4 ms·
Yes that's pretty much the extent of the reasoning and I don't see what's wrong with that. Bitcoin on a centralized exchange cannot be traded for goods and ser
by Karunamon 4y ago
Yes that's pretty much the extent of the reasoning and I don't see what's wrong with that.
Bitcoin on a centralized exchange cannot be traded for goods and services until explicitly withdrawn, unlike most brokerage accounts where cash is cash and many will even give you a debit card so you can spend directly from the account. This strongly decouples bitcoin and most other cryptos from the total money supply.
When you're on Binance and you send them one BTC as a block chain transaction, you are receiving one Binance!BTC that does not exist outside of that walled garden.
- v8xi 4y agoIn that case you "own" a paper bitcoin, which is much the same as not owning one at all. In this case, the "bitcoin" you own doesn't even exist (outside of the exchanges database) so you cannot use this to speculate on actual bitcoin in actual wallets. Just look at FTX - some 1.8B in BTC liabilities but zero BTC assets
- three_seagrass 4y agoJust because you don't have a bearer bond doesn't mean you haven't invested in bonds. Modern finance isn't about holding an invested asset in your hands. This splitting hairs over "true" ownership ignores the fact that the original investor analysis done by GP here premised on chain transactions is still semantically wrong.