4 ms·

Despite other comments, I'm concerned there isnt enough anti-crypto here. Let's be clear: this is what a graph of the values of currencies looks like: https://

Despite other comments, I'm concerned there isnt enough anti-crypto here. Let's be clear: this is what a graph of the values of currencies looks like: https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=USD&view=10Y https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=USD&view=10Y . Micro-value adjustments up-and-down, and if you comapred to the price of bread, midly inflationary. This is what all (necessarily deflationary) crypto "currencies" look like: https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=XBT&to=USD&view=10Y https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=XBT&to=USD&view=10Y . Extreme swings, compared to the price of bread, massively deflationary. That is also the graph of the value of tulips during https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania . Regardless of whether you think (this obvious scam designed to enrich a handful of early stakers) is a scam or not: it cannot be a currency. A currency cannot be this massively and necessarily deflationary, as it is never rational to spend it. If your currency is guaranteed to increase in value, it is always better to hold it. Thus rendering the only alleged use of crypto economically incoherent. At this point, tulips in hand, you should start to wonder why you're being sold on the idea of a tulip-based economy. Clue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory .

blatchcorn 5y ago
I am probably not going to change your mind. But I think some stuff you should consider are: Is the volatility an inherent problem built into the code and design of bitcoin et al? Or does the volatility stem from external factors like it being new, difficult to value, and much lower market cap then other currencies? I personally believe that bitcoin's volatility is not by design and will not last forever. Secondly, you should rethink whether comparing bitcoin to fiat is correct (I would suggest gold) and rethink if bitcoin really is deflationary. Bitcoin has a lot of similarities to Gold. Check out this report: https://www.fidelitydigitalassets.com/bin-public/060_www_fidelity_com/documents/FDAS/bitcoin-first.pdf https://www.fidelitydigitalassets.com/bin-public/060_www_fid... There is nothing in bitcoin's code that makes it deflationary. The reward for mining bitcoin does decrease over time, but never does the supply decrease - it only grows or eventually stops growing at 21 million
- mjburgess 5y ago
  Yes, gold is another awful deflationary currency that drives people to poverty. The vast majority of people were poor on the gold standard. (Consider also, how much https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Gold_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Gold_speech spoke to the people). In any case, crypto isnt a currency. Comparing it to any currency presumes vastly too much, let alone "fiat" which has enabled the fastest increase in general wealth in human history. Crypto is a extremely slow, extremely operationally expensive, nightmarish system of baseball card printing. Designed explicitly to progressively, over time, dramatically increase the power and wealth of the early-stakers. Its value only exists whilst people continue to buy it. Whether deflationary currency is a good idea or not (it isnt: it's horrific); whether digital currency is a good idea or not (it might be); crypto isn't (really, sorry: its scam -- pushed knowingly by scammers, and unknowingly by those holding very very very expensive tulip bulbs, who "just cant see" why everyone doesnt want tulips). The game crypto people play is this: talk about the tech with finance guys to bamboozle; talk about the finance with the tech guys, to bamboozle. Talk about fiat/politics/gov with everyone because "presumably there's something wrong with the economy right guys!!11! financial crash, etc etc.". Despite, of course, the last half-century being the most wealth-productive for everyone in human history. This is a confidence trick. Crypto has nothing to do with why blockchains are useful (mostly, they arent). Nothing to do with non-fiat currency (an inflationary one might be useful). Nothing to do with politics (a system which increases the power of a few early adopters is NOT! better than democratic politics). Crypto is a scam. Blockchain, non-fiat, digital, anti-gov blah blah is the mask the scam wears. If you want a digital non-fiat anti-gov currency, go ahead and make one. Crypto *is not that*.
  - blatchcorn 5y ago
    You have failed to acknowledge or address any of the points I brought to your attention. I didn't think I would change your mind anyhow
- kravens_last 5y ago
  > I personally believe that bitcoin's volatility is not by design and will not last forever. If the entire premise of bitcoin's valuation is an open market exchange based on supply (finite and fixed) and demand (variable), then logically, the outcome is perpetual volatility. There will be zero cases where demand will flatline because this has never in human history occurred organically. For unforseen reasons (a business deal gone bad, a divorce, etc) a btc whale may decide to liquidate, causing a cascading effect of running out of USDT, bringing the entire market crashing down. Bezos may decide to add 4B worth of liquidity to BTC as a speculative portion of his portfolio. Shit like this will happen and only add to more volatility in valuation.
vzcx 5y ago
Where did you acquire this point of view? You sound very certain, but I think you've got it completely backwards: You say bitcoin cannot be a currency because it is highly volatile, but I'd argue that it's just as true that Bitcoin has high volatility because it isn't in widespread use as a currency. I suppose they can both be true: it's a network bootstrapping problem. This is the future bitcoin long-term buyers are speculating on, that the network will succeed and become more widespread. And though the network is small, people spend bitcoin all the time. You say this is irrational, and maybe it is in some very static model of economic action, but as we know, the real world is dynamic. That is, it has a time component, the future is unknowable and there are very few guarantees. It turns out, that at some point people tend to decide they would rather have something now than wait for later and potentially get it more cheaply. A man's gotta eat, and sometimes he wants to enjoy a few luxuries as well. People didn't stop trading things when there were "massively deflationary" commodity monies in the past, and I don't see why that would be different today. In fact, the whole "deflation" bugaboo is only indirectly about price. The real core of the matter is credit: "deflation" acts like a higher interest rate, which makes life difficult for debtors. We can already create debt products linked to inflation, and I see no reason why that term can't have a negative sign next to it. This changes one's view of what investments look wise or not, but that is not necessarily a bad thing at all.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  My issue isnt it's volatility, which is dramatic and a barrier to adoption. But it's inherently deflationary -- we know how deflationary currency works, and it's a nightmare. The only people able to spend on luxuries are those who have so much wealth that holding it has lower marginal utility than the luxuries they want. Everyone else spends only when they absolutely have to on necessities, as everything else is irrational. It's just better to hold the currency. This is the poverty trap of human history. Crypto will never be a currency because it is designed as a speculative asset which transfers wealth to early adopters, in the manner of a bigger-fool scam. The early buyers paid $10/coin, and the fools paying $100k/coin will be the ones funding the cash-out by providing that USD liquidity just before the collapse. If it collapses to $1k/coin, the early adopters will make their 10,000% return, second phase 100%, and the vast majority of people will be running at -100000%+ You could not design a worse system to be used as actual currency. It is incredibly slow, incredibly inefficient, a handful of early adopters hold all the power, etc. etc.
dlubarov 5y ago
I'm not sure inflation tax should be used as a tool to pressure people to promptly spend their wealth rather than accumulating it. But even if we agree with that premise - Those who wish to avoid inflation tax already have access to stocks, bonds, gold, etc. Doesn't your argument apply equally to those assets? And yet, people regularly sell those assets as needed to cover their expenses.
taberiand 5y ago
I'm concerned that there isn't nearly enough concern over the incredible environmental and energy waste that is core to crypto, and the already enormous wealth disparity on display within the Ponzi scheme. It seems many adherents are starry eyed about some vague prospect of crypto somehow replacing the status quo, with little clarity over how that will be better for society - how it could replace the current structure with something that is less exploitative, less damaging, and more fair. Quite frankly I get the impression that many are just salivating over the chance to be the new elite in a parallel system, new technology but in all other respects the same, and damn the consequences to the earth and humanity.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  > I get the impression that many are just salivating over the chance to be the new elite No impression. It's pretty much written in the comments elsewhere in this thread. That's what makes them exploitable.

blatchcorn 5y ago

I am probably not going to change your mind. But I think some stuff you should consider are: Is the volatility an inherent problem built into the code and design of bitcoin et al? Or does the volatility stem from external factors like it being new, difficult to value, and much lower market cap then other currencies? I personally believe that bitcoin's volatility is not by design and will not last forever. Secondly, you should rethink whether comparing bitcoin to fiat is correct (I would suggest gold) and rethink if bitcoin really is deflationary. Bitcoin has a lot of similarities to Gold. Check out this report: https://www.fidelitydigitalassets.com/bin-public/060_www_fidelity_com/documents/FDAS/bitcoin-first.pdf https://www.fidelitydigitalassets.com/bin-public/060_www_fid... There is nothing in bitcoin's code that makes it deflationary. The reward for mining bitcoin does decrease over time, but never does the supply decrease - it only grows or eventually stops growing at 21 million

mjburgess 5y ago
Yes, gold is another awful deflationary currency that drives people to poverty. The vast majority of people were poor on the gold standard. (Consider also, how much https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Gold_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Gold_speech spoke to the people). In any case, crypto isnt a currency. Comparing it to any currency presumes vastly too much, let alone "fiat" which has enabled the fastest increase in general wealth in human history. Crypto is a extremely slow, extremely operationally expensive, nightmarish system of baseball card printing. Designed explicitly to progressively, over time, dramatically increase the power and wealth of the early-stakers. Its value only exists whilst people continue to buy it. Whether deflationary currency is a good idea or not (it isnt: it's horrific); whether digital currency is a good idea or not (it might be); crypto isn't (really, sorry: its scam -- pushed knowingly by scammers, and unknowingly by those holding very very very expensive tulip bulbs, who "just cant see" why everyone doesnt want tulips). The game crypto people play is this: talk about the tech with finance guys to bamboozle; talk about the finance with the tech guys, to bamboozle. Talk about fiat/politics/gov with everyone because "presumably there's something wrong with the economy right guys!!11! financial crash, etc etc.". Despite, of course, the last half-century being the most wealth-productive for everyone in human history. This is a confidence trick. Crypto has nothing to do with why blockchains are useful (mostly, they arent). Nothing to do with non-fiat currency (an inflationary one might be useful). Nothing to do with politics (a system which increases the power of a few early adopters is NOT! better than democratic politics). Crypto is a scam. Blockchain, non-fiat, digital, anti-gov blah blah is the mask the scam wears. If you want a digital non-fiat anti-gov currency, go ahead and make one. Crypto *is not that*.
- blatchcorn 5y ago
  You have failed to acknowledge or address any of the points I brought to your attention. I didn't think I would change your mind anyhow
kravens_last 5y ago
> I personally believe that bitcoin's volatility is not by design and will not last forever. If the entire premise of bitcoin's valuation is an open market exchange based on supply (finite and fixed) and demand (variable), then logically, the outcome is perpetual volatility. There will be zero cases where demand will flatline because this has never in human history occurred organically. For unforseen reasons (a business deal gone bad, a divorce, etc) a btc whale may decide to liquidate, causing a cascading effect of running out of USDT, bringing the entire market crashing down. Bezos may decide to add 4B worth of liquidity to BTC as a speculative portion of his portfolio. Shit like this will happen and only add to more volatility in valuation.

vzcx 5y ago

Where did you acquire this point of view? You sound very certain, but I think you've got it completely backwards: You say bitcoin cannot be a currency because it is highly volatile, but I'd argue that it's just as true that Bitcoin has high volatility because it isn't in widespread use as a currency. I suppose they can both be true: it's a network bootstrapping problem. This is the future bitcoin long-term buyers are speculating on, that the network will succeed and become more widespread. And though the network is small, people spend bitcoin all the time. You say this is irrational, and maybe it is in some very static model of economic action, but as we know, the real world is dynamic. That is, it has a time component, the future is unknowable and there are very few guarantees. It turns out, that at some point people tend to decide they would rather have something now than wait for later and potentially get it more cheaply. A man's gotta eat, and sometimes he wants to enjoy a few luxuries as well. People didn't stop trading things when there were "massively deflationary" commodity monies in the past, and I don't see why that would be different today. In fact, the whole "deflation" bugaboo is only indirectly about price. The real core of the matter is credit: "deflation" acts like a higher interest rate, which makes life difficult for debtors. We can already create debt products linked to inflation, and I see no reason why that term can't have a negative sign next to it. This changes one's view of what investments look wise or not, but that is not necessarily a bad thing at all.

mjburgess 5y ago
My issue isnt it's volatility, which is dramatic and a barrier to adoption. But it's inherently deflationary -- we know how deflationary currency works, and it's a nightmare. The only people able to spend on luxuries are those who have so much wealth that holding it has lower marginal utility than the luxuries they want. Everyone else spends only when they absolutely have to on necessities, as everything else is irrational. It's just better to hold the currency. This is the poverty trap of human history. Crypto will never be a currency because it is designed as a speculative asset which transfers wealth to early adopters, in the manner of a bigger-fool scam. The early buyers paid $10/coin, and the fools paying $100k/coin will be the ones funding the cash-out by providing that USD liquidity just before the collapse. If it collapses to $1k/coin, the early adopters will make their 10,000% return, second phase 100%, and the vast majority of people will be running at -100000%+ You could not design a worse system to be used as actual currency. It is incredibly slow, incredibly inefficient, a handful of early adopters hold all the power, etc. etc.

dlubarov 5y ago

I'm not sure inflation tax should be used as a tool to pressure people to promptly spend their wealth rather than accumulating it. But even if we agree with that premise - Those who wish to avoid inflation tax already have access to stocks, bonds, gold, etc. Doesn't your argument apply equally to those assets? And yet, people regularly sell those assets as needed to cover their expenses.

taberiand 5y ago

I'm concerned that there isn't nearly enough concern over the incredible environmental and energy waste that is core to crypto, and the already enormous wealth disparity on display within the Ponzi scheme. It seems many adherents are starry eyed about some vague prospect of crypto somehow replacing the status quo, with little clarity over how that will be better for society - how it could replace the current structure with something that is less exploitative, less damaging, and more fair. Quite frankly I get the impression that many are just salivating over the chance to be the new elite in a parallel system, new technology but in all other respects the same, and damn the consequences to the earth and humanity.

mjburgess 5y ago
> I get the impression that many are just salivating over the chance to be the new elite No impression. It's pretty much written in the comments elsewhere in this thread. That's what makes them exploitable.