Cryptocurrency

[JustAnotherTimeline]

There are a lot of reasons that it makes sense to generate more money as the economy expands and more people participate. If you choose not to expand the money supply, you've created deflation. Yes, it does increase your buying power. However, it also slows down the economy as people tend to save their money thinking they will get a better deal if they just wait until their buying power increases further. This is why the Fed and monetary policymakers around the world target small inflation rates - to give people incentives to stay active in the economy.

At a certain point, you also reach practical limits of the money supply. If I want to build a house and I need to borrow money, if there is a hard money system if you keep a hard money system and never expand the supply there is a real chance that there literally may not be money available for me to borrow. This type of situation happens in the real world today at the level of international trade - it's called a dollar shortage. In a way, most countries of the world back their currency with USD as a sort of hard currency. At least, a currency they don't have control over. It's a fairly abstract topic, but I think this article explains it reasonably well: https://mises.org/wire/why-world-has-dollar-shortage-despite-massive-fed-action.

When you say that the system is rigged, I'm not sure who you think is rigging it or for what purpose. Goods have gotten cheaper. If you look at a price chart of typical consumer goods, you'd see that many of them have gone down over time when you look at it in terms of decades and centuries. If you're looking at the past year, sure things have gone up. But if you looked at say 2014-2019 you'd see many prices decreasing over that time.

Fiat currency's value is not determined by government's decree - it's determined by the people who use it. Look at Zimbabwe, Weimar Germany, or dozens of other examples - the government didn't say "Our currency's value should decrease to the point that it is worthless." The people said that - they didn't accept that the value of their money remained the same after all the printing. They could have. The value of the US Dollar and the Euro sometimes go up on their own too - governments would prefer they didn't get too strong to help international trade, but they don't get the choice. If the people said they don't think there is any value in the US Dollar, government decree would not make it valuable. Currency of any kind is only valuable because people think it's valuable. The only power the government has is to redirect its people to say "this not that" and that only works if the people go along with it. Just like Bitcoin. It only has value because people think it has value. And the minute people stop thinking it has value, it's just a fancy computer program.

I won't claim to be an economist, but I have read enough to know these matters are not settled issues and that there are critics on all sides. Should we employ MMT (Modern Monetary Policy)? Is a debt based economy healthy long term? Is the fractional banking system broken? Should we have a full reserve monetary supply? Should currency be backed by hard assets? Should a deficit be avoided or is it healthy? You seem more educated on the subject then I am and I suspect you would have reasonable answers to these questions.

Regardless of the above questions, I am happy to agree that the fiat system "works" for the most part. People can invest, take out loans, save, and spend fait easily. And all of this operates under a decent fraud protection system. I will submit all of that.

But there remains a hole that I believe only bitcoin can fill. I would be interested in your opinion on the following:

Our economic and banking system does not allow you to save value in USD denomination. In that sense, I believe it is broken. For example:

In 2021 Bob works and earns just wages of $5. $5 is the current cost of a hamburger. He decides to forgo lunch and save his money for future Bob. He deposits his $5 in the bank. Bob expects some return for allowing someone else to use his money. In 2031 Bob withdrawals his $5 from the bank and heads out for lunch. Much to his surprise, not only could he not buy a hamburger with some change to spare, he could actually only afford half of a hamburger.

So if you cannot save and protect buying power in USD denomination, what is the solution?

Bitcoin. It is the best sound money ever created by means of these properties. No other financial instruments meets this criteria.

Durable - they are digital and not physical like gold
portable - can take anywhere in the world and send to anyone
divisibility - You can obtain as small as 1 satoshi. There are 100000000 satoshis in a bitcoin
uniform - blockchain ensures all bitcoins are the same and cannot be duplicated.
scarcity - 21 million fixed supply

I am not suggested a crypto takeover our banking system. But I am a huge proponent of bitcoin as an option for people worldwide to store their hard earned value. It has the power to liberate many of the unbanked in the world and offers freedom for people in countries with awful economic environments.

 

[BryceC]

You are talking like the expanding money supply is a bug and not a feature. Whether or not we agree or disagree it's not a swindle, it's planned in basically every western country to try to have a little bit of inflation year over year.

You protect buying power by investing and gaining a return on that investment to hopefully exceed the rates of inflation. Or you can buy things like TIPS, which literally do the same thing you're talking about.

I'm not saying people should or shouldn't buy BTC. What I'm saying is that everything you're putting out there has already existed as financial products for generations.

 

[JustAnotherTimeline]

You are talking like the expanding money supply is a bug and not a feature. Whether or not we agree or disagree it's not a swindle, it's planned in basically every western country to try to have a little bit of inflation year over year.

You protect buying power by investing and gaining a return on that investment to hopefully exceed the rates of inflation. Or you can buy things like TIPS, which literally do the same thing you're talking about.

I'm not saying people should or shouldn't buy BTC. What I'm saying is that everything you're putting out there has already existed as financial products for generations.

Disagree. There are ZERO products that accomplish the following besides bitcoin. If I am missing something, please let me know.

Durable - they are digital and not physical like gold
portable - can take anywhere in the world and send to anyone
divisibility - You can obtain as small as 1 satoshi. There are 100000000 satoshis in a bitcoin
uniform - blockchain ensures all bitcoins are the same and cannot be duplicated.
scarcity - 21 million fixed supply

Also TIPS are hogwash. They are based on CPI which is understates inflation for the good of the ruling class and to the detriment of the poor.

 

[BryceC]

Disagree. There are ZERO products that accomplish the following besides bitcoin.

Durable - they are digital and not physical like gold
portable - can take anywhere in the world and send to anyone
divisibility - You can obtain as small as 1 satoshi. There are 100000000 satoshis in a bitcoin
uniform - blockchain ensures all bitcoins are the same and cannot be duplicated.
scarcity - 21 million fixed supply

Also TIPS are hogwash. They are based on CPI which is understates inflation for the good of the ruling class and to the detriment of the poor.

Durable - they are digital and not physical like gold - This is a detriment, not a perk to me.
portable - can take anywhere in the world and send to anyone - They are basically less portable than any other financial instrument, because you have to pay exchange fees every time you turn them into useful currency. This could change in the future.
divisibility - You can obtain as small as 1 satoshi. There are 100000000 satoshis in a bitcoin - You can buy fractional shares of stocks too now it's not a big deal.
uniform - blockchain ensures all bitcoins are the same and cannot be duplicated. - Okay? Not a plus or minus to me.
scarcity - 21 million fixed supply - Again, doesn't really matter to me one way or another.

I have a very small amount of TIPS in my 401k and honestly it's performed about as well as anything the last 10 years. Also, with TIPS, while we can quibble about how they are calculated, there is no risk of losing money. While I am gradually coming to the opinion that BTC will continue to increase, there is absolutely nothing stopping it from losing huge amounts of value.

Save the ruling class BS too. If you're invested in crypto you're deep bourgeoisie.

 

[JustAnotherTimeline]

Durable - they are digital and not physical like gold - This is a detriment, not a perk to me.
portable - can take anywhere in the world and send to anyone - They are basically less portable than any other financial instrument, because you have to pay exchange fees every time you turn them into useful currency. This could change in the future.
divisibility - You can obtain as small as 1 satoshi. There are 100000000 satoshis in a bitcoin - You can buy fractional shares of stocks too now it's not a big deal.
uniform - blockchain ensures all bitcoins are the same and cannot be duplicated. - Okay? Not a plus or minus to me.
scarcity - 21 million fixed supply - Again, doesn't really matter to me one way or another.

I have a very small amount of TIPS in my 401k and honestly it's performed about as well as anything the last 10 years. Save the ruling class BS too. If you're invested in crypto you're deep bourgeoisie.

I'm not sure why your opinions of the properties of bitcoin matter to the discussion. If they don't matter to you then you shouldn't invest considering it's value is derived from them. My argument is that no other financial instrument accomplishes the 5 properties of sound money like bitcoin does. It has its own niche. You did not provide any product that could compete with bitcoin.

Well. The ruling class BS is true. Check out the Big Mac index. It's a simple metric to illustrate the difference in CPI and actual inflation.

I am surprised by your lack of opinion concerning the property of uniformity. If you are a bitcoin investor you should understand that uniformity that protects against duplication is one of the most important parts of bitcoin. Satoshi solved for the double spend problem.

Again, I am only trying to carve out space for an opt-in style financial product. Unless you can point me to another asset that has the same properties bitcoin remains distinct and unique.

 

[agrabes]

I won't claim to be an economist, but I have read enough to know these matters are not settled issues and that there are critics on all sides. Should we employ MMT (Modern Monetary Policy)? Is a debt based economy healthy long term? Is the fractional banking system broken? Should we have a full reserve monetary supply? Should currency be backed by hard assets? Should a deficit be avoided or is it healthy? You seem more educated on the subject then I am and I suspect you would have reasonable answers to these questions.

Regardless of the above questions, I am happy to agree that the fiat system "works" for the most part. People can invest, take out loans, save, and spend fait easily. And all of this operates under a decent fraud protection system. I will submit all of that.

But there remains a hole that I believe only bitcoin can fill. I would be interested in your opinion on the following:

Our economic and banking system does not allow you to save value in USD denomination. In that sense, I believe it is broken. For example:

In 2021 Bob works and earns just wages of $5. $5 is the current cost of a hamburger. He decides to forgo lunch and save his money for future Bob. He deposits his $5 in the bank. Bob expects some return for allowing someone else to use his money. In 2031 Bob withdrawals his $5 from the bank and heads out for lunch. Much to his surprise, not only could he not buy a hamburger with some change to spare, he could actually only afford half of a hamburger.

So if you cannot save and protect buying power in USD denomination, what is the solution?

Bitcoin. It is the best sound money ever created by means of these properties. No other financial instruments meets this criteria.

Durable - they are digital and not physical like gold
portable - can take anywhere in the world and send to anyone
divisibility - You can obtain as small as 1 satoshi. There are 100000000 satoshis in a bitcoin
uniform - blockchain ensures all bitcoins are the same and cannot be duplicated.
scarcity - 21 million fixed supply

I am not suggested a crypto takeover our banking system. But I am a huge proponent of bitcoin as an option for people worldwide to store their hard earned value. It has the power to liberate many of the unbanked in the world and offers freedom for people in countries with awful economic environments.

I'm not an economist either, just someone who is interested in monetary policy, economics, etc and listens to a lot of different podcasts and does some reading. In terms of what is right and what is wrong in terms of monetary policy, I don't think we know the answer to that. I don't think we'll ever really know. At least in my opinion, the truth lies somewhere in between the positions of hard money and MMT, but probably closer to MMT than hard money.

I don't think you should have the expectation that you can put your money away without touching it for 10 years and maintain the exact same buying power for a specific good. That's not reasonable in my opinion. There are too many factors that go into the value of money, the value of goods, and overall global conditions such as war, trade wars, cultural shifts, etc. Even if we had a full on hard money system, there could be a beef shortage, or a labor shortage, or we could be in a time of war, or maybe it has become culturally unacceptable to eat beef, all these things could impact the price of a hamburger even if the value of the dollar remained theoretically constant.

I am not someone who thinks Bitcoin is evil, or completely useless. I just think of it very similarly to gold or silver - they can have value as a financial asset and can serve a specific purpose in your portfolio but owning gold exclusively is not a good idea and will not solve all possible financial problems. I don't currently own any crypto, but would like to own a small amount just to get some exposure to the potential upside. But, all the things that the massive proponents of Bitcoin believe are amazing and unique properties of it can all be had in other ways with more security, certainty, and reliability. The only property unique to Bitcoin is that it has less oversight and regulation from governments relative to regular currency or other assets in the traditional financial system. For some people that's a big selling feature, but it's not for everybody. But the 5 criteria you mentioned that make Bitcoin valuable are a pretty low bar. Pretty much any major currency meets those criteria.

The US Dollar meets all 5 of your criteria:
Durable - If you choose, you can transact exclusively digitally with the US Dollar.
Portable - You can take it anywhere in the world and send it to anyone using the existing global financial system.
Divisible - You can divide it down to 1/100th of a dollar. No need to divide it further.
Uniform - The US government ensures all dollars are the same and has the backing of extensive military and law enforcement agencies to enforce this.
Scarcity - The supply is controlled intelligently by the Federal Reserve, allowing it to both expand and contract as needed by the economy. There is still a defined and controlled supply of US Dollars, even if it is not a fixed supply it is still scarce.

 

[BryceC]

I'm not sure why your opinions of the properties of bitcoin matter to the discussion. If they don't matter to you then you shouldn't invest considering it's value is derived from them. My argument is that no other financial instrument accomplishes the 5 properties of sound money like bitcoin does. It has its own niche. You did not provide any product that could compete with bitcoin.

Fair enough, my point is simply that you are the one evangelizing for it. And many of the features you're pointing out don't matter to most people, or are a negative. When you're talking about why somebody should be interested in it, I'm saying that's where some of the disconnect may be.

Again, I'm not saying you should or should not invest in BTC. My point is simply that that it's properties are not unique. The technology is unique and interesting but what Bitcoin is doing is not.

 

[BryceC]

The only property unique to Bitcoin is that it has less oversight and regulation from governments relative to regular currency or other assets in the traditional financial system.

One thing that I think does not get enough run is actually that while I am skeptical of how effective US banking is at stopping lending and dollars flowing to nefarious people, the more adoption of a completely unregulated global currency the easier it is for criminals and terrorists to launder money and fund truly bad actors around the globe. If that isn't a major concern for people active in these markets I think it's a mistake and that's the #1 place regulation needs to step in.

 

[JustAnotherTimeline]

@BryceC @agrabes

I can boil it down to this. There are 4 points of disagreement on which I contend Bitcoin is unique and superior. Yes, the dollar does meet some criteria for hard money, but it does fall short in 2 of them

1. Scarcity. If the minting of Bitcoin were not predictable and a fixed supply people would not pay 60k for one. Depending on how you define scarce, ie not infinite, then sure the dollar could apply. But I think it's clear what is meant by scarce. People 200 years from now will still be fighting over the same 21 million Bitcoin. Who knows how many orders of magnitude the dollar will have increased in supply by then. This is a stark difference and should not be minimized.

2. Portability. Allows for freedom for people to send any amount of money for cheap. For example have you tried sending funds to someone overseas to help with their basic needs? The fees and delays are insane! Yes, @BryceC I see your point here concerning bad actors. So I am happy to support reasonable regulation.

Last 2 points

1. Permissionless banking. Have you ever created your own Bitcoin address and then used a Blockchain explorer to see it immediately? It takes 10 seconds to create what is essentially a bank account. It's permissionless and secure. That is unparalleled.

2. Decentralization. If you think Bitcoin is not unique and it's properties are not that different from the dollar that just means you may not understand Bitcoin technology. To create a hard money system that is decentralized, under no authority, fair, is not a small feat. It is also the most secure network in the world. To compare to centralized currency is apples to oranges.

To be honest, I only evangelize because I truly believe Blockchain tech can help many people in the world. I started dabbling in crypto in 2017. At that time I thought I understood Bitcoin and Ethereum, etc, but really I was just hoping to make a few bucks. I really didn't understand the value.

Since then I have taken the time to understand. I want people to be educated to understand the value proposition and make investment decisions accordingly. Until you understand things like this or trust someone who does

Block size, hash rate, mining, difficulty adjustment, 51% attack, nodes, nonce, cold storage, sha-256, etc

...you aren't equipped to render an educated opinion on the Bitcoin value proposition and you probably shouldn't invest. Without this knowledge you can't possibly understand the beauty of a secure, decentralized network and it's easy to say it's not a big deal.

It makes no difference to me whether someone invests or not. I just want to help people to better understand the tech.

 

[JustAnotherTimeline]

@BryceC @agrabes I just reread my post. I guess I didn't "boil is down" very well . It's actually rather windy. Sorry!

 

[agrabes]

@BryceC @agrabes

I can boil it down to this. There are 4 points of disagreement on which I contend Bitcoin is unique and superior. Yes, the dollar does meet some criteria for hard money, but it does fall short in 2 of them

1. Scarcity. If the minting of Bitcoin were not predictable and a fixed supply people would not pay 60k for one. Depending on how you define scarce, ie not infinite, then sure the dollar could apply. But I think it's clear what is meant by scarce. People 200 years from now will still be fighting over the same 21 million Bitcoin. Who knows how many orders of magnitude the dollar will have increased in supply by then. This is a stark difference and should not be minimized.

2. Portability. Allows for freedom for people to send any amount of money for cheap. For example have you tried sending funds to someone overseas to help with their basic needs? The fees and delays are insane! Yes, @BryceC I see your point here concerning bad actors. So I am happy to support reasonable regulation.

Last 2 points

1. Permissionless banking. Have you ever created your own Bitcoin address and then used a Blockchain explorer to see it immediately? It takes 10 seconds to create what is essentially a bank account. It's permissionless and secure. That is unparalleled.

2. Decentralization. If you think Bitcoin is not unique and it's properties are not that different from the dollar that just means you may not understand Bitcoin technology. To create a hard money system that is decentralized, under no authority, fair, is not a small feat. It is also the most secure network in the world. To compare to centralized currency is apples to oranges.

To be honest, I only evangelize because I truly believe Blockchain tech can help many people in the world. I started dabbling in crypto in 2017. At that time I thought I understood Bitcoin and Ethereum, etc, but really I was just hoping to make a few bucks. I really didn't understand the value.

Since then I have taken the time to understand. I want people to be educated to understand the value proposition and make investment decisions accordingly. Until you understand things like this or trust someone who does

Block size, hash rate, mining, difficulty adjustment, 51% attack, nodes, nonce, cold storage, sha-256, etc

...you aren't equipped to render an educated opinion on the Bitcoin value proposition and you probably shouldn't invest. Without this knowledge you can't possibly understand the beauty of a secure, decentralized network and it's easy to say it's not a big deal.

It makes no difference to me whether someone invests or not. I just want to help people to better understand the tech.

In terms of scarcity - it's a difference but is there any value in the difference? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on a lot of factors, imo. More than anything, probably on US government spending policy. If the supply of US dollars has increased, but still holds a fairly stable value with annual inflation of 2-3 percent or less then it doesn't really mean anything that the Bitcoin supply hasn't increased.

I haven't tried to send money overseas to help someone with their basic needs, but I know that it's possible in the conventional financial system. I've never had a reason to do it - I don't know anyone who lives overseas who would need me to send them money. If I want to help out people in need in other countries generally, I can donate to charities. There is a reason why it takes time and costs money though - a transfer like that is highly likely to be fraudulent or part of organized crime. Cost and time are needed to help reduce the risk of crime. Bitcoin - you can send the Bitcoin itself to the person faster than you could send them USD through the banking system, but what is the fee and time delay for that individual to get the Bitcoin into a usable format such as their local currency?

What you're describing in terms of permissionless banking is kind of a misleading statement. Sure, you could create yourself a secure bitcoin wallet quickly. But how are you going to get funds into it? You have to either use an exchange which is less secure than the underlying blockchain, or you have to be extremely tech savvy and willing work with the tiny minority of people who directly trade bitcoin using their own individual wallets. You also need some type of bank account to electronically transfer money into it. Or if not that, then I suppose you could do work for someone willing to pay you in Bitcoin if you could find someone like that.

Decentralization is not unique if we're talking about currency adjacent stores of value. After all, physical gold is a decentralized store of value and has been around since the dawn of human civilization. If you wanted to, you could exchange gold or any other physical object directly with another person if you wanted to stay outside the centralized financial system. Also, decentralization is only a benefit if you think it's a benefit based on your personal views. In terms of how the system operates on a practical basis, it's not an advantage. I agree - it is impressive that someone could create the blockchain and Bitcoin system as a secure way of having a digital currency not backed by a government. That said though, just because it's impressive doesn't mean it's useful. I could create an impressive Rube Goldberg device to turn on my light switch. Or, I could walk over and turn it on by directly flipping the switch. The Rube Goldberg device is more impressive, but equally effective with me turning on the switch. Really, less effective because it takes much more work and time to achieve the same goal.

The basic problem of crypto currency is that in order for it to make sense to use it as anything other than a possible inflation hedge asset, you have to believe that it's in your best interest that governments and other organizations have little to no oversight or control over the financial system. And generally, to make it user friendly enough for people to actually use it you have to add either some level of centralization (aka exchanges like Coinbase) or strip out some of the security of the blockchain (aka layered systems like Bitcoin Lightning Network) or both.

Where I personally think this is all going is that in 10-20 years Bitcoin and Blockchain will have subsided to have a small number of enthusiastic users similar to people who 5-10 years ago preferred to buy things using physical gold because they didn't trust the dollar. Outside of certain people who really like and value the idea of decentralization, overall society will realize they are both solutions in search of problems. One or two cryptos may stick around and be traded like commodities. Central banks will take some of the concepts and employ them using traditional cyber security methods that allow them to directly issue digital currency. China is already doing this and the Fed is looking at doing it.

 

[JustAnotherTimeline]

In terms of scarcity - it's a difference but is there any value in the difference? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on a lot of factors, imo. More than anything, probably on US government spending policy. If the supply of US dollars has increased, but still holds a fairly stable value with annual inflation of 2-3 percent or less then it doesn't really mean anything that the Bitcoin supply hasn't increased.

I haven't tried to send money overseas to help someone with their basic needs, but I know that it's possible in the conventional financial system. I've never had a reason to do it - I don't know anyone who lives overseas who would need me to send them money. If I want to help out people in need in other countries generally, I can donate to charities. There is a reason why it takes time and costs money though - a transfer like that is highly likely to be fraudulent or part of organized crime. Cost and time are needed to help reduce the risk of crime. Bitcoin - you can send the Bitcoin itself to the person faster than you could send them USD through the banking system, but what is the fee and time delay for that individual to get the Bitcoin into a usable format such as their local currency?

What you're describing in terms of permissionless banking is kind of a misleading statement. Sure, you could create yourself a secure bitcoin wallet quickly. But how are you going to get funds into it? You have to either use an exchange which is less secure than the underlying blockchain, or you have to be extremely tech savvy and willing work with the tiny minority of people who directly trade bitcoin using their own individual wallets. You also need some type of bank account to electronically transfer money into it. Or if not that, then I suppose you could do work for someone willing to pay you in Bitcoin if you could find someone like that.

Decentralization is not unique if we're talking about currency adjacent stores of value. After all, physical gold is a decentralized store of value and has been around since the dawn of human civilization. If you wanted to, you could exchange gold or any other physical object directly with another person if you wanted to stay outside the centralized financial system. Also, decentralization is only a benefit if you think it's a benefit based on your personal views. In terms of how the system operates on a practical basis, it's not an advantage. I agree - it is impressive that someone could create the blockchain and Bitcoin system as a secure way of having a digital currency not backed by a government. That said though, just because it's impressive doesn't mean it's useful. I could create an impressive Rube Goldberg device to turn on my light switch. Or, I could walk over and turn it on by directly flipping the switch. The Rube Goldberg device is more impressive, but equally effective with me turning on the switch. Really, less effective because it takes much more work and time to achieve the same goal.

The basic problem of crypto currency is that in order for it to make sense to use it as anything other than a possible inflation hedge asset, you have to believe that it's in your best interest that governments and other organizations have little to no oversight or control over the financial system. And generally, to make it user friendly enough for people to actually use it you have to add either some level of centralization (aka exchanges like Coinbase) or strip out some of the security of the blockchain (aka layered systems like Bitcoin Lightning Network) or both.

Where I personally think this is all going is that in 10-20 years Bitcoin and Blockchain will have subsided to have a small number of enthusiastic users similar to people who 5-10 years ago preferred to buy things using physical gold because they didn't trust the dollar. Outside of certain people who really like and value the idea of decentralization, overall society will realize they are both solutions in search of problems. One or two cryptos may stick around and be traded like commodities. Central banks will take some of the concepts and employ them using traditional cyber security methods that allow them to directly issue digital currency. China is already doing this and the Fed is looking at doing it.

I understand where you are coming from. We just see the world, money, security, etc in a different way.

For example, I dont see centrally issued digital currency as good. I don't want to go the way of china. The government does not need that kind of transparency imo. They don't need that kind of power imo. But I can understand someone may see that as good. Happy to agree to disagree for sake of avoiding politics!

Keep in mind I don't think crypto should or will overtake Fiat. Again I just support it as an option for folks.

Lastly, crypto has come a long ways a just a few years. Heck Coinbase now is publically traded and regulated. Crypto will continue to evolve and yes it will involve exchanges. The ease of use will only improve though and many tools and apps will be developed. Heck. I personally exclusively use a crypto debit card. I only spend crypto. It's come a long ways man. It's not stopping!

We differ greatly on future adoption. If you look at the curve it is following the ways of the internet. Did you notice Aaron Rogers and Odell bj are taking salary in Bitcoin? Cash app allows salary in bitcoin.
There are also several mayor's including the recent elect in new York city that will be taking some salary in Bitcoin. There is a race to be the most crypto friendly city in the USA.

I disagree about your vision of future adoption. It's possible regulation or a network attack could kill future adoption. But I think widespread adoption is far more likely. We can touch base in 10 years. I like my chances tho

 

[BryceC]

@BryceC @agrabes
2. Portability. Allows for freedom for people to send any amount of money for cheap. For example have you tried sending funds to someone overseas to help with their basic needs? The fees and delays are insane! Yes, @BryceC I see your point here concerning bad actors. So I am happy to support reasonable regulation.

Last 2 points

1. Permissionless banking. Have you ever created your own Bitcoin address and then used a Blockchain explorer to see it immediately? It takes 10 seconds to create what is essentially a bank account. It's permissionless and secure. That is unparalleled.

I do send money to people overseas in two separate cases and it's extremely easy. I also have traveled overseas and you can use any debit card you have have in any ATM and it basically automatically converts the currency. It's quite simple to get people what they need.

What kind of reasonable regulation would you support? So far it sounds like the answer is nothing.

I've opened several wallets and stuff. Honestly I don't know how long it takes to open a bank account because I probably haven't opened one for 15 years. Over that timescale that advantage is probably zero. Actually crypto stuff probably has taken me much, much, much longer by the time I connected trust wallet to metamask to KuCoin. That took me hours.

 

[JustAnotherTimeline]

I do send money to people overseas in two separate cases and it's extremely easy. I also have traveled overseas and you can use any debit card you have have in any ATM and it basically automatically converts the currency. It's quite simple to get people what they need.

What kind of reasonable regulation would you support? So far it sounds like the answer is nothing.

I've opened several wallets and stuff. Honestly I don't know how long it takes to open a bank account because I probably haven't opened one for 15 years. Over that timescale that advantage is probably zero. Actually crypto stuff probably has taken me much, much, much longer by the time I connected trust wallet to metamask to KuCoin. That took me hours.

Sure, if you sent money to first world country. Trying sending funds to a 3rd world country with an oppressive regime can be something else altogether.

You are missing the boat. Its not about the time, it's about permissionless accessibility.

As far as regulation, that is a tough one. I am happy to support regulation that help ensure gains are reported to the IRS. I would support defi or cefi legislation to US based protocols/companies to ensure people knew the risks they were taking on. KYC is already robust in the US based companies so that is a non issue. One thing though is many of these protocols are anon or are located outside the US. The US has nothing to say about that. And I support a certain level of enter at your our risk scenario.

Personally I think you are looking at this from too narrow of a scope. Crypto is a global phenomenon. There are some countries with hyper inflationary currencies and P2P services are exploding. No need for central exchanges.

China shut down mining this year which some would have thought would be a death blow. Guess what? The hash rate dropped. The network difficulty adjusted. Miner rewards increased. And new miners popped up on other areas. We are now back to normal. Crypto gave china the bird.

An important case study:

Have you seen what is happening in turkey? In April of this year the president banned crypto for payments which served as a catalyst for exchanges failing. At the time crypto was very popular in turkey because their currency was failing due to inflation.

Now fast forward to today. The Iira is crashing and Turkey is on the brink. People are scrambling to buy Bitcoin to protect their savings. Maybe the government isn't to be trusted?

Crypto is a lifesaver for people across the globe. Few understand.

 

[besserheimerphat]

4. I don't understand why more money is needed? What's wrong with better buying power for existing currency? Also, I disagree with your definitions. Bitcoin's value is driven by the community, outside-in. Fiat value is driven by the governments decree, inside-out. They are opposites.

Fiat value is driven by PEOPLE'S view of the strength and stability of the government (and more importantly the associated economy) that issues it. The US has benefitted from being the main global power since WWII.

Money simply represents value added to the system at a given time. If wages are earned now, why should we not expect they will have similar similar buying power in the future? The system is rigged. To me that is stealing.

The Fed targets 2% inflation because that drives economic activity and economic activity creates healthy markets. If $1 in 1970 = $1 in 2021, there's less (no) incentive to buy something sooner rather than later.

Do you ever wonder how humans continue to innovate and improve manufacturing and yet goods are not cheaper? Economically, that is what should happen. But it doesn't.

You are arguing against capitalism here. Things do get cheaper over time, but as features are added you can't buy the older, cheaper (and worse) stuff anymore. Case in point, we just bought a new TV. For the size we wanted, there was nothing that was not 4k. That's what the market has dictated. That doesn't mean some company couldn't produce a 20" black and white CRT TV for like $20. It means there is not sufficient market for it to provide the economies of scale.

 

[KF4CY]

Just buy and hold ETH

 

[JustAnotherTimeline]

Fiat value is driven by PEOPLE'S view of the strength and stability of the government (and more importantly the associated economy) that issues it. The US has benefitted from being the main global power since WWII.



The Fed targets 2% inflation because that drives economic activity and economic activity creates healthy markets. If $1 in 1970 = $1 in 2021, there's less (no) incentive to buy something sooner rather than later.


You are arguing against capitalism here. Things do get cheaper over time, but as features are added you can't buy the older, cheaper (and worse) stuff anymore. Case in point, we just bought a new TV. For the size we wanted, there was nothing that was not 4k. That's what the market has dictated. That doesn't mean some company couldn't produce a 20" black and white CRT TV for like $20. It means there is not sufficient market for it to provide the economies of scale.

1. The dollar is the only legal tender in the United States. The government says the dollar has value and the people trust the government. With Bitcoin, people trust each other and a decentralized protocol, not a central authority. That is the difference.

2. If 2% inflation is what the experts agree on to keep things going I am in no position to disagree. Regarding stealing, something like 30-40% of the total dollars in circulation were minted in the last couple of years. The same dollar/M2 ratio I worked for 3 years ago drastically changed without me getting a say. In a sense, I now hold less % of the total supply then I did before. That is theft imo. Also, i recognize money is fluid and a function of fed rates and banking reserve requirements but this just a simplofied picture of why I feel this way.

I am fine with economists driving the bus here and helping ensure our economy and currency are flourishing. While I absolutely question measures we have taken since 2009 I won't claim to know for certain my anxiety is merited.

Throughout history there are many examples of governments manipulating their currency causing it's eventual demise. Not saying the US is Turkey. But I don't fully trust we won't ever be.

Certainly prices have gone down in some areas, specifically technology. You are right on that. I am not convinced we are getting adequate lower prices relative to improved systems. But, I could be wrong. Good point!

 

[BryceC]

Sure, if you sent money to first world country. Trying sending funds to a 3rd world country with an oppressive regime can be something else altogether.

You are missing the boat. Its not about the time, it's about permissionless accessibility.

As far as regulation, that is a tough one. I am happy to support regulation that help ensure gains are reported to the IRS. I would support defi or cefi legislation to US based protocols/companies to ensure people knew the risks they were taking on. KYC is already robust in the US based companies so that is a non issue. One thing though is many of these protocols are anon or are located outside the US. The US has nothing to say about that. And I support a certain level of enter at your our risk scenario.

The only two places I regularly send money outside the US are Albania and Thailand.

I don’t really care about protecting consumers. Crypto is risky and it’s not an easy market to enter. I worry about funding terrorism and crime. Nothing you said does anything about that.

 

[BCClone]

I send money to Minnesota. Its like another world up there with those goofy Norwegians up there. No issues yet.

 

[JustAnotherTimeline]

The only two places I regularly send money outside the US are Albania and Thailand.

I don’t really care about protecting consumers. Crypto is risky and it’s not an easy market to enter. I worry about funding terrorism and crime. Nothing you said does anything about that.

Interesting. Considering your worry about good things being used for nefarious activity....Should the US outlaw the dark web?