5 ms·

People are leaving failing paper curencies which are being print nonstop all over the world. Go bitcoin.

by victor22 2y ago

aprilthird2021 2y ago
You have a point about inflation. But in this matter, what's different about Bitcoin vs gold?
- olalonde 2y ago
  1) Bitcoin is more convenient to store and transfer: it's digital. You can literally use your brain as a Bitcoin wallet. 2) The supply of gold is less predictable. For instance, just last month, China announced the discovery of the world's largest known gold deposit, estimated to be worth over $80 billion.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    To be clear, $80 billion is not earth-shattering in the gold market. Lots of gold exists in the world but is too expensive to mine. I don't remember how expensive but I think it is at least half of the current price. The supply of gold grows at a very slow rate of at most 2% per year. It is getting harder to mine all the time. Demand and futures market manipulation matter far more to gold than its small supply. All the world's gold that was ever mined could fit in roughly two Olympic size swimming pools.
  - newsclues 2y ago
    The supply of discovered gold and the supply of gold extracted from mines (and recovered from other sources) aren’t the same, and one is more predictable. Which one has a greater impact on the price….
  - TZubiri 2y ago
    1) Bitcoin is more convenient to store and transfer: it's digital. You can literally use your brain as a Bitcoin wallet. You can? I think it's too computationally expensive. We do less than 1 hash per day. And thats with paper as an aid
    - olalonde 2y ago
      I was referring to the fact that you can memorize your seed phrase. If the seed is not recorded anywhere, the Bitcoins can be thought of as being held only in the mind of the owner. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Brainwallet https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Brainwallet
  - throw0101d 2y ago
    > 1) Bitcoin is more convenient to […] transfer: […]. As some phishing victims have learned to their peril. Of course BTC transfers are non-reversible / non-refundable, with no means of redress (unlike a bank transfer).
    - olalonde 2y ago
      Precisely. Bitcoin operates as a bearer asset, much like physical gold or cash - once it's gone, it's gone. For those who need payment reversibility or dispute resolution, a payment layer built on top of Bitcoin is required. For example, a BTC-denominated bank account or credit card could theoretically provide these features, though I'm not sure if such options already exist.
- itsalwaysgood 2y ago
  Gold is physical, it can be made into jewelry due to its attractive luster. It has uses in electronics. Gold is 'first place' and has been a symbol of value for most of our recorded history.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    It also cannot be hacked or tracked like Bitcoin. It works offline and can even survive longer than whole countries. The biggest problems are risk of theft and high taxation.
    - aprilthird2021 2y ago
      Yes, I think the privacy and security of gold are superior. Bitcoin, by trading those, is easier to transact with.
      - wakawaka28 2y ago
        Bitcoin was supposed to be private and secure, so it more or less failed its mission. It is only presently easier to trade because of various gimmicks to warm people up to the idea of accepting it. Gold on the other hand has a long history of being a currency. Everyone in the world knows it is valuable, even if they don't know how much. The fact Bitcoin wildly swings around in value and requires special computer access and sometimes hardware makes it harder to transact with. If you don't care about privacy and security, and want ease of use, you would be far better served by a credit card than a Bitcoin wallet. And if you do care about those three things, gold is better. The only thing I can say positive about Bitcoin is that it is easier to carry across borders than gold. That plus the modicum of privacy it offers might make it ok for some. As for me, I don't think I could privately accumulate enough Bitcoin for that to be a real benefit to me. Edit: I hit the limit for now so here's a reply: >Was it supposed to be [private]? A currency with a complete ledger of transactions available for view by anyone in the p2p network is hardly secure by design It was intended to be secure and private. That is, people can't steal your Bitcoin (theoretically) and the public ledger gives you some potential strategy if you did want to establish a reputation while dealing with anonymous people. Someone could also deal with you without ever knowing your identity, which makes it private. It would be fairly hard to identify Bitcoin users if their wallets were never linked to their identities, e.g. through an exchange. I don't know how other cryptocurrencies do their ledgers but I assume you are limited to querying the network about specific transactions instead of having access to it all. It could be done by having public yet encrypted transaction records as well maybe. Idk, cryptocurrency never appealed to me. I remember thinking my classmates were insane for buying Bitcoin at $70. The price movement we've seen feels like some insiders using it to embezzle money from reputable institutions who have been sold on the hype. We're in real trouble if the government starts buying it. We will be robbed blind.
itsalwaysgood 2y ago
The problem is Bitcoin is being treated as a commodity and not a currency. Its value is measured using paper currency, that stuff you'll actually trade for product and services. It's difficult to use Bitcoin as currency because its value keeps rising. And when there are no more coins to be mined, when the value stops increasing: do you think everyone will suddenly agree to begin using it as currency? Or do you think everyone will try and sell Bitcoin to cash out for real currency? What happens to Bitcoin value at that point?
- TZubiri 2y ago
  Nobody knows. While depletion of mining rewards is very far into the future, it will very soon be virtually nothing, the only reward will be trading fees, and I'm not bullish on that. Satoshi should have just made a linear minting algo. All early reward was a mistake. We'll see why inflation is necessary. In 80 years will the youngins want a coin that they have no way of minting except begging their grampas for it?
  - do_not_redeem 2y ago
    That's not unique to bitcoin. We're all born into this world with no money. When the youngins want money, they don't beg Jerome Powell to print them USD, or Satoshi to linearly mint them BTC--they get a job and work for it.
    - itsalwaysgood 2y ago
      It's a tired trope, but time is money. Fiat currency works because of this idea. Fiat currency fails when a nation defaults on its loans because people lose faith in the currency. The money printing scares everyone because of the US's rising debt. If it cannot be balanced at some point, people will think inflation is permanent. It's difficult to cut costs because the US economy must pay to maintain its status. The only way to reduce our debt is to increase our GDP: aka, sell more shit and do more with less.
    - TZubiri 2y ago
      Incorrect. Taxes and printed money are used as a redistributive system. Newborns enjoy unemployment benefits, basic health care, schooling etc... Bitcoin does not have this property, it's basically its whole ethos.
throw0101d 2y ago
> People are leaving failing paper curencies which are being print nonstop all over the world. Go bitcoin. What "failing paper currencies" are you referring to? USD? EUR? GBP? JPY? AUD? CAD? CNY? MXN? Other? Also, 'printing money' is a feature, not a bug: it allows for currency needs to be met so that economic activity/growth can occur. Otherwise you get into troubling situations: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bullion_Famine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bullion_Famine * https://www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/financial-markets-and-financial-crises/gold-standard-deflation-and-financial-crisis-great-depression-international-comparison https://www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/financial-markets-an...
- noch 2y ago
  > Also, 'printing money' is a feature, not a bug: it allows for currency needs to be met so that economic activity/growth can occur. We all know the Central Bank hymn book by now. That said, printing money doesn't create economic activity nor economic growth nor wealth. I know central bankers and their inflationist acolytes want you to believe this and they have dazzling models to show this, and convincing buttoned-up tales to prove this, and I'm not trying to re-litigate an argument as old as Vienna. Hopefully some subset of humans will remember how wealth is created. And incidentally, if you look in your library, you can find very different interpretations of the various booms and economic depressions of history.
  - throw0101d 2y ago
    > We all know the Central Bank hymn book by now. Yes, but some folks don't seem to accept the evidence and the historical record of what didn't work, and why we moved towards the current system. Some folks still think that FDR (and Keynes) got things wrong. > That said, printing money doesn't create economic activity nor economic growth nor wealth. While liquidity is not (necessarily) sufficient for economic activity it is necessary, and a lack of liquidity certainly hinders it. This is evidenced not least from the Great Depression and that once a country abandoned the gold standard they started to recover: * https://delong.typepad.com/delong_long_form/2013/10/the-great-depression-from-the-perspective-of-today-and-today-from-the-perspective-of-the-great-depression.html https://delong.typepad.com/delong_long_form/2013/10/the-grea... Fixed supply monetary systems (like the gold standard) are a hindrance, and it's not like they do anything useful like create a stable monetary base either: * https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/why-the-gold-standard-is-the-worlds-worst-economic-idea-in-2-charts/261552/ https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch...

People are leaving failing paper curencies which are being print nonstop all over the world. Go bitcoin.

aprilthird2021 2y ago

You have a point about inflation. But in this matter, what's different about Bitcoin vs gold?

olalonde 2y ago
1) Bitcoin is more convenient to store and transfer: it's digital. You can literally use your brain as a Bitcoin wallet. 2) The supply of gold is less predictable. For instance, just last month, China announced the discovery of the world's largest known gold deposit, estimated to be worth over $80 billion.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  To be clear, $80 billion is not earth-shattering in the gold market. Lots of gold exists in the world but is too expensive to mine. I don't remember how expensive but I think it is at least half of the current price. The supply of gold grows at a very slow rate of at most 2% per year. It is getting harder to mine all the time. Demand and futures market manipulation matter far more to gold than its small supply. All the world's gold that was ever mined could fit in roughly two Olympic size swimming pools.
- newsclues 2y ago
  The supply of discovered gold and the supply of gold extracted from mines (and recovered from other sources) aren’t the same, and one is more predictable. Which one has a greater impact on the price….
- TZubiri 2y ago
  1) Bitcoin is more convenient to store and transfer: it's digital. You can literally use your brain as a Bitcoin wallet. You can? I think it's too computationally expensive. We do less than 1 hash per day. And thats with paper as an aid
  - olalonde 2y ago
    I was referring to the fact that you can memorize your seed phrase. If the seed is not recorded anywhere, the Bitcoins can be thought of as being held only in the mind of the owner. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Brainwallet https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Brainwallet
- throw0101d 2y ago
  > 1) Bitcoin is more convenient to […] transfer: […]. As some phishing victims have learned to their peril. Of course BTC transfers are non-reversible / non-refundable, with no means of redress (unlike a bank transfer).
  - olalonde 2y ago
    Precisely. Bitcoin operates as a bearer asset, much like physical gold or cash - once it's gone, it's gone. For those who need payment reversibility or dispute resolution, a payment layer built on top of Bitcoin is required. For example, a BTC-denominated bank account or credit card could theoretically provide these features, though I'm not sure if such options already exist.
itsalwaysgood 2y ago
Gold is physical, it can be made into jewelry due to its attractive luster. It has uses in electronics. Gold is 'first place' and has been a symbol of value for most of our recorded history.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  It also cannot be hacked or tracked like Bitcoin. It works offline and can even survive longer than whole countries. The biggest problems are risk of theft and high taxation.
  - aprilthird2021 2y ago
    Yes, I think the privacy and security of gold are superior. Bitcoin, by trading those, is easier to transact with.
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      Bitcoin was supposed to be private and secure, so it more or less failed its mission. It is only presently easier to trade because of various gimmicks to warm people up to the idea of accepting it. Gold on the other hand has a long history of being a currency. Everyone in the world knows it is valuable, even if they don't know how much. The fact Bitcoin wildly swings around in value and requires special computer access and sometimes hardware makes it harder to transact with. If you don't care about privacy and security, and want ease of use, you would be far better served by a credit card than a Bitcoin wallet. And if you do care about those three things, gold is better. The only thing I can say positive about Bitcoin is that it is easier to carry across borders than gold. That plus the modicum of privacy it offers might make it ok for some. As for me, I don't think I could privately accumulate enough Bitcoin for that to be a real benefit to me. Edit: I hit the limit for now so here's a reply: >Was it supposed to be [private]? A currency with a complete ledger of transactions available for view by anyone in the p2p network is hardly secure by design It was intended to be secure and private. That is, people can't steal your Bitcoin (theoretically) and the public ledger gives you some potential strategy if you did want to establish a reputation while dealing with anonymous people. Someone could also deal with you without ever knowing your identity, which makes it private. It would be fairly hard to identify Bitcoin users if their wallets were never linked to their identities, e.g. through an exchange. I don't know how other cryptocurrencies do their ledgers but I assume you are limited to querying the network about specific transactions instead of having access to it all. It could be done by having public yet encrypted transaction records as well maybe. Idk, cryptocurrency never appealed to me. I remember thinking my classmates were insane for buying Bitcoin at $70. The price movement we've seen feels like some insiders using it to embezzle money from reputable institutions who have been sold on the hype. We're in real trouble if the government starts buying it. We will be robbed blind.

itsalwaysgood 2y ago

The problem is Bitcoin is being treated as a commodity and not a currency. Its value is measured using paper currency, that stuff you'll actually trade for product and services. It's difficult to use Bitcoin as currency because its value keeps rising. And when there are no more coins to be mined, when the value stops increasing: do you think everyone will suddenly agree to begin using it as currency? Or do you think everyone will try and sell Bitcoin to cash out for real currency? What happens to Bitcoin value at that point?

TZubiri 2y ago
Nobody knows. While depletion of mining rewards is very far into the future, it will very soon be virtually nothing, the only reward will be trading fees, and I'm not bullish on that. Satoshi should have just made a linear minting algo. All early reward was a mistake. We'll see why inflation is necessary. In 80 years will the youngins want a coin that they have no way of minting except begging their grampas for it?
- do_not_redeem 2y ago
  That's not unique to bitcoin. We're all born into this world with no money. When the youngins want money, they don't beg Jerome Powell to print them USD, or Satoshi to linearly mint them BTC--they get a job and work for it.
  - itsalwaysgood 2y ago
    It's a tired trope, but time is money. Fiat currency works because of this idea. Fiat currency fails when a nation defaults on its loans because people lose faith in the currency. The money printing scares everyone because of the US's rising debt. If it cannot be balanced at some point, people will think inflation is permanent. It's difficult to cut costs because the US economy must pay to maintain its status. The only way to reduce our debt is to increase our GDP: aka, sell more shit and do more with less.
  - TZubiri 2y ago
    Incorrect. Taxes and printed money are used as a redistributive system. Newborns enjoy unemployment benefits, basic health care, schooling etc... Bitcoin does not have this property, it's basically its whole ethos.

throw0101d 2y ago

> People are leaving failing paper curencies which are being print nonstop all over the world. Go bitcoin. What "failing paper currencies" are you referring to? USD? EUR? GBP? JPY? AUD? CAD? CNY? MXN? Other? Also, 'printing money' is a feature, not a bug: it allows for currency needs to be met so that economic activity/growth can occur. Otherwise you get into troubling situations: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bullion_Famine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bullion_Famine * https://www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/financial-markets-and-financial-crises/gold-standard-deflation-and-financial-crisis-great-depression-international-comparison https://www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/financial-markets-an...

noch 2y ago
> Also, 'printing money' is a feature, not a bug: it allows for currency needs to be met so that economic activity/growth can occur. We all know the Central Bank hymn book by now. That said, printing money doesn't create economic activity nor economic growth nor wealth. I know central bankers and their inflationist acolytes want you to believe this and they have dazzling models to show this, and convincing buttoned-up tales to prove this, and I'm not trying to re-litigate an argument as old as Vienna. Hopefully some subset of humans will remember how wealth is created. And incidentally, if you look in your library, you can find very different interpretations of the various booms and economic depressions of history.
- throw0101d 2y ago
  > We all know the Central Bank hymn book by now. Yes, but some folks don't seem to accept the evidence and the historical record of what didn't work, and why we moved towards the current system. Some folks still think that FDR (and Keynes) got things wrong. > That said, printing money doesn't create economic activity nor economic growth nor wealth. While liquidity is not (necessarily) sufficient for economic activity it is necessary, and a lack of liquidity certainly hinders it. This is evidenced not least from the Great Depression and that once a country abandoned the gold standard they started to recover: * https://delong.typepad.com/delong_long_form/2013/10/the-great-depression-from-the-perspective-of-today-and-today-from-the-perspective-of-the-great-depression.html https://delong.typepad.com/delong_long_form/2013/10/the-grea... Fixed supply monetary systems (like the gold standard) are a hindrance, and it's not like they do anything useful like create a stable monetary base either: * https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/why-the-gold-standard-is-the-worlds-worst-economic-idea-in-2-charts/261552/ https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch...