4 ms·
> Pomp's Bitcoin Pizza cannot be paid for in Bitcoin ...which got him a lot of press and attention, far more than had he accepted Bitcoin. That's kinda boring
by petertodd 5y ago
> Pomp's Bitcoin Pizza cannot be paid for in Bitcoin
...which got him a lot of press and attention, far more than had he accepted Bitcoin. That's kinda boring these days.
The idea that nobody spends an appreciating asset is silly. I have BTC, and I need to buy things. One way or another I need to spend my wealth. How exactly I chose to do that comes down to things like convenience, privacy, conversion costs, etc. Quite often, yes, BTC won't be the most convenient or cheapest way to buy things! But sometimes it is, and when it is, my decision to spend my wealth isn't impacted by whether or not the asset I happen to use is appreciating.
It makes sense for me to spend BTC more than most people, because I'm often paid in BTC by foreign clients. So I tend to have an excess of it. But if I were, say, buying porn on a site like ManyVids, or refilling a burner phone's credit via Bitrefill, regardless of whether or not I had excess BTC I'd much rather get the privacy benefit of paying with a BTC/BTC Lightning wallet than giving my name and address with a credit card. And yes, both those sites do in fact do Lightning payments; I won't admit whether or not I've checked that myself. :)
- arcticbull 5y agoWhy would you ever spend an asset that you think is going to be worth more tomorrow than it is today? Doesn't make sense, you'd just borrow against it and wait. This is how the majority of the wealthy handle their investments. Buy, hold, borrow against it, spend. This is even doubly tax advantaged, as you don't have to recognize your capital gains - and you can deduct your margin interest.
- petertodd 5y agoBecause these forms of wealth are fungible: if I spend fiat, that just means I have less fiat in the future that could be put into Bitcoin. The only difference is the conversion costs - depending on what exactly is the financial situation you might be saving a conversion cost by either spending fiat or spending BTC. Keep in mind, because Bitcoin is an appreciating asset, sane investors will often need to spend their BTC to re-balance their overall portfolios. If I had never sold my BTC, essentially all my wealth would be in BTC, which is reckless. Spending my BTC directly vs trading it for fiat and then spending the fiat at minimum reduces the number of conversions needed, is better for privacy, and can even be more convenient now that Lightning works pretty well. > Doesn't make sense, you'd just borrow against it and wait. I have zero interest in taking that kind of risk, and I'm certainly not alone.
- arcticbull 5y agoFiat is intentionally worthless in the future to encourage you to spend it.
- rawtxapp 5y agoShouldn't that be reason enough to get rid of it for something that's not trying to become worthless and rob you of your purchasing power? It's pushing endless/pointless consumerism. People will spend money on things they need, they will also spend money on things they want, but this is pushing them to spend money for the sake of spending it.
- arcticbull 5y agoNot necessarily consumerism. It's a temporary/intermediate representation of value. You can move it into any kind of investment. The only encouragement is to keep it as not-cash.