Bitcoin could become ‘worthless’, Bank of England warns(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Bitcoin could become ‘worthless’, Bank of England warns
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/14/bitcoin-could-become-worthless-bank-of-england-warns
102 comments
I see Bitcoin closer to the art market then to gold or a currency. There is de facto no universal rule for pricing a work of art other than what someone is willing to pay for it at auctions. As long as everyone assumes that artworks will be sold more expensive in the future and no one sells below the purchase price, the prices will rise - provided that the interest in it remains upright.
An important difference between art and Bitcoin is that Bitcoin is owned by ordinary people with bills.
A market downturn or economic crisis can turn a lot of Bitcoin owners to liquidate, potentially annihilating its value. You just don't see that with people who have money to collect art.
Good reminder that the growth in Bitcoin has almost entirely happened since the last real bear market.
A market downturn or economic crisis can turn a lot of Bitcoin owners to liquidate, potentially annihilating its value. You just don't see that with people who have money to collect art.
Good reminder that the growth in Bitcoin has almost entirely happened since the last real bear market.
I’ve heard this metaphor lots and find it super confusing. The price of art is still based on something - some art looks nice, or was made by someone famous.
I can get an exact copy of a piece of artwork, say the Mona Lisa, for like $20. It will look identical, maybe another $50 for a nice frame. What you are seeing is identical.
The art market is not buying and selling pieces of artwork. It is for obfuscating money. Where the money came from, where and who the money is going to, how much is owed to or hidden from governments.
Art is expensive because it makes it easier to obfuscate large amounts of money.
The art market is not buying and selling pieces of artwork. It is for obfuscating money. Where the money came from, where and who the money is going to, how much is owed to or hidden from governments.
Art is expensive because it makes it easier to obfuscate large amounts of money.
What you are seeing may be identical, but you and everyone else knows it's not the one it appears to be. You are buying the label.
Why is the first production car worth more? A buyer won't know the difference between the 1st and the 5th past that tag. IMO the cost is driven mostly by rarity.
Of course what you pointed out is definitely a role in art, but I don't think it's the primary driving force
Why is the first production car worth more? A buyer won't know the difference between the 1st and the 5th past that tag. IMO the cost is driven mostly by rarity.
Of course what you pointed out is definitely a role in art, but I don't think it's the primary driving force
in the exact case of the mona lisa, anyone could tell the difference because the real thing has noticeable texture and yours would just be a poster.
maybe a better analogy would be a famous photograph like the rhein 2
maybe a better analogy would be a famous photograph like the rhein 2
I mean you are right, but that texture is doing a lot of work, since the Mona Lisa is about $850 million, and my solution is $0.0001 million, and indistinguishable at 15 meters.
But either way, this doesn't distract from the main thrust of my point. Art is expensive for Money reasons, not art reasons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ3F3zWiEmc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5sOuET8UWA
But either way, this doesn't distract from the main thrust of my point. Art is expensive for Money reasons, not art reasons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ3F3zWiEmc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5sOuET8UWA
yeah I agree, theres a lot of speculation in the art market.
You can buy replicas that reproduce the paint texture
https://www.designtoscano.com/products/mona-lisa-classic-art...
https://www.designtoscano.com/products/mona-lisa-classic-art...
Hmm, I don't fully buy the metaphor (since BTC are fungible), but I do think it exhibits collector economics.
I'm in many ways an art fan, but art pricing is totally irrational:
1. Prints cost substantially less than paintings since they're less limited
2. Prints price based on lots of intangibles (how limited the series is, what series it was, what the artist's role was in it, etc)
3. Fundamentally, I don't think buyers get that much more pleasure from an original than from a print or authorized reproduction
4. Many buyers loan their purchases to a museum (which has tax advantages) or keep them in free ports or similar, where they can't visit them in person
The really high end market (i.e. million dollar+ art market) is really clearly speculative a lot of the time. Or the pleasure is "I like owning this", not "I like looking at this', which is itself hard to sever from the speculative value.
I'm in many ways an art fan, but art pricing is totally irrational:
1. Prints cost substantially less than paintings since they're less limited
2. Prints price based on lots of intangibles (how limited the series is, what series it was, what the artist's role was in it, etc)
3. Fundamentally, I don't think buyers get that much more pleasure from an original than from a print or authorized reproduction
4. Many buyers loan their purchases to a museum (which has tax advantages) or keep them in free ports or similar, where they can't visit them in person
The really high end market (i.e. million dollar+ art market) is really clearly speculative a lot of the time. Or the pleasure is "I like owning this", not "I like looking at this', which is itself hard to sever from the speculative value.
I'd like to rebuke #3: like most people, art buyers are vain. They feel pride in owning things of value, especially if that value is recognized by their peers.
FYI, BTC is not fungible. Otherwise companies like Coinbase wouldn't be able to ban people's accounts if they transfered in BTC with a tainted history.
That's more or less like saying dollars aren't fungible because you can check the serial number on a bill to see if it matches one that was reported stolen.
You're correct about being able to match serial numbers, but they are still nowhere near being in the same league.
A stranger across the world can't track your physical currency in real time. Whenever serial numbers are checked (if it ever is), the tracker just knows that bill was at that spot at that time, they don't know how many times it was exchanged or where it was since it was last tracked.
With BTC, anyone can track it in real time, anywhere. The same cannot be said about physical currency.
I suppose it's not a stretch to imagine banks have a machine that scans serial numbers (eg to catch DB Cooper's cash), but I've never heard of any evidence of such machines.
A stranger across the world can't track your physical currency in real time. Whenever serial numbers are checked (if it ever is), the tracker just knows that bill was at that spot at that time, they don't know how many times it was exchanged or where it was since it was last tracked.
With BTC, anyone can track it in real time, anywhere. The same cannot be said about physical currency.
I suppose it's not a stretch to imagine banks have a machine that scans serial numbers (eg to catch DB Cooper's cash), but I've never heard of any evidence of such machines.
My point re: fungibility was rather that BTC's value does not come from the specific block assignment, whereas art's generally does (though I guess limited-series prints and similar might be a case where "any one of the series" has the same value).
Obviously not everyone assumes that Bitcoin will be more valuable in the future.
I wonder when and if they will pass an act outlawing or “regulating” bitcoin/crypto like that was passed for gold in 1934:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Reserve_Act
Hillary Clinton talks about how crypto is a threat to currencies and especially to the dollar as a reserve currency (minute 29:30):
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2021-11-19/great-power...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Reserve_Act
Hillary Clinton talks about how crypto is a threat to currencies and especially to the dollar as a reserve currency (minute 29:30):
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2021-11-19/great-power...
Can't wait for this.
Or at least outlaw talking incessantly about it. It'd make online communities so much more pleasant. ;)
Like, if you want to post about BTC more than five times an hour, you first have to take an undergraduate class in cryptography and economics.
Ten times an hour? You can't use "crypto" to mean "cryptocurrency."
Like, if you want to post about BTC more than five times an hour, you first have to take an undergraduate class in cryptography and economics.
Ten times an hour? You can't use "crypto" to mean "cryptocurrency."
While it's still debatable whether crypto currencies are pure speculation vs. the new "gold" vs. a new currency that will kill the national ones -
As a philosophical idea, can we at least agree that the inherent value of Bitcoin and the fundamental reason some people invest in it is... the beauty of mathematics?
As a philosophical idea, can we at least agree that the inherent value of Bitcoin and the fundamental reason some people invest in it is... the beauty of mathematics?
> the fundamental reason some people invest in it is... the beauty of mathematics?
Bitcoin is full of ugly warts though. While some other coins featuring much more beauty (simplicity and elegance) are near worthless.
Furthermore, most people speculating on bitcoin have a very limited understanding of the mathematics underlying bitcoin...
Bitcoin is full of ugly warts though. While some other coins featuring much more beauty (simplicity and elegance) are near worthless.
Furthermore, most people speculating on bitcoin have a very limited understanding of the mathematics underlying bitcoin...
Understanding the underlying math is not required really. You may just believe crypto is pure math and its beautiful as such. Like, personally I don't fully understand it - never bothered to study tbh.
Some people sure, but I'm not sure how big majority that still is. I believe currently it's value is greater fool theory.
Those who value it for mathematics, would likely value the state of the art cryptocurrencies more. As BTC really isn't any way special outside being the first one.
Those who value it for mathematics, would likely value the state of the art cryptocurrencies more. As BTC really isn't any way special outside being the first one.
I wasn't clear, sorry. I'm not saying people may be investing because they appreciate the math. It's not about the motivation as much as it's about reconciliation, or let's say finding the common denominator in debates. On some abstract philosophical level we can all agree that because crypto currencies are pure math they are beautiful as such. Knowingly or not, people invest and trade the power and beauty of mathematics. Just a neat meta-idea, that's all.
US Currency says "In God we trust."
Bitcoin says "In Math we trust."
I think these central banks really underestimate the Bitcoin maximalists.
These people will hold and buy Bitcoin for the rest of their lives.
Half of all Bitcoin hasn't been moved in 2+ years, despite multiple -50% moves.
The price went from 20k to 2k and most wallets didn't even have a coin move from it.
These people will hold and buy Bitcoin for the rest of their lives.
Half of all Bitcoin hasn't been moved in 2+ years, despite multiple -50% moves.
The price went from 20k to 2k and most wallets didn't even have a coin move from it.
If it never moves, that actually makes it worthless.
Gavin hypothesized a potential bitcoin future where all bitcoin becomes locked down on the main chain and doesn't move, with all the trading of bitcoin done on other chains.
[1] http://gavinandresen.ninja/a-possible-btc-future
[1] http://gavinandresen.ninja/a-possible-btc-future
So will we end up with all the tricks of modern financial sector, just denominated in BTC instead of fiat?
> Half of all Bitcoin hasn't been moved in 2+ years, despite multiple -50% moves.
Presumably a big chunk of this is permanently lost due to lost keys, etc.
Presumably a big chunk of this is permanently lost due to lost keys, etc.
Let them hold all the way to zero.
If bitcoin keeps dropping 50% every week for the next 5 years, it still won't be zero. And every 50% drop, someone's thinking "Now could I double my money?"
I dunno, there are feedback mechanisms that could keep this thing alive for a long time. And if not BTC then certainly some crypto based on the concepts.
I dunno, there are feedback mechanisms that could keep this thing alive for a long time. And if not BTC then certainly some crypto based on the concepts.
>someone's thinking "Now could I double my money?"
You could always try to find the bigger fool unless you block the conversion between crypto and real money.
Anyway, this kind of schemes always come crashing down. There will be not a lot of people willing to catch a falling knife after some point.
You could always try to find the bigger fool unless you block the conversion between crypto and real money.
Anyway, this kind of schemes always come crashing down. There will be not a lot of people willing to catch a falling knife after some point.
If you owned the entire US, some $270 trillion in assets, and your position decreased in value 50% each week, after one year, you’d have just enough left to play one game at the nickel arcade… but not two.
At some point you have to round something to zero.
At some point you have to round something to zero.
> 50% every week for the next 5 years
That's 1/2 pow 52*5! There are not enough atoms in the universe to sustain such a fall.
That's 1/2 pow 52*5! There are not enough atoms in the universe to sustain such a fall.
Bitcoin is a huge bubble, being driven up by speculation and some rather dodgy stablecoins. It's hard to say how long it will be able to sustain it's price, but if that bubble pops it could bring down the entire economy.
Or it could act as economic stimulus, as the exit dollars get invested in productive endeavours, rekt coiners have to get a job, and electricity and electronics become cheaper due to the capacity being freed from cryptomining.
As mining bitcoin is only worthwhile with ASICS there will be no flood of electronics entering the market at low prices, being used for something more "worthwhile". You could argue this is a feature and not a bug. I, as many people before me, thought about a cryptocurrency with a "useful" PoW like protein folding but if you would create such a thing it would be very susceptible to attack by govt or any big private actor because if you could mine cryptocurrency with general hardware then acquiring said hardware for an attack has 0 cost. You could acquire hardware for the attack, crash the currency then just use it for the protein folding.
So the fact that the mining hardware can't be used for anything else is a feature which makes bitcoin more secure against attack.
So the fact that the mining hardware can't be used for anything else is a feature which makes bitcoin more secure against attack.
The input resources used to create ASICs still would become available to be used to create other electronics, including other types of ASICs.
You are assuming everyone can get out at the same time at price X. That’s not going to happen. Generally in crashes/drawdowns, 2/3 will see 1/3 of the price in liquidation.
He mentioned
>rekt coiners have to get a job
>rekt coiners have to get a job
Don't let a crisis go to waste
Central bank fearmongers over decentralized currency that could potentially undermine its existence.
It’s much more likely the central bank is worried for the stability of the UK banking system in case of a Bitcoin collapse than Bitcoin somehow making the monetary system redundant.
I'm tired of hearing this same statements... since bitcoin value was less than $100.
TL;DR: Bitcoin fundamental value is scarcity, hence we think it can theoretically be worthless in the long run.
What's surely worthless is reading that article.
Also it could become useful.
Could it? How?
I'm honestly curious because I don't see how Bitcoin could be useful.
I'm honestly curious because I don't see how Bitcoin could be useful.
Wealth protection against all the statists fiat currency schemes.
How do you deal with the notion of private property as a non-statist?
A minimalistic state with no central bank. The big issue is that fiat currencies are a design flaw that will make states only grow.
So basically, you don't. You need to pay the forces enforcing your property rights somehow, and with taxation comes comes either a large overhead as the state needs to basically become a Forex trading house to ensure it can pay in whatever wildcat currency is worth the most or to standardise to the numeraire used to pay the people with guns enforcing private property
It is being used to transfer money in other countries to avoid the fiat shit show.
“the fiat shit show” - aka taxes and other laws.
I was talking about artificial delays, high fees and things like that... You can have very low fees and near instant transfers with some Cryptos.
>avoid the fiat shit show
it has its shitshow of its own - see $actual_crypto_exchange_busted
it has its shitshow of its own - see $actual_crypto_exchange_busted
I will admit this is useful, although the fluctuations is a PITA and if you can do GUSD it is better. I've done this to pay contractors in Brazil and other places with high banking fees.
[deleted]
Bitcoin just like any other currency, is worth exactly what people think it is worth. The entire financial system is basically a collective delusion of sorts. Any currency can become worthless as faith in it drops out.
Caveat, national currencies are secured with economic power, a system of law, culture, military power, etc etc. It is a bit different. They aren't perfect either but there is more supporting what people "think" they are worth here.
Bitcoin has it own culture and history, but it is still a baby. I do think bitcoin is a bit more like Gold, although Gold has real uses so that is still a bit of a rough comparison.
Bitcoin has it own culture and history, but it is still a baby. I do think bitcoin is a bit more like Gold, although Gold has real uses so that is still a bit of a rough comparison.
Bitcoin does not support monetary policy though. If you read the Wikipedia article on the Gold standard, historians and economists seem to agree that the inflexibility to increase currency supply to stimulate the economy made the great depression much worse than it could have been without it.
Great point, I think bitcoin might end up serving a role more like a weird bond. I don't think it will ever serve as a currency with the high fees and lack of usability for 99% of the population.
Don't forget that whole pesky "have to pay taxes to the state in their chosen currency under threat of the state monopoly on violence" thing. It is somewhat touched on in your first sentence, but at the end of the day, if you want to engage in productive economic activity in a particular jurisdiction, you must render what is Caesar's unto Caesar - and Caesar demands his preferred fiat.
Known as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartalism, by the way. :)
While these risks clearly _do_ apply to traditional currencies, I do think, as an investor, it's worth considering market cap (as a proxy for "social belief in") and history of stability.
Bitcoin's market cap is probably (factoring in permanently lost coins) something like $750B, which makes it a bit smaller than, say, the Swiss franc, and its history of stability is much, much shorter.
While these risks clearly _do_ apply to traditional currencies, I do think, as an investor, it's worth considering market cap (as a proxy for "social belief in") and history of stability.
Bitcoin's market cap is probably (factoring in permanently lost coins) something like $750B, which makes it a bit smaller than, say, the Swiss franc, and its history of stability is much, much shorter.
Is there a term for something between Metallism and Chartalism for the value of currency coming neither from innate value nor state backing, but rather our belief in it?
That's where I land I guess.
Magicism?
That's where I land I guess.
Magicism?
Chartalism is more of an absolute. I don't claim that money has value only due to this reason, just that it is a significant component of the mass delusion.
Agreed, chartalism as the only explanation for assigned value is clearly empirically false. But as one mechanism, or perhaps one of the stable or reliable mechanisms, is somewhat convincing to me.
Taxes are good, they pay for civilization and the platform we all operate within :)
I know people hate hearing that, but it is the truth. I am frustrated with how high they are on some things, bad spending, etc. But at the end of the day look around at what we have built as a civilization. That is from the collective pooling of money to build the entire system.
I know people hate hearing that, but it is the truth. I am frustrated with how high they are on some things, bad spending, etc. But at the end of the day look around at what we have built as a civilization. That is from the collective pooling of money to build the entire system.
I tend to agree. I sometimes fantasize that it were otherwise, but I don't think it's really possible to maintain a society of any size or sophistication without a state to do a lot of the fundamental things that keep things moving.
Perhaps there are people who don't want the civilisation and platform we operate in to be paid for.
I feel like you're undervaluing the role individuals and private enterprise have on civilization. If there were just a bunch of roads and power lines without homes and businesses it wouldn't be much of a civilization.
I value individuals and capitalism a great deal. But without civilization and a platform that shapes their energy they are just more ants in the ant farm. The platform is what gives them the ability to change the world. That is built in a symbiotic relationship but it seems like we forget the taxes/civilization part and worship individuals to often.
Not only taxes. In a lot of countries private businesses are required to accept the local official currency as well.
At first glance ransomware might seem like a perfectly sufficient reimplemention of the taxes/violence thing. But that breaks down completely when you realize how willingly that particular Caesar would be taking whatever form of payment offered. I suppose it fully reverts to the theoretical grounding on taxes/violence of fiat once that ecosystem of shell consultancies set up for embargos and tax deductability comes into play.
> I do think bitcoin is a bit more like Gold, although Gold has real uses so that is still a bit of a rough comparison.
I agree with everything except that last part is understated. Bitcoin is like gold with the only difference that gold has functional uses, whereas Bitcoin is entirely replaceable and can be forked and duplicated.
I agree with everything except that last part is understated. Bitcoin is like gold with the only difference that gold has functional uses, whereas Bitcoin is entirely replaceable and can be forked and duplicated.
That's like saying the $ or any other currency is entirely replaceable. What bitcoin has over any other cryptocurrency is the massive mining power behind it, making it the most secure. https://braiins.com/blog/how-much-would-it-cost-to-51-attack...
So if you create another cryptocurrency which could use the same ASICS as bitcoin and you convince a lot of miners to switch then maybe.. it could be replaced but that is a tall ask.
So if you create another cryptocurrency which could use the same ASICS as bitcoin and you convince a lot of miners to switch then maybe.. it could be replaced but that is a tall ask.
> That's like saying the $ or any other currency is entirely replaceable.
No it's not. That's just another reduction missing the point.
If the dollar was to be replaced, a new currency would be issued, there would be a period of trade-in for old currency, all systems of governance, regulation, etc would recognize it and issues could be handled.
Gold would still be used for everything from electronics to satellite coating to who-knows-what.
In the case of Bitcoin it would just disappear. You're arguing it's hard to replace because of its participants, which may be true, but is far less likely than the participants in the dollar.
Some businesses dependent on it and a lot of individual participants would lose their value in their wallets, and that's it. Believing in Bitcoin is betting on that being enough to prop it up. Gamble accordingly.
No it's not. That's just another reduction missing the point.
If the dollar was to be replaced, a new currency would be issued, there would be a period of trade-in for old currency, all systems of governance, regulation, etc would recognize it and issues could be handled.
Gold would still be used for everything from electronics to satellite coating to who-knows-what.
In the case of Bitcoin it would just disappear. You're arguing it's hard to replace because of its participants, which may be true, but is far less likely than the participants in the dollar.
Some businesses dependent on it and a lot of individual participants would lose their value in their wallets, and that's it. Believing in Bitcoin is betting on that being enough to prop it up. Gamble accordingly.
Any property you hold is gambling to a certain degree, if you buy a house you gamble that the society you bought it in will provide security for it and based on the laws of that society you will be able to keep it.
You gamble your property tax won't jump 50% or that police will stop rioters from stealing from it. I admit it is a much smaller gamble than bitcoin but it is still a gamble.
Holding your savings in $ is a bigger gamble than buying a house and some would argue it is a bigger gamble than holding bitcoin.
You gamble your property tax won't jump 50% or that police will stop rioters from stealing from it. I admit it is a much smaller gamble than bitcoin but it is still a gamble.
Holding your savings in $ is a bigger gamble than buying a house and some would argue it is a bigger gamble than holding bitcoin.
> Any property you hold is gambling to a certain degree
The degrees are what separates milk from butter, or a paper box from a house. That is the entire point. If you ignore the degrees to which something is different from another, then sure, everything is everything else.
> Holding your savings in $ is a bigger gamble than buying a house and some would argue it is a bigger gamble than holding bitcoin.
Perhaps, I'm not one of them. Time will tell.
The degrees are what separates milk from butter, or a paper box from a house. That is the entire point. If you ignore the degrees to which something is different from another, then sure, everything is everything else.
> Holding your savings in $ is a bigger gamble than buying a house and some would argue it is a bigger gamble than holding bitcoin.
Perhaps, I'm not one of them. Time will tell.
What would you propose the actual mechanism is for these giving fiat its value? Simply these things giving people more faith in fiat? Minimum wage laws, target interest rates and federal reserve shenanigans?
I think if anything all that give me less faith overall than something maintained by people who operate a currency for the love of it.
The value of my past work being tied to the success of something I have no control over, a machine that murders innocent people in drone strikes across the world?
That's not something I want to have faith in.
I think if anything all that give me less faith overall than something maintained by people who operate a currency for the love of it.
The value of my past work being tied to the success of something I have no control over, a machine that murders innocent people in drone strikes across the world?
That's not something I want to have faith in.
> Simply these things giving people more faith in fiat?
Yes, it rests largely on the trust and faith you have in the currency. At a basic level, you at least need to trust that your money won’t lose half its value overnight. Otherwise, you’d just use another currency; there are a couple of examples in recent history. Now, whether your faith is justified or not is another question. Then you can look at the size of the economy or the power of whatever is backing the currency.
> The value of my past work being tied to the success of something I have no control over, a machine that murders innocent people in drone strikes across the world?
Such is the world we live in, whether we like it or not. As a side note, a lot of the drone murdering is done more or less transparently for economic reasons. Yes, a government powerful enough to project power on the other side of the planet to secure a good supply of cheap oil or to ensure some form of hegemony does inspire confidence in its currency. I wish it weren’t so, but here we are.
Yes, it rests largely on the trust and faith you have in the currency. At a basic level, you at least need to trust that your money won’t lose half its value overnight. Otherwise, you’d just use another currency; there are a couple of examples in recent history. Now, whether your faith is justified or not is another question. Then you can look at the size of the economy or the power of whatever is backing the currency.
> The value of my past work being tied to the success of something I have no control over, a machine that murders innocent people in drone strikes across the world?
Such is the world we live in, whether we like it or not. As a side note, a lot of the drone murdering is done more or less transparently for economic reasons. Yes, a government powerful enough to project power on the other side of the planet to secure a good supply of cheap oil or to ensure some form of hegemony does inspire confidence in its currency. I wish it weren’t so, but here we are.
All of those are memes too.
This is often repeated, but it always ignores that there are state-level actors (often called a "state") propping up currencies, often supported by central banks. In this regard Bitcoin is definitely not "like any other currency".
This is by no means exhaustive, there are a myriad of differences
This is by no means exhaustive, there are a myriad of differences
[deleted]
Zimbabwe has entered the room. Also had a central bank before the last round of hyperinflation/reset. One could argue that the lack of a central bank is a feature. What other differences would would you imagine distinguish bitcoin from central bank currencies?
“One state is doing terribly” (or even a handful of them, before someone mentions the Weimar republic) really is not equivalent to “it is impossible for a state to do it well”.
I would counter that Bitcoin is not a currency. A currency is used as a medium to exchange goods/services so you don't have to take goats down to the market to purchase seed.
It operates more like a stock than a currency and can be moved by any person/firm/entity that has a few billion dollars. I would venture a guess that the number of individuals using bitcoin to purchase goods/services is less than a couple percent of the total number of people that have bitcoin.
It operates more like a stock than a currency and can be moved by any person/firm/entity that has a few billion dollars. I would venture a guess that the number of individuals using bitcoin to purchase goods/services is less than a couple percent of the total number of people that have bitcoin.
we might be underestimating the market for drugs as that seems like the primary use
It is a currency, a fairly new one that hasn't gained mass adoption yet, with many problems (tx cost and tx/s limits) but people can and do use it to buy stuff. My energy provider in Romania lets me pay my bills with bitcoin.
That's like saying any new social media website you create isn't really a social media website because it has only 10 users.
That's like saying any new social media website you create isn't really a social media website because it has only 10 users.
If a currency hasn't gained mass adoption, I don't believe its a currency. I can claim I have a currency of green marbles and my son lets me buy candy from him with green marbles and he buys candy from a friend with green marbles so therefore its a currency.
I'm not saying bitcoin can't get there, its certainly possible, but when the majority of use cases use terminology like "holding", "investing", "trading" its treated by users as more of a security/equity than a currency.
I'm not saying bitcoin can't get there, its certainly possible, but when the majority of use cases use terminology like "holding", "investing", "trading" its treated by users as more of a security/equity than a currency.
You can pay for things with Cypto using PayPal, right now, and for a while now.
It's a currency. I've paid for many things with crypto.
https://www.paypal.com/us/smarthelp/article/how-to-use-crypt...
It's a currency. I've paid for many things with crypto.
https://www.paypal.com/us/smarthelp/article/how-to-use-crypt...
If you demand a currency to pay taxes and fines, there is always going to be people that need to acquire it.