Bitcoin....who's gotten into it?

[bennymac]

Luna is (was?) very fundamentally different from Bitcoin. But keep being smarmy. You've really carved out a nice niche of superiority for yourself. Basically your entire purpose in this thread is to troll me and add nothing of value. It's a tired act dude.

Says the self appointed thread referee who accused me of deleting posts when you couldn’t back up your claims that I’m just a crypto shill. Forgive me for being smarmy as I point out your ongoing hypocrisy. You’re the person you accuse me of being.

——

In other news: more regulations on the horizon?

Former SEC Lawyer Sees More Crypto Regulations After Celsius Network's Debacle
The crypto lender froze withdrawals, and several states are investigating.

https://www.coindesk.com/layer2/2022/06/21/former-sec-lawyer-sees-more-crypto-regulations-after-celsius-networks-debacle/?outputType=amp

[Mustonen]

Conflation. Consumers chose convenience. I made no implication otherwise.

Conflation? What was I conflating? I certainly made no implication that the consumer chose global warming, so “conflation” back at ya, sport.

Who do we think has a greater responsibility to communities and economies? Home Depot or Joe Consumer? When both end up lacking, what is the answer? Libertarian ideals end up taking you right off the edge; eventually we have to build systems that manage incentives and accountability across a longer term according to some set of values, economic or otherwise.

To bring this back to the discussion, living outside of those systems (like crypto tries to) is a train wreck waiting to happen, for somebody at least.

[up an down]

It's really not crazy if you're familiar with what's happening in the global bond market right now. Sooner or later the music is going to stop and there are only so many chairs.

I suspect that I am more familiar with international and domestic bonds that you are.. But I am definitely not omniscient ..exactly what do you claim is happening?..

[stalefish3169]

I suspect that I am more familiar with international and domestic bonds that you are.. But I am definitely not omniscient ..exactly what do you claim is happening?..

If you're familiar with bonds it should be pretty obvious. For starters, real yields are extremely low and even negative in many major countries. There is also the whole inversion issue. Japan seems to be in one of the worst spots right now. Who is next?

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

[4matic]

Conflation? What was I conflating? I certainly made no implication that the consumer chose global warming, so “conflation” back at ya, sport.

Who do we think has a greater responsibility to communities and economies? Home Depot or Joe Consumer? When both end up lacking, what is the answer? Libertarian ideals end up taking you right off the edge; eventually we have to build systems that manage incentives and accountability across a longer term according to some set of values, economic or otherwise.

To bring this back to the discussion, living outside of those systems (like crypto tries to) is a train wreck waiting to happen, for somebody at least.

Assumption that corporations are greedy because consumers made a choice is conflation. The resulting enhanced climate change is an issue that should be addressed by regulation that serves public interest.

[Mustonen]

Sure champ, double down I guess, but I assume no such thing. And “evil’s gonna evil” is no standard to hold our institutions to, which is (we agree) the function of regulation that serves public interest. Which was partially my point. But the other part of my point is that we shouldn’t just accept that businesses are going to lay waste to the economy or the environment if there aren’t any penalties to not doing so as they satisfy corporate greed. We can hold a higher standard and it’s reasonable to blame those decision-makers, even after the fact.

[dunfree]

If you're familiar with bonds it should be pretty obvious. For starters, real yields are extremely low and even negative in many major countries. There is also the whole inversion issue. Japan seems to be in one of the worst spots right now. Who is next?

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

stalefish still doesn’t understand the concept of bond yield apparently

[stalefish3169]

stalefish still doesn’t understand the concept of bond yield apparently

In addition to this thread, dunfree is disliked in every other one as well, apparently.

[dunfree]

In addition to this thread, dunfree is disliked in every other one as well, apparently.

The high intellectual content coinbros are famous for. Jesus dude you are rambling conspiracy theory here, pretty soon you’ll be blaming the Rothschilds and the trilateral commission

[hatchgreenchile]

Stoled from Reddit...Lightning has come up a few times as this cure all for BTC, but it sounds like a non-starter.

Will lightning (or other “layer 2”solutions) actually fix any of Bitcoins problems? My understanding is that for Lightning, the answer is a great big no, because among other things:

the protocol assumes parity in payments across a channel --- which is fine if you're paying a mate back for pizza, but useless for retail where the flow is one way. You have to keep topping up your end of the channel from the real blockchain. This costs a blockchain transaction each time (for which you have to pay).

in order to set up a channel, both parties have to fund their ends of the channel. This requires committing money to the channel, which adds up very quickly, and which sits there not earning any interest or being invested. You end up having to commit serious resources into channels you will use very rarely. Plus, retail clients have no interest in committing X BTC to a channel to support one payment from you which is <X. You can close out a channel, but this costs a blockchain transaction (for which you have to pay).

the networking feature allows you to route payments between multiple users, which theoretically allows you to avoid setting up a channel. Alice wants to pay for a coffee at Starbutts; she doesn't have a channel open to them, but her friend Bob does, and she has a channel open to him. So she can pay Bob and Bob can pay Starbutts (Bob takes a cut, of course). This is all anonymous so Bob doesn't know who he's actually proxying for. This, of course, is ideal for money laundering.

no records are kept, which violates a whole slew of auditing regulations, making it useless for retail. Also, see the last sentence above.

you can't make a payment greater than the capacity of the channel. When using networking, you can't make a payment greater than the minimum capacity of the chain of channels. Bob wants to buy Alice's car? Unfortunately their channel is only funded to the equivalent of $100 --- enough for coffee. He's out of luck.

in the event of a fraudulent transaction, the entire channel can be rolled back, so everyone gets their money back. This, of course, is subject to the oracle problem. Once Alice has picked up her coffee from Starbutts she can roll back her channel with Bob. She gets her money back, but she keeps the coffee. (I believe Bob ends up paying for it, but it could be Starbutts.) Bob gets a limited time to raise the alarm, but Bob happens to be in the bathroom at the time and doesn't look at his phone. (The limit is three days. He's spending a long time in the bathroom.) Bob is out of luck.

Bob could have paid a watchtower to watch the channel for him so that he can have super-extended showers in safety, but I can't find any information on how this is supposed to work, and Bob couldn't either, so he didn't bother.

the current implementation is a buggy, insecure mess where transactions routinely fail to go through or just lose your money. TBF, this is at least theoretically fixable and isn't an issue with the protocol itself.

But the biggie, the as-far-as-I-know unsolvable problem which makes Lightning a non-starter, is that it doesn't scale: opening, closing or topping up a channel all use blockchain transactions, and the blockchain is limited to 7qps. That's about 18 million operations a month. That means that if 18 million people try to open one channel each, it'll use the entire capacity of the blockchain for a month. What's the population of India? 1.4 billion. Good luck with that.

[stalefish3169]

I suspect that I am more familiar with international and domestic bonds that you are.. But I am definitely not omniscient ..exactly what do you claim is happening?..

Can you clarify if this is bad? Seems bad.

https://twitter.com/dunleavy89/statu...0ymKAJ44w&s=19

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

[NWFlow]

Haha! That doesn't seem good.

[up an down]

Can you clarify if this is bad? Seems bad.

https://twitter.com/dunleavy89/statu...0ymKAJ44w&s=19

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

I have not heard of that Twitter poster.. I have no clue about his sources for price history, validated or not. And I am not on Twitter at all.... But.. Some years prices go up.. Some years down .this year is far from over... I don't know what there is to clarify?. Other than bonds have held up better than bitcoin..so far..this year.. But that could change quickly.

[RoooR]

Can you clarify if this is bad? Seems bad.

https://twitter.com/dunleavy89/statu...0ymKAJ44w&s=19

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

Bonds have had a rough year for sure, but yields are still quite low (historically) so they could go down even more. Or due to demographics things could move the other way. Are you expecting some sort of soverign debt crisis or something?

[4matic]

Bonds also have a maturity date which provide return of capital. It’s the definition of a paper loss.

[dunfree]

I guess nobody remembers US history? Bond prices cratered (and yields rose) in the early part of the republic because the government had little power to tax and without a treasury the administration was difficult. So the first congress created the treasury dept in 1789, also agreed to repay debt at face value, not market value.

the source for the graph is global financial data via a douche bank analyst. It’s some weird composite thing.

[stalefish3169]

I have not heard of that Twitter poster.. I have no clue about his sources for price history, validated or not. And I am not on Twitter at all.... But.. Some years prices go up.. Some years down .this year is far from over... I don't know what there is to clarify?. Other than bonds have held up better than bitcoin..so far..this year.. But that could change quickly.

The source is from some obscure minor player called Deutsche Bank.

Flashback to earlier this week when I said there is a major problem in the bond market. You assured me that you know more about bonds than I do. I came with a receipt illustrating how fucked the bond market is and now you're like, "Ummmmmm, what?"

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...rout#xj4y7vzkg

[stalefish3169]

Bonds also have a maturity date which provide return of capital. It’s the definition of a paper loss.

Lol. You guys would melt down if I said I haven't lost anything this year because I haven't sold any BTC. Byates saying he's holding BTC for a duration near a US 10Y and dumbfree almost pooped himself. Maybe he did?!?

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

[4matic]

Lol. You guys would melt down if I said I haven't lost anything this year because I haven't sold any BTC. Byates saying he's holding BTC for a duration near a US 10Y and dumbfree almost pooped himself. Maybe he did?!?

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

Not true. BTC is accounted as a mark to market asset and loss. Bonds are not.

[dunfree]

Lol. You guys would melt down if I said I haven't lost anything this year because I haven't sold any BTC. Byates saying he's holding BTC for a duration near a US 10Y and dumbfree almost pooped himself. Maybe he did?!?

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

Stalefish shitting his pants to show he doesn’t understand bonds or bond yield again.

[CarlMega]

Lol. You guys would melt down if I said I haven't lost anything this year because I haven't sold any BTC. Byates saying he's holding BTC for a duration near a US 10Y and dumbfree almost pooped himself. Maybe he did?!?

So I'm a bond idiot, cold read here. But are you equating trading bonds vs. them coming to maturity vs. a hope that BTC climbs over an extremely long timeline? Isn't that Apples to Oranges to Coconuts?

[stalefish3169]

Not true. BTC is accounted as a mark to market asset and loss. Bonds are not.

Sure, BTC doesn't give a traditional yield like bonds. But we're holding BTC for the future because we think it will be more valuable in the long run. Bonds are selling off at a historic rate because people are not optimistic about the future.

https://www.morningstar.com/articles...rket-for-bonds

FWIW, Timmer in the linked article is a BTC bull.

[stalefish3169]

So I'm a bond idiot, cold read here. But are you equating trading bonds vs. them coming to maturity vs. a hope that BTC climbs over an extremely long timeline? Isn't that Apples to Oranges to Coconuts?

I guess we were typing at the same time. My thesis, and answer to your question is in my post above. Yes, there is not a 1:1 comparison. But this is a new frontier, cowboy.

[4matic]

Bonds are selling off at a historic rate because people are not optimistic about the future.

So, Bond rates went to negative yield because people were optimistic about the future?

Also, your chart is a constant maturity yield chart. Not really a bond chart.

[RoooR]

Bonds are selling off at a historic rate because people are not optimistic about the future.

You think low yields = optimism?

BTW here is 30 year mortage rates:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MORTGAGE30US

Still incredibly low by any historical measurement.