference El Salvador. That was his example of Bitcoin become a powerhouse in currency.
So safe your "prevalent" definition and argument for when it matters. In this discussion is was a diversion.
In your numbers, PayPal is larger than Visa which runs counter to your thesis and the actual numbers. The 19 billion goes with PayPal... or would you like to double down on the error. I offer a helpful edit and you just can't help but say "no".
You are the only one who has ever mentioned replacing a currency. Proofcollector has never suggested it.
You can't make up your own facts. Visa did 13 trillion transactions in 2021, Paypal did 19 billion.
All the discussion of crypto replacing fiat, whether it's in digital or hard currency, is a discussion of crypto replacing currency.
I know. Go read what you wrote. You wrote it the opposite. Jesus, I not only have to proofread and fact check but then argue with you to read your own post. You wrote:
"..19 billion transactions (Visa) or 13 trillionPaypal)"
Your numbers are switched.
I'll accept your retraction and apology whenever you are ready to offer it.
My original reference to the Visa versus PayPal numbers were correct...
"Not silly at all. I don't define PayPal as prevalent. There were 19 billion PayPal transactions in 2021. That is a miniscule proportion of transactions done worldwide. In contrast Visa had 13 trillion transactions in 2021. Again, when major corporations and governments start transacting in Bitcoin you'll have something to talk about. But that's not going to happen."
So I failed in my second attempt trying to educate you and reversed the numbers. So much for trying to teach an old dog new tricks.
Again, Bitcoin in its present form is NOT going to replace the dollar or any other major currency (Yen, Yuan, Euro, Ruble, Rupee, etc.) and a discussion of El Salvador doesn't change that.
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
@pmh1nic said:
Agree. Convenience is a critical factor in getting folks to adapt to a new system. Add a few horror stories of folks unable to retrieve their funds or the horror stories of an SBF (goes well beyond FTX) and I think you have enough to drive most folks away from a system that isn't perceived as convenient or safe.
Um, Cryptocurrency is about as convenient as it gets for sending money to someone, particularly tiny or large amounts.
The traditional banking system has driven me away with its fees, delays, and restrictions. Very inconvenient. I feel the funds in my crypto wallet are safer than the dollar bills in my safe at home or in the wallet I carry. I would definitely feel safer using crypto to make a transaction from anywhere with internet access and not having to carry large amounts of fiat around.
Actually it's not convenient which is why many if not most folks either haven't done it or opted to use an exchange. Beyond that many of those that dumped money into crypto over the last couple of years didn't do it as a means of exchange but as an investment hoping to realize the massive gains touted by the crypto hawks.
There are transaction delays and cost involved in using crypto as payment. It doesn't happen instantaneously.
Clearly you've never used it or you wouldn't be saying that. If you gave me your BTC address, I could send you $1M in BTC and you'd have a confirmation within minutes with only a few dollar fee. But, it's Sunday afternoon. If I wanted to send you $1M, I'd have to wait until Monday morning at 9am, I'd have to drive to my bank (and back), spend at least a half hour waiting in line and and working with a banker to fill out the bank wire form, probably have to wait for the branch manager to authorize it, then maybe, just maybe you'll have the money on Monday afternoon and you'll have paid $30-50 for a domestic wire fee. The alternative is to write a check, stick it in the mail, 3 or 4 days later you get it, deposit it in your account, and then when the bank decides to clear it you can spend it. So, again, which one is faster, easier, and more convenient?
And as @jmlanzaf answered very well, difficulty of use isn't stopping anyone from using it.
@jmlanzaf said:
Yes. But no matter when you jump in on the dollar, you lose 2%+ per year.
And even then that's only if you calculate it the way the government does, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
@pmh1nic said:
You don't justify one terrible asset by bringing up other terrible assets. You don't validate the hawking of one bad investment by talking up how others have hyped bad investments.
Nice diversion attempt. You were talking about the crypto hucksters and I replied with a point about rare coin hucksters. The point stands that it doesn't matter what the hucksters say it doesn't change the merits of the investment being promoted, and we shouldn't give their hype much credence, but you keep doing it.
Prevalent??? Define prevalent.
Prevalent: in general use or acceptance.
Bitcoin can NEVER be a significant factor in commerce outside the government's ability to control it. If it can't be controlled by government there won't be mass acceptance.
That's not the government's decision to make. If "the people" decided to use pretty rocks or shells for commerce, there's nothing the government can do to stop us.
By mass acceptance I mean Fortune 500 companies are paying folks in Bitcoin, governments are paying their employees in Bitcoin and people are receiving their government benefits in Bitcoin. One statistic I read was Fortune 500 companies make up 2/3 of the U.S. GDP. Add government employees and those receiving government benefits and that's the vast majority of the economy, and the rest of the economy is not going to be functioning on a different system.
That's silly. Paypal is prevalent and widely used and available, but no employer pays people through Paypal either, yet I can use it as a payment method on almost every retailer's website.
Millions of folks decided it wasn't convenient and chose to go through an exchange. There are fees and there are delays. We're talking about day to day transactions not million dollar transfers.
No switch. You tried to justify the existence of crypto hawkers by bringing in coin hawkers. You don't justify one type of hawking by referring another type of hawking.
Not silly at all. I don't define PayPal as prevalent. There were 19 billion PayPal transactions in 2021. That is a miniscule proportion of transactions done worldwide. In contrast Visa had
13 trillion transactions in 2021. Again, when major corporations and governments start transacting in Bitcoin you'll have something to talk about. But that's not going to happen.
lmfao - PayPal isn't "prevalent"? I guess cash isn't prevalent either since most transactions aren't in cash.
"Another proof that cash is no longer king: Only 14% of American consumers use it for all their weekly purchases, according to the Pew Research Center. At the same time, 44% confirmed they use cash for some purchases, while 41% hardly ever use it." [fortunly.com]
Using words like prevalent is meaningless. What is more "prevalent" 19 billion transactions (Visa) or 13 trillion PayPal)? The fact is you have no context in which to claim PayPal is prevalent. Do you know how many cash transactions occurred in 2021?
I think you have you numbers switched.
"Prevalent" as in "accepted by most large retailers on their websites".
By the way, you just acknowledged that PayPal is "prevalent", otherwise how could Visa be "more prevalent".
Sitting back and toasting VICTORY! So sweet the taste... I'm going to buy champagne with PayPal and a gold victory medal with BTC.> @pmh1nic said:
@moursund said:
I rather consider cryptocurrency to be a pyramid scheme.
like the dollar?
Not really. They force you to use the dollar... and they promise you that you lose 2% of its value every year. It's arguably worse than a Ponzi scheme. In a Ponzi scheme you actually choose to enter and have some probability of gain.
Not true. The government has a goal that you will lose 2%/year, but there is nothing like a guarantee.
True. Sometimes it is much more than tat.> @pmh1nic said:
@pmh1nic said:
Agree. Convenience is a critical factor in getting folks to adapt to a new system. Add a few horror stories of folks unable to retrieve their funds or the horror stories of an SBF (goes well beyond FTX) and I think you have enough to drive most folks away from a system that isn't perceived as convenient or safe.
>
Are YOU only not using it because of how hard it is to use? [Dare you to say "yes".]
A woeful poor analogy. Actually a pretty ridiculous analogy. Skydiving isn't an essential part of every day life. Buying and selling is. Beyond that (if you really knew anything about what skills are requirec to skydive) you would never say it is easy. There is a tremendous amount of planning and preparation that goes into skydiving. It's NOT just about pulling a cord...smh.
I guess you know nothing about skydiving either. You can go to the airport and in 3 hours be jumping out of a plane - mandatory safety training.
But the point was, is, and remains unanswered by you - the usual dodge of a direct answer when you know it destroys your argument. YOU don't refuse to use BTC because it is hard. YOU refuse it because you are skeptical. In fact, BTC is easy to use - as easy as PayPal. But the ease of use won't get you to use it. And it isn't the (incorrectly alleged) difficulty in use that prevents its being used.
And NO ONE wants you to use it. I don't. I don't even want you to embrace it. However, it would be nice if you stopped making up facts to support your biases. BTC is as easy to use as Venmo or PayPal. Doesn't mean YOU should use it. But it is NOT hard.
First, that's not skydiving. That's being a skydiving passenger. And as a passenger you have no idea what it took to prepare for your being a passenger, from packing the parachute to flying the plane.
Second, the Bitcoin is neither convenient or secure. The fact that exchanges exist is evidence it's not easy and the fact that those exchanges have lost tens of billions in customer assets is evidence ite not secure.
Third, I have not made up any facts. The central point is Bitcoin and no other crypto that isn't controlled by government is going to become a primary means of commerce. It isn't now and never will be.
Do you just spend all day redefining terms? If I call the airport, I sign up to "skydive" not be a "skydiving passenger". I'm jumping out of a frigging plane, why do I have to pack my own chute? Do you have to build your own car in order to be a driver? I guess you're just an "automotive passenger". So please stay off the road, I prefer that all cars have drivers.
I don't have the numbers switched. Do some research.
I don't bring up the word "prevalent" and it really is a diversion from the fundamental discussion. The discussion was whether Bitcoin was going to replace the dollar or any other of the major currencies of the world. That's why ProofCollector reference El Salvador. That was his example of Bitcoin become a powerhouse in currency.
So safe your "prevalent" definition and argument for when it matters. In this discussion is was a diversion.
In your numbers, PayPal is larger than Visa which runs counter to your thesis and the actual numbers. The 19 billion goes with PayPal... or would you like to double down on the error. I offer a helpful edit and you just can't help but say "no".
You are the only one who has ever mentioned replacing a currency. Proofcollector has never suggested it.
You can't make up your own facts. Visa did 13 trillion transactions in 2021, Paypal did 19 billion.
All the discussion of crypto replacing fiat, whether it's in digital or hard currency, is a discussion of crypto replacing currency.
I know. Go read what you wrote. You wrote it the opposite. Jesus, I not only have to proofread and fact check but then argue with you to read your own post. You wrote:
"..19 billion transactions (Visa) or 13 trillionPaypal)"
Your numbers are switched.
I'll accept your retraction and apology whenever you are ready to offer it.
My original reference to the Visa versus PayPal numbers were correct...
"Not silly at all. I don't define PayPal as prevalent. There were 19 billion PayPal transactions in 2021. That is a miniscule proportion of transactions done worldwide. In contrast Visa had 13 trillion transactions in 2021. Again, when major corporations and governments start transacting in Bitcoin you'll have something to talk about. But that's not going to happen."
So I failed in my second attempt trying to educate you and reversed the numbers. So much for trying to teach an old dog new tricks.
Again, Bitcoin in its present form is NOT going to replace the dollar or any other major currency (Yen, Yuan, Euro, Ruble, Rupee, etc.) and a discussion of El Salvador doesn't change that.
I never argued your numbers. I tried to HELP you by pointing out that you switched them.
@pmh1nic said:
Agree. Convenience is a critical factor in getting folks to adapt to a new system. Add a few horror stories of folks unable to retrieve their funds or the horror stories of an SBF (goes well beyond FTX) and I think you have enough to drive most folks away from a system that isn't perceived as convenient or safe.
Um, Cryptocurrency is about as convenient as it gets for sending money to someone, particularly tiny or large amounts.
The traditional banking system has driven me away with its fees, delays, and restrictions. Very inconvenient. I feel the funds in my crypto wallet are safer than the dollar bills in my safe at home or in the wallet I carry. I would definitely feel safer using crypto to make a transaction from anywhere with internet access and not having to carry large amounts of fiat around.
Actually it's not convenient which is why many if not most folks either haven't done it or opted to use an exchange. Beyond that many of those that dumped money into crypto over the last couple of years didn't do it as a means of exchange but as an investment hoping to realize the massive gains touted by the crypto hawks.
There are transaction delays and cost involved in using crypto as payment. It doesn't happen instantaneously.
Clearly you've never used it or you wouldn't be saying that. If you gave me your BTC address, I could send you $1M in BTC and you'd have a confirmation within minutes with only a few dollar fee. But, it's Sunday afternoon. If I wanted to send you $1M, I'd have to wait until Monday morning at 9am, I'd have to drive to my bank (and back), spend at least a half hour waiting in line and and working with a banker to fill out the bank wire form, probably have to wait for the branch manager to authorize it, then maybe, just maybe you'll have the money on Monday afternoon and you'll have paid $30-50 for a domestic wire fee. The alternative is to write a check, stick it in the mail, 3 or 4 days later you get it, deposit it in your account, and then when the bank decides to clear it you can spend it. So, again, which one is faster, easier, and more convenient?
And as @jmlanzaf answered very well, difficulty of use isn't stopping anyone from using it.
@jmlanzaf said:
Yes. But no matter when you jump in on the dollar, you lose 2%+ per year.
And even then that's only if you calculate it the way the government does, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
@pmh1nic said:
You don't justify one terrible asset by bringing up other terrible assets. You don't validate the hawking of one bad investment by talking up how others have hyped bad investments.
Nice diversion attempt. You were talking about the crypto hucksters and I replied with a point about rare coin hucksters. The point stands that it doesn't matter what the hucksters say it doesn't change the merits of the investment being promoted, and we shouldn't give their hype much credence, but you keep doing it.
Prevalent??? Define prevalent.
Prevalent: in general use or acceptance.
Bitcoin can NEVER be a significant factor in commerce outside the government's ability to control it. If it can't be controlled by government there won't be mass acceptance.
That's not the government's decision to make. If "the people" decided to use pretty rocks or shells for commerce, there's nothing the government can do to stop us.
By mass acceptance I mean Fortune 500 companies are paying folks in Bitcoin, governments are paying their employees in Bitcoin and people are receiving their government benefits in Bitcoin. One statistic I read was Fortune 500 companies make up 2/3 of the U.S. GDP. Add government employees and those receiving government benefits and that's the vast majority of the economy, and the rest of the economy is not going to be functioning on a different system.
That's silly. Paypal is prevalent and widely used and available, but no employer pays people through Paypal either, yet I can use it as a payment method on almost every retailer's website.
Millions of folks decided it wasn't convenient and chose to go through an exchange. There are fees and there are delays. We're talking about day to day transactions not million dollar transfers.
No switch. You tried to justify the existence of crypto hawkers by bringing in coin hawkers. You don't justify one type of hawking by referring another type of hawking.
Not silly at all. I don't define PayPal as prevalent. There were 19 billion PayPal transactions in 2021. That is a miniscule proportion of transactions done worldwide. In contrast Visa had
13 trillion transactions in 2021. Again, when major corporations and governments start transacting in Bitcoin you'll have something to talk about. But that's not going to happen.
lmfao - PayPal isn't "prevalent"? I guess cash isn't prevalent either since most transactions aren't in cash.
"Another proof that cash is no longer king: Only 14% of American consumers use it for all their weekly purchases, according to the Pew Research Center. At the same time, 44% confirmed they use cash for some purchases, while 41% hardly ever use it." [fortunly.com]
Using words like prevalent is meaningless. What is more "prevalent" 19 billion transactions (Visa) or 13 trillion PayPal)? The fact is you have no context in which to claim PayPal is prevalent. Do you know how many cash transactions occurred in 2021?
I think you have you numbers switched.
"Prevalent" as in "accepted by most large retailers on their websites".
By the way, you just acknowledged that PayPal is "prevalent", otherwise how could Visa be "more prevalent".
Sitting back and toasting VICTORY! So sweet the taste... I'm going to buy champagne with PayPal and a gold victory medal with BTC.> @pmh1nic said:
@moursund said:
I rather consider cryptocurrency to be a pyramid scheme.
like the dollar?
Not really. They force you to use the dollar... and they promise you that you lose 2% of its value every year. It's arguably worse than a Ponzi scheme. In a Ponzi scheme you actually choose to enter and have some probability of gain.
Not true. The government has a goal that you will lose 2%/year, but there is nothing like a guarantee.
True. Sometimes it is much more than tat.> @pmh1nic said:
@pmh1nic said:
Agree. Convenience is a critical factor in getting folks to adapt to a new system. Add a few horror stories of folks unable to retrieve their funds or the horror stories of an SBF (goes well beyond FTX) and I think you have enough to drive most folks away from a system that isn't perceived as convenient or safe.
>
Are YOU only not using it because of how hard it is to use? [Dare you to say "yes".]
A woeful poor analogy. Actually a pretty ridiculous analogy. Skydiving isn't an essential part of every day life. Buying and selling is. Beyond that (if you really knew anything about what skills are requirec to skydive) you would never say it is easy. There is a tremendous amount of planning and preparation that goes into skydiving. It's NOT just about pulling a cord...smh.
I guess you know nothing about skydiving either. You can go to the airport and in 3 hours be jumping out of a plane - mandatory safety training.
But the point was, is, and remains unanswered by you - the usual dodge of a direct answer when you know it destroys your argument. YOU don't refuse to use BTC because it is hard. YOU refuse it because you are skeptical. In fact, BTC is easy to use - as easy as PayPal. But the ease of use won't get you to use it. And it isn't the (incorrectly alleged) difficulty in use that prevents its being used.
And NO ONE wants you to use it. I don't. I don't even want you to embrace it. However, it would be nice if you stopped making up facts to support your biases. BTC is as easy to use as Venmo or PayPal. Doesn't mean YOU should use it. But it is NOT hard.
First, that's not skydiving. That's being a skydiving passenger. And as a passenger you have no idea what it took to prepare for your being a passenger, from packing the parachute to flying the plane.
Second, the Bitcoin is neither convenient or secure. The fact that exchanges exist is evidence it's not easy and the fact that those exchanges have lost tens of billions in customer assets is evidence ite not secure.
Third, I have not made up any facts. The central point is Bitcoin and no other crypto that isn't controlled by government is going to become a primary means of commerce. It isn't now and never will be.
Do you just spend all day redefining terms? If I call the airport, I sign up to "skydive" not be a "skydiving passenger". I'm jumping out of a frigging plane, why do I have to pack my own chute? Do you have to build your own car in order to be a driver? I guess you're just an "automotive passenger". So please stay off the road, I prefer that all cars have drivers.
I don't have the numbers switched. Do some research.
I don't bring up the word "prevalent" and it really is a diversion from the fundamental discussion. The discussion was whether Bitcoin was going to replace the dollar or any other of the major currencies of the world. That's why ProofCollector reference El Salvador. That was his example of Bitcoin become a powerhouse in currency.
So safe your "prevalent" definition and argument for when it matters. In this discussion is was a diversion.
In your numbers, PayPal is larger than Visa which runs counter to your thesis and the actual numbers. The 19 billion goes with PayPal... or would you like to double down on the error. I offer a helpful edit and you just can't help but say "no".
You are the only one who has ever mentioned replacing a currency. Proofcollector has never suggested it.
You can't make up your own facts. Visa did 13 trillion transactions in 2021, Paypal did 19 billion.
All the discussion of crypto replacing fiat, whether it's in digital or hard currency, is a discussion of crypto replacing currency.
I know. Go read what you wrote. You wrote it the opposite. Jesus, I not only have to proofread and fact check but then argue with you to read your own post. You wrote:
"..19 billion transactions (Visa) or 13 trillionPaypal)"
Your numbers are switched.
I'll accept your retraction and apology whenever you are ready to offer it.
My original reference to the Visa versus PayPal numbers were correct...
"Not silly at all. I don't define PayPal as prevalent. There were 19 billion PayPal transactions in 2021. That is a miniscule proportion of transactions done worldwide. In contrast Visa had 13 trillion transactions in 2021. Again, when major corporations and governments start transacting in Bitcoin
Again, Bitcoin in its present form is NOT going to replace the dollar or any other major currency (Yen, Yuan, Euro, Ruble, Rupee, etc.) and a discussion of El Salvador doesn't change that.
NO ONE has ever said otherwise. You are arguing with yourself.
@pmh1nic said:
Agree. Convenience is a critical factor in getting folks to adapt to a new system. Add a few horror stories of folks unable to retrieve their funds or the horror stories of an SBF (goes well beyond FTX) and I think you have enough to drive most folks away from a system that isn't perceived as convenient or safe.
Um, Cryptocurrency is about as convenient as it gets for sending money to someone, particularly tiny or large amounts.
The traditional banking system has driven me away with its fees, delays, and restrictions. Very inconvenient. I feel the funds in my crypto wallet are safer than the dollar bills in my safe at home or in the wallet I carry. I would definitely feel safer using crypto to make a transaction from anywhere with internet access and not having to carry large amounts of fiat around.
Actually it's not convenient which is why many if not most folks either haven't done it or opted to use an exchange. Beyond that many of those that dumped money into crypto over the last couple of years didn't do it as a means of exchange but as an investment hoping to realize the massive gains touted by the crypto hawks.
There are transaction delays and cost involved in using crypto as payment. It doesn't happen instantaneously.
Clearly you've never used it or you wouldn't be saying that. If you gave me your BTC address, I could send you $1M in BTC and you'd have a confirmation within minutes with only a few dollar fee. But, it's Sunday afternoon. If I wanted to send you $1M, I'd have to wait until Monday morning at 9am, I'd have to drive to my bank (and back), spend at least a half hour waiting in line and and working with a banker to fill out the bank wire form, probably have to wait for the branch manager to authorize it, then maybe, just maybe you'll have the money on Monday afternoon and you'll have paid $30-50 for a domestic wire fee. The alternative is to write a check, stick it in the mail, 3 or 4 days later you get it, deposit it in your account, and then when the bank decides to clear it you can spend it. So, again, which one is faster, easier, and more convenient?
And as @jmlanzaf answered very well, difficulty of use isn't stopping anyone from using it.
@jmlanzaf said:
Yes. But no matter when you jump in on the dollar, you lose 2%+ per year.
And even then that's only if you calculate it the way the government does, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
@pmh1nic said:
You don't justify one terrible asset by bringing up other terrible assets. You don't validate the hawking of one bad investment by talking up how others have hyped bad investments.
Nice diversion attempt. You were talking about the crypto hucksters and I replied with a point about rare coin hucksters. The point stands that it doesn't matter what the hucksters say it doesn't change the merits of the investment being promoted, and we shouldn't give their hype much credence, but you keep doing it.
Prevalent??? Define prevalent.
Prevalent: in general use or acceptance.
Bitcoin can NEVER be a significant factor in commerce outside the government's ability to control it. If it can't be controlled by government there won't be mass acceptance.
That's not the government's decision to make. If "the people" decided to use pretty rocks or shells for commerce, there's nothing the government can do to stop us.
By mass acceptance I mean Fortune 500 companies are paying folks in Bitcoin, governments are paying their employees in Bitcoin and people are receiving their government benefits in Bitcoin. One statistic I read was Fortune 500 companies make up 2/3 of the U.S. GDP. Add government employees and those receiving government benefits and that's the vast majority of the economy, and the rest of the economy is not going to be functioning on a different system.
That's silly. Paypal is prevalent and widely used and available, but no employer pays people through Paypal either, yet I can use it as a payment method on almost every retailer's website.
Millions of folks decided it wasn't convenient and chose to go through an exchange. There are fees and there are delays. We're talking about day to day transactions not million dollar transfers.
No switch. You tried to justify the existence of crypto hawkers by bringing in coin hawkers. You don't justify one type of hawking by referring another type of hawking.
Not silly at all. I don't define PayPal as prevalent. There were 19 billion PayPal transactions in 2021. That is a miniscule proportion of transactions done worldwide. In contrast Visa had
13 trillion transactions in 2021. Again, when major corporations and governments start transacting in Bitcoin you'll have something to talk about. But that's not going to happen.
lmfao - PayPal isn't "prevalent"? I guess cash isn't prevalent either since most transactions aren't in cash.
"Another proof that cash is no longer king: Only 14% of American consumers use it for all their weekly purchases, according to the Pew Research Center. At the same time, 44% confirmed they use cash for some purchases, while 41% hardly ever use it." [fortunly.com]
Using words like prevalent is meaningless. What is more "prevalent" 19 billion transactions (Visa) or 13 trillion PayPal)? The fact is you have no context in which to claim PayPal is prevalent. Do you know how many cash transactions occurred in 2021?
I think you have you numbers switched.
"Prevalent" as in "accepted by most large retailers on their websites".
By the way, you just acknowledged that PayPal is "prevalent", otherwise how could Visa be "more prevalent".
Sitting back and toasting VICTORY! So sweet the taste... I'm going to buy champagne with PayPal and a gold victory medal with BTC.> @pmh1nic said:
@moursund said:
I rather consider cryptocurrency to be a pyramid scheme.
like the dollar?
Not really. They force you to use the dollar... and they promise you that you lose 2% of its value every year. It's arguably worse than a Ponzi scheme. In a Ponzi scheme you actually choose to enter and have some probability of gain.
Not true. The government has a goal that you will lose 2%/year, but there is nothing like a guarantee.
True. Sometimes it is much more than tat.> @pmh1nic said:
@pmh1nic said:
Agree. Convenience is a critical factor in getting folks to adapt to a new system. Add a few horror stories of folks unable to retrieve their funds or the horror stories of an SBF (goes well beyond FTX) and I think you have enough to drive most folks away from a system that isn't perceived as convenient or safe.
>
Are YOU only not using it because of how hard it is to use? [Dare you to say "yes".]
A woeful poor analogy. Actually a pretty ridiculous analogy. Skydiving isn't an essential part of every day life. Buying and selling is. Beyond that (if you really knew anything about what skills are requirec to skydive) you would never say it is easy. There is a tremendous amount of planning and preparation that goes into skydiving. It's NOT just about pulling a cord...smh.
I guess you know nothing about skydiving either. You can go to the airport and in 3 hours be jumping out of a plane - mandatory safety training.
But the point was, is, and remains unanswered by you - the usual dodge of a direct answer when you know it destroys your argument. YOU don't refuse to use BTC because it is hard. YOU refuse it because you are skeptical. In fact, BTC is easy to use - as easy as PayPal. But the ease of use won't get you to use it. And it isn't the (incorrectly alleged) difficulty in use that prevents its being used.
And NO ONE wants you to use it. I don't. I don't even want you to embrace it. However, it would be nice if you stopped making up facts to support your biases. BTC is as easy to use as Venmo or PayPal. Doesn't mean YOU should use it. But it is NOT hard.
First, that's not skydiving. That's being a skydiving passenger. And as a passenger you have no idea what it took to prepare for your being a passenger, from packing the parachute to flying the plane.
Second, the Bitcoin is neither convenient or secure. The fact that exchanges exist is evidence it's not easy and the fact that those exchanges have lost tens of billions in customer assets is evidence ite not secure.
Third, I have not made up any facts. The central point is Bitcoin and no other crypto that isn't controlled by government is going to become a primary means of commerce. It isn't now and never will be.
Do you just spend all day redefining terms? If I call the airport, I sign up to "skydive" not be a "skydiving passenger". I'm jumping out of a frigging plane, why do I have to pack my own chute? Do you have to build your own car in order to be a driver? I guess you're just an "automotive passenger". So please stay off the road, I prefer that all cars have drivers.
I don't have the numbers switched. Do some research.
I don't bring up the word "prevalent" and it really is a diversion from the fundamental discussion. The discussion was whether Bitcoin was going to replace the dollar or any other of the major currencies of the world. That's why ProofCollector reference El Salvador. That was his example of Bitcoin become a powerhouse in currency.
So safe your "prevalent" definition and argument for when it matters. In this discussion is was a diversion.
In your numbers, PayPal is larger than Visa which runs counter to your thesis and the actual numbers. The 19 billion goes with PayPal... or would you like to double down on the error. I offer a helpful edit and you just can't help but say "no".
You are the only one who has ever mentioned replacing a currency. Proofcollector has never suggested it.
You can't make up your own facts. Visa did 13 trillion transactions in 2021, Paypal did 19 billion.
All the discussion of crypto replacing fiat, whether it's in digital or hard currency, is a discussion of crypto replacing currency.
I know. Go read what you wrote. You wrote it the opposite. Jesus, I not only have to proofread and fact check but then argue with you to read your own post. You wrote:
"..19 billion transactions (Visa) or 13 trillionPaypal)"
Your numbers are switched.
I'll accept your retraction and apology whenever you are ready to offer it.
My original reference to the Visa versus PayPal numbers were correct...
"Not silly at all. I don't define PayPal as prevalent. There were 19 billion PayPal transactions in 2021. That is a miniscule proportion of transactions done worldwide. In contrast Visa had 13 trillion transactions in 2021. Again, when major corporations and governments start transacting in Bitcoin
Again, Bitcoin in its present form is NOT going to replace the dollar or any other major currency (Yen, Yuan, Euro, Ruble, Rupee, etc.) and a discussion of El Salvador doesn't change that.
NO ONE has ever said otherwise. You are arguing with yourself.
Actually I think someone has backtracked from Crypto being the best thing since sliced bread to it being "prevalent" whatever that means.
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
Please fasten your seatbelts because the FTX debacle is causing some major issues........
The CEO of the peer-to-peer bitcoin trading platform Paxful Ray Youssef told customers to get their bitcoin off the platform and move it into self-custody.
Youssef cited the collapse of Sam Bankman-Fried's crypto exchange FTX as reasons for urging Paxful's 11 million customers to self-custody their cryptocurrency. Youssef said that trusting platforms to safeguard your crypto kept users at “mercy of these custodians and their morals.”
the question is, as with all the others, are they shoveling BS (a warning sign of impending doom) or is it possible there can be a chink in the chain because EVERYTHING goes down for a little while sooner or later. the next week should say a lot.
i think if binance goes, i think it will be enough for me to state my opinion, the whole thing is going to zero minus small crypto/nft outliers and will show that while the official sector of finance/money is far from perfect; random people have never been, are not now and will never be capable of operating with such capital given the myriad of challenges, some good, some bad and prove virtually all previous investment rules are still golden. NEVER invest what you cannot afford to lose or are not willing to, especially on the new and/or novelty.
i believe a lot of the people behind the failures/scams/pulls etc WERE technically capable but it requires more than that to succeed over the long-term. i WOULDN'T be surprised (if we can even know such a thing) that "normal" finance had a vested interest into some/all of crypto failing and in one way or another contributed putting major pressure on those behind crypto/nfts (aside from the obvious numbnutzs) kinda nudging some of them over the edge and w/o long-term experience (and sometimes not even then) simply did/do not harbor the necessary character to make announcements to alert investors to possible demise (there were a couple and i have IMMENSE respect for them doing so) and handing shutting down appropriately or pivoting in necessary ways to be able to move forward, even on a different path. i'm not saying it is easy but people have TOO little appreciation for the power of their actions/inactions and sometimes the people JUST need a little truth and a bone thrown their way. (there was some good commentary from some people about how ponzis MAY not start out that way but end up that way and while i DO agree with that, i don't and i'm sure the commenters do not, agree with how the handle the impending demise but choose to STEAL all they can before it all crumbles)
@pmh1nic said:
Millions of folks decided it wasn't convenient and chose to go through an exchange. There are fees and there are delays. We're talking about day to day transactions not million dollar transfers.
You're showing your ignorance here. You have to use an exchange to convert your fiat into crypto. Most exchanges are very convenient and easy to use. The transactions are real-time and fees are minimal compared to banking charges and the 3% charged by the credit card companies. My example for a million dollar transfer is the same for a $.05 transfer.
No switch. You tried to justify the existence of crypto hawkers by bringing in coin hawkers. You don't justify one type of hawking by referring another type of hawking.
Yes switch.
You said:
The fact is there are many of them [crypto promoters] who promote themselves as in the know, that have convinced many to put their money in Bitcoin claiming it's a great investment and/or solid long-term store of wealth. Many of those folks have gotten burned and some burned badly.
I said:
And the home shopping network and other TV shopping channels (and newspaper ads) promote terrible overpriced coin investments as well, but most on this board do not dwell on what those hucksters are promoting despite the people who buy that stuff also getting burned. Instead we dismiss what they say and make fun of them, which is what you should do too.
Then you switched the argument away from the promoters to the asset:
You don't justify one terrible asset by bringing up other terrible assets. You don't validate the hawking of one bad investment by talking up how others have hyped bad investments.
I never validated the hawking of investments. I pointed out that there are hucksters for every investment type, and that this forum community laughs at the coin hucksters just like the reasonable crypto community laughs at the crypto hucksters, but you keep reiterating their hype as if it is legitimate or meaningful.
Not silly at all. I don't define PayPal as prevalent. There were 19 billion PayPal transactions in 2021. That is a miniscule proportion of transactions done worldwide. In contrast Visa had
It's tough to continue this conversation since you've proven that you have an alternative definition for everything. Prevalent means 'widespread,' not dominant. Paypal is easily a widespread payment method in my world. Crypto will be within a few years.
13 trillion transactions in 2021. Again, when major corporations and governments start transacting in Bitcoin you'll have something to talk about. But that's not going to happen.
When crypto transactions for commerce reach 1 billion transactions will be something to talk about, and it's going to happen.
@pmh1nic said:
Actually I think someone has backtracked from Crypto being the best thing since sliced bread to it being "prevalent" whatever that means.
Perhaps the problem is that you don't have a dictionary? Is that why you keep redefining terms? Dictionary.com is free to use.
Comments
And maybe that time came prematurely for too many.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I thought of posting that clip on here earlier but held back.
But just cannot help putting up the following.
And another one from few days back
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/quarters/PCGS-2020-quarter-quest/album/247091
ya, i've pretty much watched all his vids for past 12+ months. i don't recall when i started but it's been a while.
no shortage of material for content, unfortunately.
kind of amazing how incestuous the various crypto "businesses" were invested in others, so that when one fell, it either pulled the other down significantly or drowned it altogether.
this in an indirect way kinda supports my lottery theory in that you JUST CANNOT give average people any large sum of money. you have to LEARN how to be wealthy. (there is obviously a lot more to be said but i've already said enough."
It's not much different than the banks who are tied together with a quadrillion in derivatives.
Actually it's not convenient which is why many if not most folks either haven't done it or opted to use an exchange. Beyond that many of those that dumped money into crypto over the last couple of years didn't do it as a means of exchange but as an investment hoping to realize the massive gains touted by the crypto hawks.
There are transaction delays and cost involved in using crypto as payment. It doesn't happen instantaneously.
Completely untrue. Do more research.
You don't justify one terrible asset by bringing up other terrible assets. You don't validate the hawking of one bad investment by talking up how others have hyped bad investments.
Prevalent??? Define prevalent.
Bitcoin can NEVER be a significant factor in commerce outside the government's ability to control it. If it can't be controlled by government there won't be mass acceptance. By mass acceptance I mean Fortune 500 companies are paying folks in Bitcoin, governments are paying their employees in Bitcoin and people are receiving their government benefits in Bitcoin. One statistic I read was Fortune 500 companies make up 2/3 of the U.S. GDP. Add government employees and those receiving government benefits and that's the vast majority of the economy, and the rest of the economy is not going to be functioning on a different system.
You do the research and show me contrary evidence. The flood of money into crypto over the last two years has been driven by investor hype. No one is going to be using anything as volatile as Bitcoin to transact business absent their ability to immediately turn it back into dollars. Just ask Elon Musk. I'm not trading an asset for "currency" that has the real potential to devalue 50% over six months. Bitcoin has no legitimacy as a currency given the volatility and it's limited acceptance.
It is VERY easy to do a peer-to-peer transfer of crypto. I did the research. I did the transfer. It's no harder than PayPal, which most forumites have mastered.
Here is a legit question - why is every image of Bitcoin always looking like gold?
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/quarters/PCGS-2020-quarter-quest/album/247091
As the saying goes, if it was easy everyone would be doing it. Bitcoin has been around for 17 years. A tiny percentage of commerce is conducted using. You have a handful of businesses accepting it for payment. When I see 7/11 accepting it, when my Fortune 500 employer gives me an option for paying me, I'll know it's arrived. Until then enjoy your peer to peer transactions.
like the dollar?
That's nonsense. Skydiving is easy. Not everyone does it. Where you were and are wrong is assuming that it is difficult and that's why it hasn't been adopted. It hasn't been adopted for dozens of reasons, such as skepticism.
Are YOU only not using it because of how hard it is to use? [Dare you to say "yes".]
Not really. They force you to use the dollar... and they promise you that you lose 2% of its value every year. It's arguably worse than a Ponzi scheme. In a Ponzi scheme you actually choose to enter and have some probability of gain.
But you have to get in early for that to work. If you're too late, you're too late. Would you pay 10,000 bitcoins for pizza?
The guy who bought pizza with Bitcoin was a programmer and early miner named Laszlo Hanyecz. Hanyecz made a post on a Bitcoin forum offering 10k Bitcoin for two large pizzas. Eventually someone took him up on his offer and delivered two Papa Johns pizzas. At the time, 10,000 Bitcoin was worth $41.
May 19, 2022
Yes. But no matter when you jump in on the dollar, you lose 2%+ per year.
No argument there.
Not true. The government has a goal that you will lose 2%/year, but there is nothing like a guarantee.
True. Sometimes it is much more than tat.
Clearly you've never used it or you wouldn't be saying that. If you gave me your BTC address, I could send you $1M in BTC and you'd have a confirmation within minutes with only a few dollar fee. But, it's Sunday afternoon. If I wanted to send you $1M, I'd have to wait until Monday morning at 9am, I'd have to drive to my bank (and back), spend at least a half hour waiting in line and and working with a banker to fill out the bank wire form, probably have to wait for the branch manager to authorize it, then maybe, just maybe you'll have the money on Monday afternoon and you'll have paid $30-50 for a domestic wire fee. The alternative is to write a check, stick it in the mail, 3 or 4 days later you get it, deposit it in your account, and then when the bank decides to clear it you can spend it. So, again, which one is faster, easier, and more convenient?
And as @jmlanzaf answered very well, difficulty of use isn't stopping anyone from using it.
And even then that's only if you calculate it the way the government does, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
Nice diversion attempt. You were talking about the crypto hucksters and I replied with a point about rare coin hucksters. The point stands that it doesn't matter what the hucksters say it doesn't change the merits of the investment being promoted, and we shouldn't give their hype much credence, but you keep doing it.
Prevalent: in general use or acceptance.
That's not the government's decision to make. If "the people" decided to use pretty rocks or shells for commerce, there's nothing the government can do to stop us.
That's silly. Paypal is prevalent and widely used and available, but no employer pays people through Paypal either, yet I can use it as a payment method on almost every retailer's website.
A woeful poor analogy. Actually a pretty ridiculous analogy. Skydiving isn't an essential part of every day life. Buying and selling is. Beyond that (if you really knew anything about what skills are requirec to skydive) you would never say it is easy. There is a tremendous amount of planning and preparation that goes into skydiving. It's NOT just about pulling a cord...smh.
Millions of folks decided it wasn't convenient and chose to go through an exchange. There are fees and there are delays. We're talking about day to day transactions not million dollar transfers.
No switch. You tried to justify the existence of crypto hawkers by bringing in coin hawkers. You don't justify one type of hawking by referring another type of hawking.
Not silly at all. I don't define PayPal as prevalent. There were 19 billion PayPal transactions in 2021. That is a miniscule proportion of transactions done worldwide. In contrast Visa had
13 trillion transactions in 2021. Again, when major corporations and governments start transacting in Bitcoin you'll have something to talk about. But that's not going to happen.
Actually yes I think now the horse has been beaten ad nauseum.
And now we get to hear from the genius SBF about how he absconded with monies to play his pyramid game.
Hey like it's been said so many times when things are up everything is golden, when valuations plummet run for cover.
Crypto is becoming an answer to a question fewer and fewer people are asking.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/household-wealth-down-by-13-5-trillion-in-2022-second-worst-destruction-on-record-11670623787
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/quarters/PCGS-2020-quarter-quest/album/247091
True. Sometimes it is much more than tat.> @pmh1nic said:
>
I guess you know nothing about skydiving either. You can go to the airport and in 3 hours be jumping out of a plane - mandatory safety training.
But the point was, is, and remains unanswered by you - the usual dodge of a direct answer when you know it destroys your argument. YOU don't refuse to use BTC because it is hard. YOU refuse it because you are skeptical. In fact, BTC is easy to use - as easy as PayPal. But the ease of use won't get you to use it. And it isn't the (incorrectly alleged) difficulty in use that prevents its being used.
And NO ONE wants you to use it. I don't. I don't even want you to embrace it. However, it would be nice if you stopped making up facts to support your biases. BTC is as easy to use as Venmo or PayPal. Doesn't mean YOU should use it. But it is NOT hard.
lmfao - PayPal isn't "prevalent"? I guess cash isn't prevalent either since most transactions aren't in cash.
"Another proof that cash is no longer king: Only 14% of American consumers use it for all their weekly purchases, according to the Pew Research Center. At the same time, 44% confirmed they use cash for some purchases, while 41% hardly ever use it." [fortunly.com]
First, that's not skydiving. That's being a skydiving passenger. And as a passenger you have no idea what it took to prepare for your being a passenger, from packing the parachute to flying the plane.
Second, the Bitcoin is neither convenient or secure. The fact that exchanges exist is evidence it's not easy and the fact that those exchanges have lost tens of billions in customer assets is evidence ite not secure.
Third, I have not made up any facts. The central point is Bitcoin and no other crypto that isn't controlled by government is going to become a primary means of commerce. It isn't now and never will be.
Using words like prevalent is meaningless. What is more "prevalent" 19 billion transactions (Visa) or 13 trillion PayPal)? The fact is you have no context in which to claim PayPal is prevalent. Do you know how many cash transactions occurred in 2021?
But this is an entire non sequitur. Paypal is [a] prevalent and widely used and available way to transfer dollars. You allege that no employer uses Paypal to pay people IN DOLLARS, yet every retailer will allow you to pay IN DOLLARS with Paypal as a payment method.
There. Now we have restored this to apples to apples.
I think you have you numbers switched.
"Prevalent" as in "accepted by most large retailers on their websites".
By the way, you just acknowledged that PayPal is "prevalent", otherwise how could Visa be "more prevalent".
Sitting back and toasting VICTORY! So sweet the taste... I'm going to buy champagne with PayPal and a gold victory medal with BTC.
I think you have you numbers switched.
"Prevalent" as in "accepted by most large retailers on their websites".
By the way, you just acknowledged that PayPal is "prevalent", otherwise how could Visa be "more prevalent".
Sitting back and toasting VICTORY! So sweet the taste... I'm going to buy champagne with PayPal and a gold victory medal with BTC.> @pmh1nic said:
Do you just spend all day redefining terms? If I call the airport, I sign up to "skydive" not be a "skydiving passenger". I'm jumping out of a frigging plane, why do I have to pack my own chute? Do you have to build your own car in order to be a driver? I guess you're just an "automotive passenger". So please stay off the road, I prefer that all cars have drivers.
It's non sequitur for two reasons. Whatever payments are done via PayPal they pale in comparison to transactions done via other modes of payment. Beyond that PayPal is vying to become the standard method of payment worldwide. The argument shifted from Bitcoin being the future of world commerce to Bitcoin being prevalent.
Again, my argument has been and still is that no form of commerce is going to replace the dollar that cannot be controlled (regulated, monitored, taxed and manipulated) by governments. ProofCollection has degraded the discussion from Bitcoin being a major factor in commerce to "prevalent" with the meaning of prevalent being whatever he wants to make it.
I don't have the numbers switched. Do some research.
I don't bring up the word "prevalent" and it really is a diversion from the fundamental discussion. The discussion was whether Bitcoin was going to replace the dollar or any other of the major currencies of the world. That's why ProofCollector reference El Salvador. That was his example of Bitcoin become a powerhouse in currency.
So safe your "prevalent" definition and argument for when it matters. In this discussion is was a diversion.
In your numbers, PayPal is larger than Visa which runs counter to your thesis and the actual numbers. The 19 billion goes with PayPal... or would you like to double down on the error. I offer a helpful edit and you just can't help but say "no".
You are the only one who has ever mentioned replacing a currency. Proofcollector has never suggested it.
He did not say that. He said it could grow to be. He never said that it already was. He has said NUMEROUS times that we are early in the adoption.
You can't make up your own facts. Visa did 13 trillion transactions in 2021, Paypal did 19 billion.
All the discussion of crypto replacing fiat, whether it's in digital or hard currency, is a discussion of crypto replacing currency.
Yes, and I'm say it's not.
I know. Go read what you wrote. You wrote it the opposite. Jesus, I not only have to proofread and fact check but then argue with you to read your own post. You wrote:
"..19 billion transactions (Visa) or 13 trillionPaypal)"
Your numbers are switched.
I'll accept your retraction and apology whenever you are ready to offer it.
My original reference to the Visa versus PayPal numbers were correct...
"Not silly at all. I don't define PayPal as prevalent. There were 19 billion PayPal transactions in 2021. That is a miniscule proportion of transactions done worldwide. In contrast Visa had 13 trillion transactions in 2021. Again, when major corporations and governments start transacting in Bitcoin you'll have something to talk about. But that's not going to happen."
So I failed in my second attempt trying to educate you and reversed the numbers. So much for trying to teach an old dog new tricks.
Again, Bitcoin in its present form is NOT going to replace the dollar or any other major currency (Yen, Yuan, Euro, Ruble, Rupee, etc.) and a discussion of El Salvador doesn't change that.
I never argued your numbers. I tried to HELP you by pointing out that you switched them.
Still waiting for the apology
NO ONE has ever said otherwise. You are arguing with yourself.
Actually I think someone has backtracked from Crypto being the best thing since sliced bread to it being "prevalent" whatever that means.
I don't know the exact backstory to this but here is a Campaign Created by: Ray Vahey - BitChute Founder & Chief Executive
https://www.givesendgo.com/bitchute
Would be really interesting to see what the outcome is going to be.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/quarters/PCGS-2020-quarter-quest/album/247091
Please fasten your seatbelts because the FTX debacle is causing some major issues........
The CEO of the peer-to-peer bitcoin trading platform Paxful Ray Youssef told customers to get their bitcoin off the platform and move it into self-custody.
https://www.theblock.co/amp/post/194274/ceo-paxful-tells-customers-get-bitcoin-off-platform
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/quarters/PCGS-2020-quarter-quest/album/247091
Incidentally, Time magazine had featured Paxful in their Time100 most influential companies of 2022.
https://time.com/collection/time100-companies-2022/6159501/paxful/
Adding to the woes is the unhealthy looking Crypto Bitcoin/USD charts
https://finviz.com/crypto_charts.ashx?t=BTCUSD&tf=mo
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/quarters/PCGS-2020-quarter-quest/album/247091
I don't have a dog in this show but currently...
https://www.reuters.com/technology/binance-halts-withdrawals-major-usdc-stablecoin-2022-12-13/?utm_campaign=trueAnthem: Trending Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR0V7NGPQ0F6h4GrQkA9H7TvUtVfFrAspZklAWGUTuW9Yhe3TCqmQ6jn6t0
Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.
the question is, as with all the others, are they shoveling BS (a warning sign of impending doom) or is it possible there can be a chink in the chain because EVERYTHING goes down for a little while sooner or later. the next week should say a lot.
i think if binance goes, i think it will be enough for me to state my opinion, the whole thing is going to zero minus small crypto/nft outliers and will show that while the official sector of finance/money is far from perfect; random people have never been, are not now and will never be capable of operating with such capital given the myriad of challenges, some good, some bad and prove virtually all previous investment rules are still golden. NEVER invest what you cannot afford to lose or are not willing to, especially on the new and/or novelty.
i believe a lot of the people behind the failures/scams/pulls etc WERE technically capable but it requires more than that to succeed over the long-term. i WOULDN'T be surprised (if we can even know such a thing) that "normal" finance had a vested interest into some/all of crypto failing and in one way or another contributed putting major pressure on those behind crypto/nfts (aside from the obvious numbnutzs) kinda nudging some of them over the edge and w/o long-term experience (and sometimes not even then) simply did/do not harbor the necessary character to make announcements to alert investors to possible demise (there were a couple and i have IMMENSE respect for them doing so) and handing shutting down appropriately or pivoting in necessary ways to be able to move forward, even on a different path. i'm not saying it is easy but people have TOO little appreciation for the power of their actions/inactions and sometimes the people JUST need a little truth and a bone thrown their way. (there was some good commentary from some people about how ponzis MAY not start out that way but end up that way and while i DO agree with that, i don't and i'm sure the commenters do not, agree with how the handle the impending demise but choose to STEAL all they can before it all crumbles)
semi-rant over.
You're showing your ignorance here. You have to use an exchange to convert your fiat into crypto. Most exchanges are very convenient and easy to use. The transactions are real-time and fees are minimal compared to banking charges and the 3% charged by the credit card companies. My example for a million dollar transfer is the same for a $.05 transfer.
Yes switch.
You said:
The fact is there are many of them [crypto promoters] who promote themselves as in the know, that have convinced many to put their money in Bitcoin claiming it's a great investment and/or solid long-term store of wealth. Many of those folks have gotten burned and some burned badly.
I said:
And the home shopping network and other TV shopping channels (and newspaper ads) promote terrible overpriced coin investments as well, but most on this board do not dwell on what those hucksters are promoting despite the people who buy that stuff also getting burned. Instead we dismiss what they say and make fun of them, which is what you should do too.
Then you switched the argument away from the promoters to the asset:
You don't justify one terrible asset by bringing up other terrible assets. You don't validate the hawking of one bad investment by talking up how others have hyped bad investments.
I never validated the hawking of investments. I pointed out that there are hucksters for every investment type, and that this forum community laughs at the coin hucksters just like the reasonable crypto community laughs at the crypto hucksters, but you keep reiterating their hype as if it is legitimate or meaningful.
It's tough to continue this conversation since you've proven that you have an alternative definition for everything. Prevalent means 'widespread,' not dominant. Paypal is easily a widespread payment method in my world. Crypto will be within a few years.
When crypto transactions for commerce reach 1 billion transactions will be something to talk about, and it's going to happen.
Perhaps the problem is that you don't have a dictionary? Is that why you keep redefining terms? Dictionary.com is free to use.
Has as much backing it as the dollar. Should be worth more since they've printed less.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
Better known as the Crypto casino. You want to be the owner of the casino......why? Because the house WINS!!
Disclaimer: I'm not a dealer, trader, grader, investor or professional numismatist. I'm just a hobbyist. (To protect me but mostly you! 🤣 )