3 ms·

> On 3 January 2009, the bitcoin network was created when Nakamoto mined the starting block of the chain, known as the genesis block. Embedded in this block was

> On 3 January 2009, the bitcoin network was created when Nakamoto mined the starting block of the chain, known as the genesis block. Embedded in this block was the text "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks", which is the date and headline of an issue of The Times newspaper. We’ve now come a full circle where the US government is bailing out crypto bros.

kjksf 2y ago
There are estimated 420 million owners of Bitcoin. The "crypto bros". We don't need governments to "bail us out". The value of Bitcoin rose from $0 to $2 trillion without ownership of large governments (small governments, like El Salvador, did benefit from that rise). It'll rise to $20 trillion without U.S. government buying it because we're still in very early days of Bitcoin adoption. People, companies, countries need Bitcoin much more than Bitcoin needs them.
- SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
  Who NEEDS Bitcoin? Sure, lots of people have got in on the speculation, which is really an argument against using it as a currency (can you imagine using a deflationary asset as a countries coin?), but why is there a need? What common use case does Bitcoin make better for the everyday person?
  - desumeku 2y ago
    It's like money, but better, and it can't have its value destroyed by the government through the insidious process of inflation.
    - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
      Yeah, that doesn't answer my question, and it's not like money, it actively discourages spending it because it's cast as a rapidly appreciating asset.
      - kjksf 2y ago
        It's not "cast as", it just is rapidly appreciating asset. But yeah, knowing that $100 in bitcoin today might be worth $150 in a year does deter buying non-essential stuff. Why is that a bad thing? Personally, It won't discourage me from buying a hamburger when I'm hungry, but maybe it would make me hold on to my iPhone for a year or 2 longer but you can do as you please and spend every cent you make.
        SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
        Because it discourages spending. It would grind the economy to a halt to be used at any scale.
        desumeku 2y ago
        Only until the dollar hits 0 in comparison. Then, it doesn't matter what a bitcoin is "worth", since it's all arbitrary at that point and it can be used as a pure economic unit devoid of any other context.
        SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
        In that case the world economy is devastated and there's bigger fish to fry than digital tokens with no backed value.
        desumeku 2y ago
        You should really read The Wealth of Nations before you talk about currencies needing "backed" or "intrinsic" value. It's not in the definition of money at all.
        SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
        Not the worst required reading I've gotten from a crypto bro.
  - kjksf 2y ago
    Today the most common use is is as a store of value. If you have excess cash, be it $100 or $1 million and keep it in dollars, you'll loose ~8% a year, which is the historical yearly rate of US money printing which is the real inflation (not the fake 2%; check the inflation of health care plans, college education or housing). To preserve that value you can do simple / safe (bank savings account rate, bonds, S&P 500 etc.) and underperform that 8%. If you want to match / outperform that 8% (i.e. not loose money over time) you have to become a successful (better than average) stock investor or invest in real estate with all the hassles it involves (like managing tenants). Or you can invest in Bitcoin, which, historically, over 4 years, outperforms dollars, gold, us stocks. Bitcoin outperforms dollars because US can (and does) print as many dollars as it wants, whenever it wants. Bitcoin has a fixed limit of 21 million bitcoins. You can't print more bitcoin than that therefore you can't devalue bitcoin. It's even worse in countries like Niger or Argentina because they print even more money than US, causing even greater inflation, making it ever more important to park assets in non-inflationary asset. If you self custody bitcoin, you remove the risk your money will get confiscated by the government or bank. In some countries you can already pay directly in Bitcoin. In US you can use Strike to basically store you net worth in Bitcoin and convert to cash (dollars) to pay for stuff.
- boramalper 2y ago
  I believe people would (and already do) greatly benefit from cryptocurrencies but a) Why would a government/state want to back a currency that it cannot control by definition? Especially if they own the world’s reserve currency. What’s the upside for them? b) I doubt that Bitcoin is the answer with its slow transaction times, low throughput, high fees, abysmal privacy and non-fungibility. It enjoys the network effects and undoubtedly that’s the most important thing in a currency so there’s that.
- namaria 2y ago
  > It'll rise to $20 trillion without U.S. government buying it because we're still in very early days of Bitcoin adoption. That is the bail out. On the long term the value of bitcoin is negative because you need to keep the computers representing it running, and there is no inherent demand beyond "it might be possible to exchange it for more fiat currency - that I can use to pay taxes and buy food and shelter - in the future". The only way to guarantee it has value is government backing because governments can tax and thus they can manufacture demand for stores of value of their choosing. This strategic reserve is the bailout. It's the pay off. It's making the tax payers the bag holders. It's so incredibly transparent.

kjksf 2y ago

There are estimated 420 million owners of Bitcoin. The "crypto bros". We don't need governments to "bail us out". The value of Bitcoin rose from $0 to $2 trillion without ownership of large governments (small governments, like El Salvador, did benefit from that rise). It'll rise to $20 trillion without U.S. government buying it because we're still in very early days of Bitcoin adoption. People, companies, countries need Bitcoin much more than Bitcoin needs them.

SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
Who NEEDS Bitcoin? Sure, lots of people have got in on the speculation, which is really an argument against using it as a currency (can you imagine using a deflationary asset as a countries coin?), but why is there a need? What common use case does Bitcoin make better for the everyday person?
- desumeku 2y ago
  It's like money, but better, and it can't have its value destroyed by the government through the insidious process of inflation.
  - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
    Yeah, that doesn't answer my question, and it's not like money, it actively discourages spending it because it's cast as a rapidly appreciating asset.
    - kjksf 2y ago
      It's not "cast as", it just is rapidly appreciating asset. But yeah, knowing that $100 in bitcoin today might be worth $150 in a year does deter buying non-essential stuff. Why is that a bad thing? Personally, It won't discourage me from buying a hamburger when I'm hungry, but maybe it would make me hold on to my iPhone for a year or 2 longer but you can do as you please and spend every cent you make.
      - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
        Because it discourages spending. It would grind the economy to a halt to be used at any scale.
        desumeku 2y ago
        Only until the dollar hits 0 in comparison. Then, it doesn't matter what a bitcoin is "worth", since it's all arbitrary at that point and it can be used as a pure economic unit devoid of any other context.
        SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
        In that case the world economy is devastated and there's bigger fish to fry than digital tokens with no backed value.
        desumeku 2y ago
        You should really read The Wealth of Nations before you talk about currencies needing "backed" or "intrinsic" value. It's not in the definition of money at all.
        SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
        Not the worst required reading I've gotten from a crypto bro.
- kjksf 2y ago
  Today the most common use is is as a store of value. If you have excess cash, be it $100 or $1 million and keep it in dollars, you'll loose ~8% a year, which is the historical yearly rate of US money printing which is the real inflation (not the fake 2%; check the inflation of health care plans, college education or housing). To preserve that value you can do simple / safe (bank savings account rate, bonds, S&P 500 etc.) and underperform that 8%. If you want to match / outperform that 8% (i.e. not loose money over time) you have to become a successful (better than average) stock investor or invest in real estate with all the hassles it involves (like managing tenants). Or you can invest in Bitcoin, which, historically, over 4 years, outperforms dollars, gold, us stocks. Bitcoin outperforms dollars because US can (and does) print as many dollars as it wants, whenever it wants. Bitcoin has a fixed limit of 21 million bitcoins. You can't print more bitcoin than that therefore you can't devalue bitcoin. It's even worse in countries like Niger or Argentina because they print even more money than US, causing even greater inflation, making it ever more important to park assets in non-inflationary asset. If you self custody bitcoin, you remove the risk your money will get confiscated by the government or bank. In some countries you can already pay directly in Bitcoin. In US you can use Strike to basically store you net worth in Bitcoin and convert to cash (dollars) to pay for stuff.
boramalper 2y ago
I believe people would (and already do) greatly benefit from cryptocurrencies but a) Why would a government/state want to back a currency that it cannot control by definition? Especially if they own the world’s reserve currency. What’s the upside for them? b) I doubt that Bitcoin is the answer with its slow transaction times, low throughput, high fees, abysmal privacy and non-fungibility. It enjoys the network effects and undoubtedly that’s the most important thing in a currency so there’s that.
namaria 2y ago
> It'll rise to $20 trillion without U.S. government buying it because we're still in very early days of Bitcoin adoption. That is the bail out. On the long term the value of bitcoin is negative because you need to keep the computers representing it running, and there is no inherent demand beyond "it might be possible to exchange it for more fiat currency - that I can use to pay taxes and buy food and shelter - in the future". The only way to guarantee it has value is government backing because governments can tax and thus they can manufacture demand for stores of value of their choosing. This strategic reserve is the bailout. It's the pay off. It's making the tax payers the bag holders. It's so incredibly transparent.