Merged Bitcoin - Part 3

[Suddenly]

ftfy.

Maybe I need to explain where I am coming from as I tend to speak in riddles.

A medium of exchange should be valuable only in the abstract because other people will give you money. Bitcoin not being tangible is a good thing.

It's actually a problem if it were as tangible as corn because, well, farmers grow it and people eat it and that's not a good way to monitor money supply.


The dollar is effectively disconnected as well. People like to cite the full backing of the United States Government, but that's is also a mirage in that only has value if people think it does. If people completely lose confidence in the dollar there will be nothing the feds can do about it but make it worse.

I fully believe that cryptocurrency can theoretically be a medium of exchange preferable to government backed currency. The ways a coin can be constructed are near infinite and figuring out a construction that results in a stable medium which self-adjusts to real world conditions w/r/t controlling the supply of that medium. If a coin outperforms fiat then it is what it is. Bitcoin will never be that coin.

The problem is that we are nowhere near a coin that could do this and as long as crypto culture is full of people trying to get rich innovation is going to suffer because there will be too many rugpulls and pump and dump issues both blatant and subtle. Plus the idea of holding a currency to wait to see if it gains value is self-defeating.

Which not only detracts from what should be the goal it also makes any sane person very wary of participation so the coins are hard to test.

My main problems with bitcoin are that (1) it inherently sucks as a currency and (2) it has a dominant position within the culture and as such cements the idea of a coin as an investment instead of a tool.


My theory is that adoption of a cryptocurrency will never come from people trying to get a cryptocurrency adopted. It will be a sort of weird accident probably involving a game token.

15-20 years ago a ton of online commerce was being done via pokerstars transfers. It's not completely insane that it could have become a more and more dominant means of exchange. Pokerstars wasn't crypto or anything, but the idea of an ingame blockchain token for some huge game being used to buy out of game stuff and proving more useful and reliable than other currencies seems way more likely than it happening by a straight crypto coin launch meant to be currency.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

People like to cite the full backing of the United States Government, but that's is also a mirage in that only has value if people think it does. If people completely lose confidence in the dollar there will be nothing the feds can do about it but make it worse.

But how likely is that to happen? It's not 'the dollar' that people have confidence in, but what's backing it - the entire United States of America. Something truly catastrophic would have to happen to destroy that confidence.

I fully believe that cryptocurrency can theoretically be a medium of exchange preferable to government backed currency.

In it's current form? I don't agree. Every day people are finding less reasons to use cryptocurrency. The more attempts are made to use it the less attractive it looks. The idea that it would supplant government backed currency is laughable.

If a coin outperforms fiat then it is what it is. Bitcoin will never be that coin.

But Bitcoin is the only one with even the faintest chance of achieving that goal. If it can't do it, no crytpocurrency can.

as long as crypto culture is full of people trying to get rich innovation is going to suffer because there will be too many rugpulls and pump and dump issues both blatant and subtle. Plus the idea of holding a currency to wait to see if it gains value is self-defeating.

But that's Bitcoin's only (legal) utility! Without people trying to get rich it would be nothing.

My main problems with bitcoin are that (1) it inherently sucks as a currency and (2) it has a dominant position within the culture and as such cements the idea of a coin as an investment instead of a tool.

I'm happy stopping at (1). Bitcoin sucks by design. It was created by libertarians for all the wrong reasons, so that it sucks is not surprising.

My theory is that adoption of a cryptocurrency will never come from people trying to get a cryptocurrency adopted. It will be a sort of weird accident probably involving a game token.

Except that won't happen, because game tokens are the opposite of what cryptocurrency is supposed to be.

15-20 years ago a ton of online commerce was being done via pokerstars transfers. It's not completely insane that it could have become a more and more dominant means of exchange. Pokerstars wasn't crypto or anything, but the idea of an ingame blockchain token for some huge game being used to buy out of game stuff and proving more useful and reliable than other currencies seems way more likely than it happening by a straight crypto coin launch meant to be currency.

What problem that stopped it becoming a 'more and more dominant means of exchange' would crypto solve? I can't imagine such a 'currency' becoming a dominant means of exchange when it relies on the activities of online poke players. And if it doesn't, what makes it any different from other cryptos?

 

[psionl0]

Without a human authority to recognize the numbers in that wallet as anything at all, then they're nothing.

Pure BS.

As you're applying it to an intangible thing that only has value because other suckers think it has value, it's helpful to contrast it with things that actually exist in the world as physical things.

What is this "intangible thing that only has value because other suckers think it has value" you are referring to? It certainly isn't bitcoin.

Ah, I thought it was clear that the "it" that wasn't impressive is your claim of security, not the con game that is crypto. I know people are willing to pay for crypto. I pointed that out in the "bunch of rich suckers will forget all the crypto problems and start buying them again" phrase that got your knickers in a twist, remember?

Meaningless drivel. No matter how many times you assert (without evidence) that bitcoin is a "con game" it will never be true.

 

[jeremyp]

More or less the same thing as if I buy Euros. I can keep Euros as a store of value, though the value may change over time. I can spend Euros directly where they are accepted and where they are not I can convert Euros to another form of value that is accepted.

Don”t forget you can also pay your taxes in EU countries in Euros.

 

[jeremyp]

I know from experience that dishonest posters like you will simply pretend that I never answered the question no matter what I post.

But for the benefit of others, I will answer the question yet again. You get intellectual property. The difference is that instead of a human authority recognizing your right to this property, it is guaranteed by an algorithm and as long as nobody gets access to your wallet or private key, nobody can take the property away from you.

Insult your opponents. That will definitely win you the argument.

BTC is not intellectual property. Intellectual property is things like ideas and works of art. The idea of BTC is intellectual property, but not the actual coins.

what you own with BTC is a number, or a line in a ledger, if you prefer. There’s nothing else. The algorithm guarantees you nothing. It’s other people who determine that this line in a ledger is worth something. Ask the people who bought Luna how much intellectual property they have.

 

[wareyin]

Pure BS.

What is this "intangible thing that only has value because other suckers think it has value" you are referring to? It certainly isn't bitcoin.

Wait, you think bitcoin is tangible now?

Meaningless drivel. No matter how many times you assert (without evidence) that bitcoin is a "con game" it will never be true.

Dude, this is a backwater forum. Nobody here is going to buy into bitcoins because you refuse to accept their fraudulent nature (in writing).

 

[psionl0]

Wait, you think bitcoin is tangible now?

No I think that some idiots are desperately trying to say that bitcoin doesn't exist because it is not a physical substance.

Nobody here is going to buy into bitcoins because you refuse to accept their fraudulent nature (in writing).

What "fraudulent nature (in writing)"? Have you got any proof that bitcoin itself is "fraudulent"?

 

[wareyin]

No I think that some idiots are desperately trying to say that bitcoin doesn't exist because it is not a physical substance.

That's a particularly odd way to interpret the straightforward responses to you. Why would you think anyone is saying that bitcoin doesn't exist? Especially those who've already said it exists as a way to scam the gullible out of real money?

What "fraudulent nature (in writing)"? Have you got any proof that bitcoin itself is "fraudulent"?

The "in writing" part refers to having been written on this forum, in particular in this thread. I'm sorry that was so confusing to you.

 

[psionl0]

That's a particularly odd way to interpret the straightforward responses to you. Why would you think anyone is saying that bitcoin doesn't exist?

You are the one making a big noise about bitcoin being "intangible". It must be a big deal for you.

The "in writing" part refers to having been written on this forum, in particular in this thread.

So, no evidence that bitcoin is "fraudulent". Just some people posting what you want to read.

 

[wareyin]

You are the one making a big noise about bitcoin being "intangible". It must be a big deal for you.

I think I see the problem. Did you believe that "intangible" means "doesn't exist"? If so, I urge you to crack open a dictionary.

So, no evidence that bitcoin is "fraudulent". Just some people posting what you want to read.

Why would I give one of the staunchest devotees of bitcoin evidence that he will creatively misinterpret? Who are the "some people" who are posting what I want to read, and where did you pull that out of?

 

[psionl0]

Why would I give one of the staunchest devotees of bitcoin evidence that he will creatively misinterpret?

You wouldn't provide evidence for anybody because you have none. You are just making up BS or copying it from other posts in this forum.

"Devotee of bitcoin" is just a desperate attempt to deflect from the fact that you know nothing.

 

[wareyin]

You wouldn't provide evidence for anybody because you have none. You are just making up BS or copying it from other posts in this forum.

"Devotee of bitcoin" is just a desperate attempt to deflect from the fact that you know nothing.

I know that bitcoin is a con job foisted on the gullible, which is more than I can say for the staunch devotee (singular) who keeps trying to not only defend it, but convince other people to buy bitcoin with the outrageous claim of always earning more money. Actually, anyone assuring people of gains for buying bitcoin probably knows it's a con as well, but of course such a person would never admit such in writing.

 

[psionl0]

Give it up. You are no longer posting BS any more. You are just telling lies.

 

[wareyin]

Give it up. You are no longer posting BS any more. You are just telling lies.

While I'm sure that this sounded to you like a compelling argument in your head, I'm not sure that it landed well in print.

Why in the world do you feel the need for an explanation why BtC is a pump and dump scheme after all the recent discussion on wash trading anyway? It's not like there aren't tons of recent news articles about Bitcoin scams or even articles that call into question your claims about the security of bitcoin from being taken from an owner by government agencies.

 

[marting]

Binance comes down hard on wash trading (aka self-trading).

Binance moves to block a key market manipulation tactic that makes a token look more popular than it actually is
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/oth...-more-popular-than-it-actually-is/ar-AA16JgpF

Binance is launching a new function Thursday to block a key market manipulation tactic, the cryptocurrency exchange announced Tuesday.
...
Called the Self-Trade Prevention Function, it is aimed at clamping down on users or groups of users that trade with themselves to create the illusion of higher trading activity.

Binance, the largest crypto exchange in the World taking tough action!

Oh, wait. Maybe not so tough.

The Self-Trade Prevention Function is optional, and won't impact those who choose not to use it.

Gotta love self regulation.

 

[psionl0]

Why in the world do you feel the need for an explanation why BtC is a pump and dump scheme after all the recent discussion on wash trading anyway?

You are not saying that pump and dump schemes are done with bitcoin. You are saying that bitcoin itself is a pump and dump scheme.

It's like saying that fiat currency is a scam because some scammers run con jobs with it.

It's not like there aren't tons of recent news articles about Bitcoin scams or even articles that call into question your claims about the security of bitcoin from being taken from an owner by government agencies.

They might legally have the wallets but they won't get any bitcoins out of them without the private key.

 

[wareyin]

You are not saying that pump and dump schemes are done with bitcoin. You are saying that bitcoin itself is a pump and dump scheme.

It's like saying that fiat currency is a scam because some scammers run con jobs with it.

"Some" is doing some veeeerrrrry heavy lifting in your analogy! (But hey, devotees gotta devote, amirite?)

They might legally have the wallets but they won't get any bitcoins out of them without the private key.

Well, the fact that government agencies actually can take cryptocurrency out of your "possession" despite your previous claims obviously must now be spun to some silly 'but they can't spend it', as though that makes it secure.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Well, the fact that government agencies actually can take cryptocurrency out of your "possession" despite your previous claims obviously must now be spun to some silly 'but they can't spend it', as though that makes it secure.

How ?

 

[wareyin]

How ?

How, what?

How did the FBI seize bitcoin? Read the article I posted. How would the FBI seizing your bitcoin still leave bitcoin in your possession? Damned if I know.

 

[jeremyp]

How, what?

How did the FBI seize bitcoin? Read the article I posted. How would the FBI seizing your bitcoin still leave bitcoin in your possession? Damned if I know.

The article doesn't say. It says they issued a warrant to seize the wallets but, unless the wallet is a unique physical device, they can't be sure the scammer doesn't have a copy and anybody who has access to the private key can get the BTC out of the wallet.