6 ms·

Trade offs - bitcoin is not a free lunch. If you want to be fully sovereign with your wealth, you have to accept full responsibility of that wealth. If that is

Trade offs - bitcoin is not a free lunch. If you want to be fully sovereign with your wealth, you have to accept full responsibility of that wealth. If that is not a responsibility you want bc you believe it is too risky, then do not buy bitcoin. Or, you can trust centralized authority (a bank) with that responsibility; obviously, the trade off is you lose full control of your wealth. Additionally, how you approach ownership of your wealth is not binary. Nothing is stopping you from putting some proportion of each in either bank or bitcoin.

enkid 5y ago
What does being fully sovereign mean for something that's only used as a medium of exchange? It's value is always only meaningful when at least two people agree on it's value. At best you only control half of the equation.
- smeej 5y ago
  The comparison isn't reasonably between "sovereign control of your wealth" and "in total control of what everyone else values." That doesn't even make sense. The question worth asking is about how controlling your own wealth, but having to trust the value of it to a giant swath of people over which no one entity has any significant control, compares to not having any control of your own wealth, AND having the value of any wealth you do have dependent entirely on the will of some unelected bureaucrat.
- game_the0ry 5y ago
  > It's value is always only meaningful when at least two people agree on it's value. Is it not totally obvious that bitcoin has market value? If not, consider these points - bitcoin was not created by MIT and Uchicago STEM and econ PhDs, it was born out of an anonymous internet "white paper." It proved itself as a type of "money" in the internet dark markets, and continues to do so. It wasn't "lab tested," it was tested in the real world. When China banned crypto, the price of bitcoin did not crash. Only authoritarian countries have banned it, while some US lawmakers hold bitcoin and Gensler (chairmen of the SEC) taught a class at MIT about crypto. These should be very compelling aspects of bitcoin.
  - Spooky23 5y ago
    > bitcoin was not created by MIT and Uchicago STEM and econ PhDs How do you know?
    - game_the0ry 5y ago
      Bc there is no way academics would not take credit for it. That's like expecting a fish not to swim.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    What about the sovereign part? No one has total power over their money because its utility is always based in another's willingness to participate in the transaction. If bitcoin existed before the Civil Rights movement in the US, it would not have helped people of color spend their money in "whites only" establishments or buy houses in white neighborhoods when (prior to 1948) a covenant could legally exclude a person of color from owning certain homes. And after 1948 the legal system could still be weaponized against such purchases, or if all else failed the buyer harassed or worse. These are more extreme examples, but that sort of thing does still go on in places both in the US and elsewhere. Bitcoin or other crypto fall short of solving monetary censorship. Separately, why does it matter where bitcoin was created? (especially given that we really don't know who created it anyway).
  - enkid 5y ago
    Market value is having someone else have control over the value of what you control. Market value may not be centralized, but it is the definition of something you do not control. This is my point. You cannot have full control over something that's value is dictated by an external entity, the entity being the market in this case. The concept of having "full sovereignty" over something that you don't control the value of, and the only purpose is to exchange for something of value, is non-sensical.
Spooky23 5y ago
I’d argue that the first rule of growing and preserving wealth is to avoid quasi-religious entanglements with it. Arguments about sovereignty and control are all ultimately specious, as they depend on a global infrastructure paid for by “fiat” dollars to exist. Your “sovereignty” over a random number is meaningless without the network that facilitates its transfer. To date, crypto has proven to be a uniquely awful store of wealth. It was initially a magical way to transfer value cheaply, but the growth of it got rid of the “cheap” part.
- smeej 5y ago
  > To date, crypto has proven to be a uniquely awful store of wealth. This is a striking claim about the asset class that has gone up in value more than any other in the years since its creation.
  - Spooky23 5y ago
    Tomorrow, it could be 50% less valuable than it is today. It's a highly speculative investment at best, and a pyramid scheme at worst.
    - aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
      How many days in the last 5 years has Bitcoin done a 50% change in a 24hr period? On how many of those occasions was there no opportunity, within say 3-12 months, to sell for higher afterward? and if you don't have the answer to this...
      - johnsonlambo 5y ago
        That does not matter. If you bought at the peak in 2017 you would have had to wait 3 years later to come to equal and you would have been down 75% at the low in 2020. I would not consider this a store of value whatsoever. You are literally speaking to the volatility of btc by referencing the massive changes in value over short periods of time. Lets be honest, the majority of btc investors buy because they hope/believe more people will follow after them in a chase for massive gains. Not because the see intrinsic value in the product.

enkid 5y ago

What does being fully sovereign mean for something that's only used as a medium of exchange? It's value is always only meaningful when at least two people agree on it's value. At best you only control half of the equation.

smeej 5y ago
The comparison isn't reasonably between "sovereign control of your wealth" and "in total control of what everyone else values." That doesn't even make sense. The question worth asking is about how controlling your own wealth, but having to trust the value of it to a giant swath of people over which no one entity has any significant control, compares to not having any control of your own wealth, AND having the value of any wealth you do have dependent entirely on the will of some unelected bureaucrat.
game_the0ry 5y ago
> It's value is always only meaningful when at least two people agree on it's value. Is it not totally obvious that bitcoin has market value? If not, consider these points - bitcoin was not created by MIT and Uchicago STEM and econ PhDs, it was born out of an anonymous internet "white paper." It proved itself as a type of "money" in the internet dark markets, and continues to do so. It wasn't "lab tested," it was tested in the real world. When China banned crypto, the price of bitcoin did not crash. Only authoritarian countries have banned it, while some US lawmakers hold bitcoin and Gensler (chairmen of the SEC) taught a class at MIT about crypto. These should be very compelling aspects of bitcoin.
- Spooky23 5y ago
  > bitcoin was not created by MIT and Uchicago STEM and econ PhDs How do you know?
  - game_the0ry 5y ago
    Bc there is no way academics would not take credit for it. That's like expecting a fish not to swim.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  What about the sovereign part? No one has total power over their money because its utility is always based in another's willingness to participate in the transaction. If bitcoin existed before the Civil Rights movement in the US, it would not have helped people of color spend their money in "whites only" establishments or buy houses in white neighborhoods when (prior to 1948) a covenant could legally exclude a person of color from owning certain homes. And after 1948 the legal system could still be weaponized against such purchases, or if all else failed the buyer harassed or worse. These are more extreme examples, but that sort of thing does still go on in places both in the US and elsewhere. Bitcoin or other crypto fall short of solving monetary censorship. Separately, why does it matter where bitcoin was created? (especially given that we really don't know who created it anyway).
- enkid 5y ago
  Market value is having someone else have control over the value of what you control. Market value may not be centralized, but it is the definition of something you do not control. This is my point. You cannot have full control over something that's value is dictated by an external entity, the entity being the market in this case. The concept of having "full sovereignty" over something that you don't control the value of, and the only purpose is to exchange for something of value, is non-sensical.

Spooky23 5y ago

I’d argue that the first rule of growing and preserving wealth is to avoid quasi-religious entanglements with it. Arguments about sovereignty and control are all ultimately specious, as they depend on a global infrastructure paid for by “fiat” dollars to exist. Your “sovereignty” over a random number is meaningless without the network that facilitates its transfer. To date, crypto has proven to be a uniquely awful store of wealth. It was initially a magical way to transfer value cheaply, but the growth of it got rid of the “cheap” part.

smeej 5y ago
> To date, crypto has proven to be a uniquely awful store of wealth. This is a striking claim about the asset class that has gone up in value more than any other in the years since its creation.
- Spooky23 5y ago
  Tomorrow, it could be 50% less valuable than it is today. It's a highly speculative investment at best, and a pyramid scheme at worst.
  - aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
    How many days in the last 5 years has Bitcoin done a 50% change in a 24hr period? On how many of those occasions was there no opportunity, within say 3-12 months, to sell for higher afterward? and if you don't have the answer to this...
    - johnsonlambo 5y ago
      That does not matter. If you bought at the peak in 2017 you would have had to wait 3 years later to come to equal and you would have been down 75% at the low in 2020. I would not consider this a store of value whatsoever. You are literally speaking to the volatility of btc by referencing the massive changes in value over short periods of time. Lets be honest, the majority of btc investors buy because they hope/believe more people will follow after them in a chase for massive gains. Not because the see intrinsic value in the product.