3 ms·
I don't get how one can be a self-proclaimed "HODLer" and also preach about how cryptocurrency is the future of money. Assets you can reasonably call "currency"
by cvsh 9y ago
I don't get how one can be a self-proclaimed "HODLer" and also preach about how cryptocurrency is the future of money. Assets you can reasonably call "currency" and assets you speculatively buy and hold seem like fundamentally incompatible categories. BTC or something like it may indeed be the future of currency, but that certainly won't happen until the current speculative mania reaches some kind of equilibrium.
- hndamien 9y agoYou are misunderstanding the nature of the system and infinite divisibility. Wealth created essentially gets stored in a “bank”. Buying allows others to withdraw. The more holding the higher the price, the more everybody can withdraw. This is equity based money. And a bank, with no staff or “money”.
- tcbawo 9y agoIs it really infinitely divisible when the transaction costs are fixed and high relative to the values being transferred?
- tazard 9y agoI don't know about that, but it's not infinitely divisible. The smallest unit is 1 satoshi
- Mtinie 9y agoToday that is true. Keep in mind though, there are already factions within the Bitcoin community already discussing how to seek consensus and affect a protocol change once the value of a single satoshi “grows large enough.” Only time will tell if the proponents of such action are forward-thinking or delusional.
- antonvs 9y agoThe idea that they might be delusional is misguided. It's simply a fact that if Bitcoin achieves much wider adoption, the value of a satoshi will necessarily become "large enough." The current exchange rate is already about 66 satoshi to a US cent, and mass-market adoption is currently, to a first approximation, nonexistent. You don't have to be certain that Bitcoin will achieve the necessary adoption in order to plan for the eventuality. As such, "forward-thinking" is the correct characterization.
- deefcee 9y agoWhat the HODL meme stands for not selling your BTC for fiat. It is somewhat misleading since spending BTC (which is not the same as selling) is definitely not "holding" in any sense. The intent is telling the new users not to succumb to fear and sell on drops but stay strong in their belief in the technology.
- if_by_whisky 9y agoSpending BTC is fundamentally the same as selling.
- TomMarius 9y agoYes, you're of course true - in the literal sense. The intended meaning is to not sell for fiat.
- davrosthedalek 9y agoOr, to be more precise, not sell for fiat because of mistrust in long term bitcoin value.
- anonymous5133 9y agoIt is but it also encourages businesses to accept it.
- avar 9y agoYou can simultaneously think the US dollar is useful for buying a pizza, and also invest in US treasury bonds which is basically holding US dollars as an investment. It just so happens that with Bitcoin the currency and the speculative investment vehicle are the same thing.
- stale2002 9y ago> Assets you can reasonably call "currency" and assets you speculatively buy and hold seem like fundamentally incompatible categories. This is a new opinion on money that didn't exist 200 years ago. For all the things that economists have to say about how terrible deflationary assets are at being a currency, economists fail to admit that gold and silver ran the world for thousands of years. Using assets as a currency has its pros and cons. But it is absolutely not "completely unworkable", as many modern economists like to claim, as demonstrated by the fact that it DID work for the vast majority of human civilization.
- philipwhiuk 9y ago> This is a new opinion on money that didn't exist 200 years ago. Economics is a science we discard what doesn't work.
- stale2002 9y agoBut it DID work. For the majority of human history, gold and silver ran the world. Economic predictions about how society would collapse if assets were used as currency is provable false. As proved by the fact that the global economic world chugged along just fine with such a currency.