11 ms·

If it is pegged to USD, there is no investment potential. It is just as bad as cash. The idea behind bitcoin is that you don't need to rely on the US governmen

If it is pegged to USD, there is no investment potential. It is just as bad as cash. The idea behind bitcoin is that you don't need to rely on the US government for storing value. There are 21,000,000 BTC ever ever, you can't print more. That article did not address this at all. This is the most compelling reason to buy bitcoin.

thefounder 7y ago
>> It is just as bad as cash. You mean that it is as good as cash. Bitcoin become a failed project, a big internet casino. Some people want to use digital money to make payments and get paid, you know? The success of the facebook coins depends by the ways to redeem the tokens(i.e do other shops accept it, can they be cashed out at atm, can you use it with 3rd party wallets etc)
- maxlybbert 7y ago
  Quoting the animated Dilbert TV show when Dilbert buys his mom a gift card: “you’ve exchanged your money for something like money, but less useful.”
  - jrvxo 7y ago
    That series was brilliant. I don't know what happened to it :(
  - maxlybbert 7y ago
    I finally found a real source, and as usual, my memory leaves much to be desired (ultimately Dilbert gets a gift certificate): Alice: A gift certificate is completely different from cash. Dilbert: No, it's not. They're both pieces of paper you can exchange for goods and services. Alice: You're missing the point. Dilbert: Actually, a gift certificate is worse than cash, because you can only use it in one place. Wally: And it expires. Alice: At least it shows some thought. Dilbert: It shows defective thought. You're trading perfectly good money for something that does the same thing, only not as well. Facebook’s currency may not expire or be limited to one place, but it does seem to me that “it does the same thing [as money], only not as well.”
    - dwild 7y ago
      > Facebook’s currency may not expire or be limited to one place, but it does seem to me that “it does the same thing [as money], only not as well.” I don't know but each time I try to show my cash into the computer... nothing happen. Libra does the same thing as "Paypal" would be more fitting, but then you forget that not everyone can use Paypal and that's where your logic fail. Venmo is always my best example for that, because I do have a Visa card, I do have a Paypal account. I'm in a developed country, thus I don't have issues to do transactions online. I still wouldn't be able to use Venmo though. If you were to only accept my transaction from Venmo, because you didn't like Visa and Paypal (yeah I know Venmo is owned by Paypal but you understands the point). Now imagine this world, but without any of theses. - Anyone can own a Libra wallet, me, you, someone in the middle of a third world country. - Anyone can transfer from a Libra wallet, to another, me, you, someone in the middle of a third world country included. That means that anyone can arbitrage values of Libra, anywhere in the world, whether Visa, Mastercard or Paypal decide that market worth it or not. Thus, anyone can pay using Libra, which make Paypal, "the same thing [as Libra], only not as well."
  - thefounder 7y ago
    Well, you can't send physical money over optical/copper cables, can you?
    - maxlybbert 7y ago
      Personally, I believe PayPal, Western Union, banks, etc. have come up with decent ways to send money electronically.
      - dwild 7y ago
        > Personally That's the whole issue. You forget about everyone else that don't have access to Paypal or Western Union, or even wire transfer.
- russian_bot 7y ago
  No, it's worse than cash. Cash has the ability to be anonymous, be used for regulation arbitrage, and is untraceable. This "facebook coin" likely has none of these properties.
- hanniabu 7y ago
  Bitcoin has not failed. I know several people personally that are paid in it. They can also use it to buy things.
  - cycrutchfield 7y ago
    And when they buy things, are those things denominated in fiat currency or in bitcoin?
    - hanniabu 7y ago
      Both
    - VRay 7y ago
      I guess Bitcoin is turning out to be the Esperanto of money
      - CaptainZapp 7y ago
        Somehow I don't think that you mean that as a compliment.
    - Lordarminius 7y ago
      > are those things denominated in fiat currency or in bitcoin By your logic if I exchange dollars for euros to spend on a vacation somewhere that means the dollar has failed ?
      - thefounder 7y ago
        Bitcoin is volatile. That's the main issue. You can't say that about the dollar or euro. Now imagine you get paid in bitcoin, save every month for a holiday or a high value purchase. When the time comes to make the purchase you find out that your savings are worth less than 10%. How does it feel using bitcoin? I tried to use bitcoin(as a merchant) but due its volatility it makes no sense to use it(as merchant or buyer).
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
travisjungroth 7y ago
> There are 21,000,000 BTC ever ever, you can't print more. This is not true. Forks exist, and anyone can make 21 million bitcoin at a time. It’s still a question of if people will accept the forks, but it is an option
- hanniabu 7y ago
  If it's a fork then it's not BTC
  - travisjungroth 7y ago
    But what is “BTC”? It’s the version of bitcoin code that people generally accept. Every update to the code is a fork.
    - hanniabu 7y ago
      That's correct, so anything that isn't generally accepted doesn't have the same support or value. To date there have not been any legitimate forks that I'm aware of.
      - travisjungroth 7y ago
        Whether you consider it legitimate or not, Bitcoin Cash has about 4% of the value of BTC. Here’s my point. Is it theoretically possible for some group of people in the physical world to take actions so that what we generally call Bitcoin has 1 more coin? I strongly believe yes. So the world isn’t as black and white as some people like to say it is.
        hanniabu 7y ago
        Just as the stock market can only have 1 AAPL ticker, there can only be 1 BTC. Is it possible that in the future that BTC can have a change in emission and cap? Yes. I don't agree with that part of the parents statement. But there is in no way for there to be more than 1 BTC chain.
root_axis 7y ago
> There are 21,000,000 BTC ever ever, you can't print more Untrue. More could easily be printed if that is what the leadership/community wanted.
- GenerocUsername 7y ago
  That would result in a fork, split adoption, and is not nearly as easy as you imply.
  - empath75 7y ago
    There have been multiple forks.
    - bduerst 7y ago
      Many of which are considered failures, which is the point.
    - russdpale 7y ago
      Yeh and they all fuckin suck. I wonder why? Its because they compromise on the quixotic properties that make bitcoin valuable.
      - root_axis 7y ago
        What is the substantive meaning behind "fuckn suck"? As an example, most exchanges and processors have both BTC and BCH so if you're not a speculator there isn't much functional difference. (I know there are technical differences, but those differences don't change the fact that they are fungible blockchain tokens)
        polyomino 7y ago
        the functional difference is that BCH doesn't have a meaningful portion of the SHA256 hashrate, so it's vulnerable to 51% attack all the time. But, it's basically worthless so nobody cares.
stcredzero 7y ago
If it is pegged to USD, there is no investment potential. It is just as bad as cash. Tether became (at least for a time) a favored method for cryptocurrency investors to shift their positions to USD. I think Facebook has a good chance of doing the job better with Libra than Tether has done. This might put Facebook into an advantaged position in future payments services and cryptocurrency. (One thing that just occurred to me: would it be possible to alter the operation of a stablecoin, such that parties who are trying to corner the market will automatically expose themselves to other parties who would exploit them?) What if Facebook also came out with a stablecoin to the Yuan, the Pound, and the Euro, as well as their own non-stablecoin cryptocurrency? I suspect that this would give Facebook the same kind of information advantage currently enjoyed by petroleum multinationals in the petroleum market. (EDIT: Euro)
- cycrutchfield 7y ago
  The German Mark? Do they have a time machine too?
  - stcredzero 7y ago
    I'm showing my age. Euro.
nosuchthing 7y ago
No one should have to buy Bitcoin when you can mine it, oh wait it's all being printed in warehouses owned by wealthy capital holders. Surely this is Satoshi's design goal. Also don't worry about the exchanges operating out of obscure off shore islands, they probably arn't operating fractional reserves.
- beaner 7y ago
  Miners have to sell their coin to remain profitable. This distributes the coin well, and ensures a highly liquid market. The largest brokerage is US-based (coinbase) and the largest exchange is Binance, which has most of its funds auditable on various blockchains. Also just hold your own keys if you're worried about it. The ability to opt-out of custodianship is kind of the point.
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    Miners have to sell their coin to remain profitable. No, they don't. They just have to sell a notation in their database that a coin is owed to someone. This is what MtGox did, and it's what Coinbase still does. The trick is to maintain just enough coin to be able to transfer out coins on request (as MtGox tried to do), or to just claim that it will take a few days to process the transaction (as Coinbase does). Binance, which has most of its funds auditable on various blockchains. A company owned by Binance audited Binance's books. And posted the results of the audit online...but not the underlying data. This is useful from the POV of conducting a third-party audit...
    - beaner 7y ago
      You're conflating miners and brokerages and they don't operate nearly anything like each other. Miners do not custody funds. Large miners that control a farm can't run on empty, they need to pay for space, hardware, and electricity - they need to sell through crypto through a brokerage to end users to make a profit. The brokerage (e.g. Coinbase) may then custody those funds on behalf of brokerage users, but the miner no longer has it. Mining pools directly pay out the pool contributors in crypto who then themselves decide to either save or spend. There are some "cloud mining" services but they don't account for a lot of power and most end users play with them at a loss. A brokerage does not own or generate new coin, it simply holds it on behalf of users and enables exchanges between users via the market. "[Coinbase] claim that it will take a few days to process the transaction" -> This is very vague. When you withdraw crypto it generally happens near instantly. If you're talking about a purchase which involves processing a fiat withdrawal from a bank, that's not the same thing. Re: Binance, you can audit it yourself at addresses like this: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/34xp4vRoCGJym3xR7yCVPFHoCNxv4Twseo https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/34xp4vRoCGJym3xR7yCVP...
ForHackernews 7y ago
> There are 21,000,000 BTC ever ever, you can't print more. I see you're unfamiliar with Bitcoin SV, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin 2, Bitcoin Segwit...
- beaner 7y ago
  This is a really stupid thing to say. SV coins are SV coins, not BTC coins. Their chains don't interact and can't inflate each other, so pointing out that there are multiple blockchains doesn't make any sense.
  - ForHackernews 7y ago
    The point is that all of these random tokens are functionally identical from the perspective of most users. If you're claiming there's a hard limit on the number of limited edition funko pop action figures produced, you'd better be able to explain what makes them any different than these other identical clones. It'd be like if counterfeit designer clothes were actually indistinguishable from the "real" ones, and arguably better made in some cases.
    - beaner 7y ago
      The utility is not just in it's function but since it's money, also in it's purchasing power and it's network. Your analogy is more like getting the Facebook database and spinning up 100 clones of it, all with 3 billion users. Now "Facebook" has 300 billion users. It could have a trillion or a quintillion right? Or an infinite amount. But what does that even mean if the actual 3 billion people only use the original network? It means Facebook is still Facebook, and forking it, in terms of how it affects the network it its value, is relatively pointless. You're not making a real point.
    - easymodex 7y ago
      Yeah but they are not functionally identical as Bitcoin's value comes from it being immutable, decentralized and failure-proof. Also a better analogy would be that you can make 1000 copies of the Mona Lisa in whatever way you want, they will still be just copies and they will be worthless.
h1d 7y ago
You're only looking into quick money but for you there are plenty of alts for that.
oarabbus_ 7y ago
You have it completely wrong. Bitcoin is intended to be a cryptoCURRENCY meaning in a proper liquid market there should not be any investment potential at all. An appreciating asset is the exact opposite of a currency. You want your currency to be stable, or slight inflation/devaluation over time, or the consequences are it will never be used to transact.
Shish2k 7y ago
> there is no investment potential. It is just as bad as cash I don't want to invest in money. I want to exchange my money for goods and / or services. It seems that bitcoin is great for the former and not so great at the latter :P

thefounder 7y ago

>> It is just as bad as cash. You mean that it is as good as cash. Bitcoin become a failed project, a big internet casino. Some people want to use digital money to make payments and get paid, you know? The success of the facebook coins depends by the ways to redeem the tokens(i.e do other shops accept it, can they be cashed out at atm, can you use it with 3rd party wallets etc)

maxlybbert 7y ago
Quoting the animated Dilbert TV show when Dilbert buys his mom a gift card: “you’ve exchanged your money for something like money, but less useful.”
- jrvxo 7y ago
  That series was brilliant. I don't know what happened to it :(
- maxlybbert 7y ago
  I finally found a real source, and as usual, my memory leaves much to be desired (ultimately Dilbert gets a gift certificate): Alice: A gift certificate is completely different from cash. Dilbert: No, it's not. They're both pieces of paper you can exchange for goods and services. Alice: You're missing the point. Dilbert: Actually, a gift certificate is worse than cash, because you can only use it in one place. Wally: And it expires. Alice: At least it shows some thought. Dilbert: It shows defective thought. You're trading perfectly good money for something that does the same thing, only not as well. Facebook’s currency may not expire or be limited to one place, but it does seem to me that “it does the same thing [as money], only not as well.”
  - dwild 7y ago
    > Facebook’s currency may not expire or be limited to one place, but it does seem to me that “it does the same thing [as money], only not as well.” I don't know but each time I try to show my cash into the computer... nothing happen. Libra does the same thing as "Paypal" would be more fitting, but then you forget that not everyone can use Paypal and that's where your logic fail. Venmo is always my best example for that, because I do have a Visa card, I do have a Paypal account. I'm in a developed country, thus I don't have issues to do transactions online. I still wouldn't be able to use Venmo though. If you were to only accept my transaction from Venmo, because you didn't like Visa and Paypal (yeah I know Venmo is owned by Paypal but you understands the point). Now imagine this world, but without any of theses. - Anyone can own a Libra wallet, me, you, someone in the middle of a third world country. - Anyone can transfer from a Libra wallet, to another, me, you, someone in the middle of a third world country included. That means that anyone can arbitrage values of Libra, anywhere in the world, whether Visa, Mastercard or Paypal decide that market worth it or not. Thus, anyone can pay using Libra, which make Paypal, "the same thing [as Libra], only not as well."
- thefounder 7y ago
  Well, you can't send physical money over optical/copper cables, can you?
  - maxlybbert 7y ago
    Personally, I believe PayPal, Western Union, banks, etc. have come up with decent ways to send money electronically.
    - dwild 7y ago
      > Personally That's the whole issue. You forget about everyone else that don't have access to Paypal or Western Union, or even wire transfer.
russian_bot 7y ago
No, it's worse than cash. Cash has the ability to be anonymous, be used for regulation arbitrage, and is untraceable. This "facebook coin" likely has none of these properties.
hanniabu 7y ago
Bitcoin has not failed. I know several people personally that are paid in it. They can also use it to buy things.
- cycrutchfield 7y ago
  And when they buy things, are those things denominated in fiat currency or in bitcoin?
  - hanniabu 7y ago
    Both
  - VRay 7y ago
    I guess Bitcoin is turning out to be the Esperanto of money
    - CaptainZapp 7y ago
      Somehow I don't think that you mean that as a compliment.
  - Lordarminius 7y ago
    > are those things denominated in fiat currency or in bitcoin By your logic if I exchange dollars for euros to spend on a vacation somewhere that means the dollar has failed ?
    - thefounder 7y ago
      Bitcoin is volatile. That's the main issue. You can't say that about the dollar or euro. Now imagine you get paid in bitcoin, save every month for a holiday or a high value purchase. When the time comes to make the purchase you find out that your savings are worth less than 10%. How does it feel using bitcoin? I tried to use bitcoin(as a merchant) but due its volatility it makes no sense to use it(as merchant or buyer).

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

travisjungroth 7y ago

> There are 21,000,000 BTC ever ever, you can't print more. This is not true. Forks exist, and anyone can make 21 million bitcoin at a time. It’s still a question of if people will accept the forks, but it is an option

hanniabu 7y ago
If it's a fork then it's not BTC
- travisjungroth 7y ago
  But what is “BTC”? It’s the version of bitcoin code that people generally accept. Every update to the code is a fork.
  - hanniabu 7y ago
    That's correct, so anything that isn't generally accepted doesn't have the same support or value. To date there have not been any legitimate forks that I'm aware of.
    - travisjungroth 7y ago
      Whether you consider it legitimate or not, Bitcoin Cash has about 4% of the value of BTC. Here’s my point. Is it theoretically possible for some group of people in the physical world to take actions so that what we generally call Bitcoin has 1 more coin? I strongly believe yes. So the world isn’t as black and white as some people like to say it is.
      - hanniabu 7y ago
        Just as the stock market can only have 1 AAPL ticker, there can only be 1 BTC. Is it possible that in the future that BTC can have a change in emission and cap? Yes. I don't agree with that part of the parents statement. But there is in no way for there to be more than 1 BTC chain.

root_axis 7y ago

> There are 21,000,000 BTC ever ever, you can't print more Untrue. More could easily be printed if that is what the leadership/community wanted.

GenerocUsername 7y ago
That would result in a fork, split adoption, and is not nearly as easy as you imply.
- empath75 7y ago
  There have been multiple forks.
  - bduerst 7y ago
    Many of which are considered failures, which is the point.
  - russdpale 7y ago
    Yeh and they all fuckin suck. I wonder why? Its because they compromise on the quixotic properties that make bitcoin valuable.
    - root_axis 7y ago
      What is the substantive meaning behind "fuckn suck"? As an example, most exchanges and processors have both BTC and BCH so if you're not a speculator there isn't much functional difference. (I know there are technical differences, but those differences don't change the fact that they are fungible blockchain tokens)
      - polyomino 7y ago
        the functional difference is that BCH doesn't have a meaningful portion of the SHA256 hashrate, so it's vulnerable to 51% attack all the time. But, it's basically worthless so nobody cares.

stcredzero 7y ago

If it is pegged to USD, there is no investment potential. It is just as bad as cash. Tether became (at least for a time) a favored method for cryptocurrency investors to shift their positions to USD. I think Facebook has a good chance of doing the job better with Libra than Tether has done. This might put Facebook into an advantaged position in future payments services and cryptocurrency. (One thing that just occurred to me: would it be possible to alter the operation of a stablecoin, such that parties who are trying to corner the market will automatically expose themselves to other parties who would exploit them?) What if Facebook also came out with a stablecoin to the Yuan, the Pound, and the Euro, as well as their own non-stablecoin cryptocurrency? I suspect that this would give Facebook the same kind of information advantage currently enjoyed by petroleum multinationals in the petroleum market. (EDIT: Euro)

cycrutchfield 7y ago
The German Mark? Do they have a time machine too?
- stcredzero 7y ago
  I'm showing my age. Euro.

nosuchthing 7y ago

No one should have to buy Bitcoin when you can mine it, oh wait it's all being printed in warehouses owned by wealthy capital holders. Surely this is Satoshi's design goal. Also don't worry about the exchanges operating out of obscure off shore islands, they probably arn't operating fractional reserves.

beaner 7y ago
Miners have to sell their coin to remain profitable. This distributes the coin well, and ensures a highly liquid market. The largest brokerage is US-based (coinbase) and the largest exchange is Binance, which has most of its funds auditable on various blockchains. Also just hold your own keys if you're worried about it. The ability to opt-out of custodianship is kind of the point.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  Miners have to sell their coin to remain profitable. No, they don't. They just have to sell a notation in their database that a coin is owed to someone. This is what MtGox did, and it's what Coinbase still does. The trick is to maintain just enough coin to be able to transfer out coins on request (as MtGox tried to do), or to just claim that it will take a few days to process the transaction (as Coinbase does). Binance, which has most of its funds auditable on various blockchains. A company owned by Binance audited Binance's books. And posted the results of the audit online...but not the underlying data. This is useful from the POV of conducting a third-party audit...
  - beaner 7y ago
    You're conflating miners and brokerages and they don't operate nearly anything like each other. Miners do not custody funds. Large miners that control a farm can't run on empty, they need to pay for space, hardware, and electricity - they need to sell through crypto through a brokerage to end users to make a profit. The brokerage (e.g. Coinbase) may then custody those funds on behalf of brokerage users, but the miner no longer has it. Mining pools directly pay out the pool contributors in crypto who then themselves decide to either save or spend. There are some "cloud mining" services but they don't account for a lot of power and most end users play with them at a loss. A brokerage does not own or generate new coin, it simply holds it on behalf of users and enables exchanges between users via the market. "[Coinbase] claim that it will take a few days to process the transaction" -> This is very vague. When you withdraw crypto it generally happens near instantly. If you're talking about a purchase which involves processing a fiat withdrawal from a bank, that's not the same thing. Re: Binance, you can audit it yourself at addresses like this: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/34xp4vRoCGJym3xR7yCVPFHoCNxv4Twseo https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/34xp4vRoCGJym3xR7yCVP...

ForHackernews 7y ago

> There are 21,000,000 BTC ever ever, you can't print more. I see you're unfamiliar with Bitcoin SV, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin 2, Bitcoin Segwit...

beaner 7y ago
This is a really stupid thing to say. SV coins are SV coins, not BTC coins. Their chains don't interact and can't inflate each other, so pointing out that there are multiple blockchains doesn't make any sense.
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  The point is that all of these random tokens are functionally identical from the perspective of most users. If you're claiming there's a hard limit on the number of limited edition funko pop action figures produced, you'd better be able to explain what makes them any different than these other identical clones. It'd be like if counterfeit designer clothes were actually indistinguishable from the "real" ones, and arguably better made in some cases.
  - beaner 7y ago
    The utility is not just in it's function but since it's money, also in it's purchasing power and it's network. Your analogy is more like getting the Facebook database and spinning up 100 clones of it, all with 3 billion users. Now "Facebook" has 300 billion users. It could have a trillion or a quintillion right? Or an infinite amount. But what does that even mean if the actual 3 billion people only use the original network? It means Facebook is still Facebook, and forking it, in terms of how it affects the network it its value, is relatively pointless. You're not making a real point.
  - easymodex 7y ago
    Yeah but they are not functionally identical as Bitcoin's value comes from it being immutable, decentralized and failure-proof. Also a better analogy would be that you can make 1000 copies of the Mona Lisa in whatever way you want, they will still be just copies and they will be worthless.

h1d 7y ago

You're only looking into quick money but for you there are plenty of alts for that.

oarabbus_ 7y ago

You have it completely wrong. Bitcoin is intended to be a cryptoCURRENCY meaning in a proper liquid market there should not be any investment potential at all. An appreciating asset is the exact opposite of a currency. You want your currency to be stable, or slight inflation/devaluation over time, or the consequences are it will never be used to transact.

Shish2k 7y ago

> there is no investment potential. It is just as bad as cash I don't want to invest in money. I want to exchange my money for goods and / or services. It seems that bitcoin is great for the former and not so great at the latter :P