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

[bennymac]

Attachment 404101

Funny thread. You guys do your thing

I don’t see the ultra cringey “tradfi” on there - but they likely were overwhelmed with the options and had to narrow it down somehow

[skaredshtles]

People have been saying SS will "be gone by the time I'm eligible" for 50 years. At least. I know *I* said it when I was in my 20's (1990's).

And yet... here we are, and it appears I *will* be getting some benefit from it in the not-too-distant future.

[skaredshtles]

My SS benefit will start at around $3500 mo. But you’re right I can barely just live on that..

$3500 ain't worth what it used to be.

[J. Barron DeJong]

I really don't know how to give it a fiat value. The energy component should probably be in there.

The energy component most definitely should not be in there. Like, the fed could literally type some numbers on a computer and suddenly banks would have trillions of dollars in new reserves (probably a slight simplification, but not much!). Cost literally less than a penny in power.

What gives fiat currency value is that it’s the only way to pay/be paid by the issuing government. Want to live in the United States? You’re going to need to pay your taxes in dollars, you’ll receive social security in dollars, same for all the businesses you interact with. Using the fiat currency is integral to being able to participate in the economy, thus it has value.

This type of thing is probably my biggest reason for being skeptical of Bitcoin, regardless of any technical merits it may have. People who seem to think we really need a new currency to replace our current flawed one have some, just completely, misguided understanding of how the current system works, and what lead us to this system to begin with.

For example, did you know that inflation/deflation swung a lot more during the gold standard period than the period since? The gold standard acts pro cyclically, so inflationary periods become more inflationary, deflationary more so. Having a central bank that can create money - and yes, remove money - from the economy can counteract those inflationary/deflationary forces and stabilize the economy, leading to more consistent and thus greater long term growth. (And yes, Zimbabwe! But that’s an outlier. Show me a first world democracy that has done something similar)

If you want to better understand how that works in practice, the ‘babysitter co-op’ that Krugman likes to reference is a great simplified model of what happens in a real economy:

https://slate.com/business/1998/08/b...e-economy.html

additional detail here:
https://medianism.org/2018/03/12/kru...-sitting-coop/

(and if you hate Krugman cause he’s liberal, don’t worry, it’s a technical discussion, not policy prescription. Basically just describing what every central bank is trying to do with monetary policy)

In practice, the reason for fiat currency, and not one that has an inflexible monetary base (like gold, or Bitcoin) is this:

https://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/...epression.html

[CarlMega]

From where I sit, these conversations try to roll too much and become one big ball of mud. It's better to parse the discussion more deliberately.

Just a quickie delineation:

FIAT/Government issue currency history, infrastructure/adoption, limitations, practicality and vulnerabilities and potential improvements
Bitcoin infrastructure, positioning, adoption, scale, potential, vulnerabilities, applicability
Crypto volatility and irrational pricing, nefarious actors in unregulated and emerging 'markets'
Crypo/blockchain potential as a technology in non-currency use-cases

I could on but good nuff'.

So, yes, one could understand the perception and frustration w/ current FIAT systems. But that frustration alone doesn't mean all the claims & predictions are true or that bitcoin is a logical replacement.

If we tried to supplant existing government issue currency and payment networks with bitcoin, it could not scale and never get remotely close to meeting that need. So for me, that's a dream argument. But just because it can't do that, doesn't mean there isn't a useful use-case for that tech or even that coin. To me, the positioning of bitcoin as an absolute currency replacement is far fetched. It does have asset value because like most assets it is based on perceived value - thus subject to market for better or worse.

I feel the NFT hype really uncovered some of the shill and seedy underbelly of crypto. There are potential use-cases here but these schemes are absurd, irrational and IMHO crypto players who promoted them have damaged their credibility beyond repair. It undermined their narratives - exposed them as people who would hype anything to bring in suckers to make a buck.

For me, I can see existing crypto 'currency' as being immediately applicable as a conduit from "virtual small worlds" to "big world". So as a tech that allows to have something that works well enough for applications in the virtual markets and networks where that technology meshes more appropriately, and brings exchangeable value in the "big real world" because it does have asset value for as long as people stake in it. But not "big world" currency replacement because the inherent scale issues make it impractical.

But, I'm going to lean into more and refine my opinions as I get more facts and keep abreast of how the challenges are attempted to be overcome.

[neckdeep]

Wow. Hundreds of pages later and you fools are still arguing over the gold analogy. Despite the fact that there is only one element on the periodic chart that qualifies as gold. Meanwhile, the crypto periodic chart now contains around 7000 iterations of "gold ".

For the last fucking time: there is no gold2.0, there is no new and improved gold, there are not 7000 different types of gold, gold doesnt hinge on a transactional black box like tether, gold dont need to hire Matt Damon to insinuate that everyone who isn't a gold bug must be a pussy.

[4matic]

There have been plenty of celebrity gold shills

[neckdeep]

Seriously, get back to me when gold is spending over $100M annually on sports sponsorships alone. This alone is proof of the vast efforts required to bring in the next crop of greater fools.

[dunfree]

My SS benefit will start at around $3500 mo. But you’re right I can barely just live on that..

It’d barely cover your monthly preparation H budget

[4matic]

That's the best you've got? Regroup and come back stronger

[Benny Profane]

Holding on to the old system tooth and nail won't end well. Something has got to give, or maybe not. Maybe the declining purchasing power, even adjusting for inflation,of your dollar is what's good for an economy thats why the old system is the best and should never be changed. The next generation definitely will have it better with these current policies of protecting assets. Most money is really just debt leveraged anyway. If I am leveraging everything to the max I benefit from high inflation. The debt world has worked for our lifetime so why won't it keep working. I really want government money that doesn't need to be taxed. If you can just print money than why do I need to pay taxes?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

You need to start your own religion, like L. Ron Hubbard. Or, Joseph Smith.

[Benny Profane]

Everything in our lives has changed. Hand held supercomputers barely existed 10 yrs ago. They have dematerialized many things.

Like paper maps and stamped letters?

[highangle]

Someone paid $473,000 for this NFT:

[4matic]

Straw buyers and wash trading for money laundering

[byates1]

Wow. Hundreds of pages later and you fools are still arguing over the gold analogy. Despite the fact that there is only one element on the periodic chart that qualifies as gold. Meanwhile, the crypto periodic chart now contains around 7000 iterations of "gold ".

For the last fucking time: there is no gold2.0, there is no new and improved gold, there are not 7000 different types of gold, gold doesnt hinge on a transactional black box like tether, gold dont need to hire Matt Damon to insinuate that everyone who isn't a gold bug must be a pussy.

So what you are saying is that you missed BTC.

[J. Barron DeJong]

People have been saying SS will "be gone by the time I'm eligible" for 50 years. At least. I know *I* said it when I was in my 20's (1990's).

And yet... here we are, and it appears I *will* be getting some benefit from it in the not-too-distant future.

You may know the history here, but I’m sure not everyone will: Social Security was originally conceived as being paid out yearly from that years receipts. Then the baby boom happened, and all of a sudden it was expected that there was going to be a large group of retirees at some point in the future that was likely to be larger relative to the size of the working population than was originally conceived, and crucially, that imbalance was expected to be temporarily. So, in the early 80’s (I believe) SS started collecting more money than they paid out and put it into the ‘trust fund’, this was basically like saying workers of that period were saving up for their own benefits later. When that large cohort of boomers retired, SS receipts would be lower than the amount being paid out and the trust fund would be drawn down - that was always the plan. Once the trust fund is drawn down, you’re back to paying out that years SS from the amount collected; no more in the trust fund.

When people talk about SS going bankrupt they’re almost always talking about the trust fund running out of money, but that was always the plan! It was a temporary thing to overcome a period of greater than normal population growth. That said, the date the trust fund is expected to run out has fluctuated, and it’s expected to run too soon, but that’s largely because it’s difficult to predict finances over a 30+ year period. The proper thing would have been to adjust the money going into the trust fund as conditions changed, just like you should if you’re saving in your ow 401k. And there‘s still a good chance that if the trust fund runs out early the government will find a way to fully fund SS anyway - they’re all really scared about upsetting old people. But importantly, even when the trust fund is wiped out, it’s not like SS stops paying out, they just need to pay out from that years incoming SS receipt which is over 80% of guaranteed benefits currently (if I’m remembering correctly) and that number will continue to increase as boomers die off.

[mcphee]

So what you are saying is that you missed BTC.

Missed? I thought now was the best time to get in? For real though, it all sounds great. I’ll take 3.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[neckdeep]

So what you are saying is that you missed BTC.

No, I'm saying that, whatever BTC is as an asset, it's most definitely not gold. The differences are so damn obvious. The gold analogy is probably the most desperately hand wavy thing about crypto. I mean, call the thing what it really is: a wildly speculative unregulated investment like the stock market was 100 years ago. Not a rare commodity.

If it's the future, why do you need to misrepresent what it really is...

[Benny Profane]

So what you are saying is that you missed BTC.

And, if he's lucky, the Aids epidemic.

[mcphee]

.

[J. Barron DeJong]

Someone paid $473,000 for this NFT:

and yet here it is, on this very forum…

[The Suit]

Bitcoin uses less electricity than Christmas lights.

I was super curious about this one, because it doesn't sound right. So I looked up the numbers. I found this:

A 2008 study from the US Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) found festive lights accounted for 6.6 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity consumption every year in the US

That's 6.6 terawatt hours. There's a fairly wide range of estimates of bitcoins energy consumption, but I didn't see any that were less than 6.6 terawatt hours. The consensus seems to be around 90-100 terawatt hours right now.

[JimmyCarter]

No, I'm saying that, whatever BTC is as an asset, it's most definitely not gold. The differences are so damn obvious. The gold analogy is probably the most desperately hand wavy thing about crypto. I mean, call the thing what it really is: a wildly speculative unregulated investment like the stock market was 100 years ago. Not a rare commodity.

If it's the future, why do you need to misrepresent what it really is...

Then why have all the standard gold bug shills like Max Keiser, stansberry research, etc migrated over to shilling crypto now huh??!!

[JimmyCarter]

and yet here it is, on this very forum…

THATS NOT THE REAL ONE!!!!! CHECK THE LEDGER!!!!!

[nickwm21]

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums