Berkshire: Bitcoin is ‘contrary to the interest of civilization.’(blog.evergreengavekal.com)
blog.evergreengavekal.com
Berkshire: Bitcoin is ‘contrary to the interest of civilization.’
https://blog.evergreengavekal.com/four-berkshire-bombshells-plus-the-spac-market-implosion/
279 comments
What value? Bitcoin goes up and down like a drunken rollercoaster and it's based on "look my computer did some maths that accomplishes nothing!" as its representation of worth. It's got no more value than conventional currencies no longer backed by the gold standard (did that ever mean anything either?)
Never forget that money is largely illusory, solely a social construct, and while that's a powerful thing there is nothing here that makes Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency any more worthy than the US dollar or the Euro.
Never forget that money is largely illusory, solely a social construct, and while that's a powerful thing there is nothing here that makes Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency any more worthy than the US dollar or the Euro.
Why is buying companies and property (or small parts of them, i.e. stocks) not a "real store of value"?
If it's a leasehold, you don't really own anything, you're basically just renting with more security.
Even freeholds sometimes you don't really own the land, just again renting it extremely long term.
1 bitcoin will always be worth 1 bitcoin and there will only ever be 21 million of them.
Even freeholds sometimes you don't really own the land, just again renting it extremely long term.
1 bitcoin will always be worth 1 bitcoin and there will only ever be 21 million of them.
Yeah, don't buy leasehold.
1km² of land will always be worth 1km² of land and there will only ever be 500 million km² of them. But you can use the land.
1km² of land will always be worth 1km² of land and there will only ever be 500 million km² of them. But you can use the land.
[deleted]
Those grapes sure are sour.
I...what. What kind of comment is that? It's just a meaningless remark.
"And I don’t welcome a currency that’s so useful to kidnappers and extortionists and so forth"
You mean like cash?
I'm sorry, I'm sure Warren is a nice guy but that picture reminds me of the Dukes in the movie Trading Places [1] with Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_Places
You mean like cash?
I'm sorry, I'm sure Warren is a nice guy but that picture reminds me of the Dukes in the movie Trading Places [1] with Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_Places
Not like cash. Collecting a cash ransom is risky since the police will watch the location where the ransom will be received. Receiving a cash ransom electronically is pointless since the account can be frozen the moment the victim is free. With Bitcoin, you can be anywhere when you receive the ransom, it cannot be frozen, and you can transact in Bitcoin far from any jurisdiction where you might be arrested.
Ransomers don’t choose cash first, they choose Bitcoin, because they know it is safe.
How many big computer sabotage extortion cases can you list that were handled by cash handover? That's an entire industry that simply did not exist prior to decentralised cross-boarder electronic value transfer. How long until this spreads to 20th century extortion schemes like point of sale product poisoning threats that never really picked up because transfer we such a headache?
[deleted]
The Proceeds of Crime Act in the UK makes it a duty for banks to know where large deposits come from. You walk into a bank where you haven't been depositing large sums of cash on a regular basis, with a clear rationale for having it (e.g. pre-Covid coffee shops), and you will very likely be asked to demonstrate where it came from. If you can't you're likely to have to forfeit the cash.
He probably does. In Sweden, everything is going cashless in the name of convenience and cracking down on tax avoidance.
The big tax avoiders don't horde cash.
They mean black taxis, drug dealing, unlicensed second-hand stores, etc.
It's for people who take cash in hand.
Another example of something which could be good but it's not because of surveillance.
Swede here. I cant even remember the last time I used cash.
Used to get it from my grandmother for christmas but now they send it to me digitally as well.
It was always a pain to get cash since you needed to find a place to deposit them into your account, and most banks don't even handle cash today.
Most of all I hate getting change, people look at you funny here if you say keep the change in a regular store.
Used to get it from my grandmother for christmas but now they send it to me digitally as well.
It was always a pain to get cash since you needed to find a place to deposit them into your account, and most banks don't even handle cash today.
Most of all I hate getting change, people look at you funny here if you say keep the change in a regular store.
My mum only just stopped giving me cheques...
The logistics of moving cash is a problem on it's own.
When was the last time you tried to move a million in cash? It's not that easy...
Yup; in $100 bills it weighs 10 kilos already.
1 bundle of 1,000 CHF (1,112.51 USD) notes is 100,000 CHF which is only 1cm thick [1]. So 10 would be 10cm which easily fits in a small bag.
[1] https://www.bielertagblatt.ch/nachrichten/wirtschaft/eine-mi...
[1] https://www.bielertagblatt.ch/nachrichten/wirtschaft/eine-mi...
But you would not be able to collect the cash from a bank without all kinds of due diligence, or process alarms going off.
In Switzerland it used to be quite easy as the money belongs to you and you can do with it what you want. The only issue should be depositing large sums.
If the banks make it harder and harder to get your money out then of course things like bitcoin are getting more popular.
If the banks make it harder and harder to get your money out then of course things like bitcoin are getting more popular.
I can't actually speak for Switzerland, it does have a reputation for "no questions asked" banking.
Meanwhile, in other parts of the world, "Know Your Customer", "Due Diligence" and other Anti-Money-Laundering measure are important. (1)
I think your last point is better phrased as "If the banks make it harder and harder to get your money out in bulk, without proof that your transaction is legal; then of course things like bitcoin will be used for the illegal transactions. And as a result the regulators will sooner or later regulate those too".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_diligence
Meanwhile, in other parts of the world, "Know Your Customer", "Due Diligence" and other Anti-Money-Laundering measure are important. (1)
I think your last point is better phrased as "If the banks make it harder and harder to get your money out in bulk, without proof that your transaction is legal; then of course things like bitcoin will be used for the illegal transactions. And as a result the regulators will sooner or later regulate those too".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_diligence
Thanks for the tip!
A nice guy! The Dukes! You disrespectful shit.
In other news, the Bloomberg Agriculture Index (price of food) is hockey-sticking: https://twitter.com/KarelMercx/status/1387108408139161600
At the least, bitcoin is a possible way to protect against this, if you think it's a risk.
At the least, bitcoin is a possible way to protect against this, if you think it's a risk.
[deleted](1)
How do you deal with deflation?
The context of the quote:
> I don’t welcome a currency that’s so useful to kidnappers and extortionists and so forth... So, I think I should say modestly that the whole damn development is disgusting and contrary to the interest of civilization.
I find it strange to criticize an asset for how it gets used in extremis. I feel like the same criticism could be levied against the dollar.
> I don’t welcome a currency that’s so useful to kidnappers and extortionists and so forth... So, I think I should say modestly that the whole damn development is disgusting and contrary to the interest of civilization.
I find it strange to criticize an asset for how it gets used in extremis. I feel like the same criticism could be levied against the dollar.
For any thing that has both positive uses and negative uses, it seems reasonable to weigh the positives against the negatives. The dollar has substantial non-infringing uses that benefit people. Bitcoin less so, and particularly when weighed against the great harms (environmental or criminal) that Bitcoin brings, I don’t find the criticism baseless.
Now imagine comparing child pornography (and other things) in mediums before the internet and after. These comparisons are not useful for exponential, paradigm changing technology.
Child pornography was never a significant use of the Internet.
Facilitating CP wasn't the intent behind the internet, but there is significant use, at least if you believe the government when they're trying to justify new regulations.
The same thing holds for BTC and illicit transactions.
The same thing holds for BTC and illicit transactions.
[deleted]
I don't disagree about weighing pros and cons, of course. But I think that bitcoin advocates would argue that the bitcoin has the same "non-infringing uses that benefit people" and that it's simply a matter of time/popularity until the proportion of "good" uses vs. "bad" uses is similar to the dollar.
Not saying that it's true, necessarily. Just that the current balance isn't the end game and it's not totally fair to criticize a brand new tech/tool/whatever against well-established and well-optimized status quo.
Not saying that it's true, necessarily. Just that the current balance isn't the end game and it's not totally fair to criticize a brand new tech/tool/whatever against well-established and well-optimized status quo.
>But I think that bitcoin advocates would argue that the bitcoin has the same "non-infringing uses that benefit people"
I think it would be difficult to argue that it's useful primarily for buying your groceries.
I don't think Bitcoin advocates like following this train of thought any further than "USD is also used for crime".
I think it would be difficult to argue that it's useful primarily for buying your groceries.
I don't think Bitcoin advocates like following this train of thought any further than "USD is also used for crime".
My point is that the true believers do want to eventually buy groceries with cryptocurrency.
My point is that this conversation is unfair:
Person A: I've just invented a new currency! I think it has better intrinsic properties than USD.
Person B: Well, I can't buy groceries with it right now, so it sucks.
Similar vein:
Person A: I've invented a new thing called the lightbulb. I think it will revolutionize lighting.
Person B: It's more expensive than oil lamps and electrifying buildings would be a massive undertaking. Lightbulbs suck.
My point is that this conversation is unfair:
Person A: I've just invented a new currency! I think it has better intrinsic properties than USD.
Person B: Well, I can't buy groceries with it right now, so it sucks.
Similar vein:
Person A: I've invented a new thing called the lightbulb. I think it will revolutionize lighting.
Person B: It's more expensive than oil lamps and electrifying buildings would be a massive undertaking. Lightbulbs suck.
If lightbulbs were primarily used for buying opium and running scams on widows in the 19th century I could well understand there being some pushback on the whole idea.
As it was, they were primarily used for lighting rooms from the getgo.
I imagine some historian could probably dig up some sort of analog from 100+ years ago (possibly on tech that never did take off) but this isn't it.
As it was, they were primarily used for lighting rooms from the getgo.
I imagine some historian could probably dig up some sort of analog from 100+ years ago (possibly on tech that never did take off) but this isn't it.
I never owned any BTC. I wouldn't put all of my savings into BTC, but it would be useful for (semi-/sometimes-) anonymous transactions. That makes it better than credit cards, checks, or cash because it can't be CC skimmed or physically robbed.
I would like to buy groceries with it, but I don't want to hold much BTC for very long.
I would like to buy groceries with it, but I don't want to hold much BTC for very long.
I don't find that they do.
The things that make cash useful for money laundering and black market purchases also make it easy for me to quickly, and without unnecessary ceremony, drop a few dollars in a tip jar, give some money to a panhandler, split the bill at a restaurant, chip in to an office gift pool, pay my kids an allowance, envelope budget, buy ice cream from an ice cream truck, etc. etc. etc.
Bitcoin in particular fails miserably at these sorts of use cases because nobody wants to sit around waiting 10 minutes for a transaction to confirm over a $2 soft serve.
Crypto in general fail because they're complicated and fiddly to work with. This creates way, way too much friction these sorts of casual transactions, and effectively shuts out people who aren't technically sophisticated enough to feel comfortable messing around with this stuff.
That isn't to say that crypto doesn't work as a store of wealth. But, as a circulating, everyday currency, it seems to be stuck in the same situation that Linux on the Desktop has been for the past couple decades: for a variety of reasons, some of them very good and no real fault of its own, per se, the community just doesn't seem to be capable of sorting out the UX.
The things that make cash useful for money laundering and black market purchases also make it easy for me to quickly, and without unnecessary ceremony, drop a few dollars in a tip jar, give some money to a panhandler, split the bill at a restaurant, chip in to an office gift pool, pay my kids an allowance, envelope budget, buy ice cream from an ice cream truck, etc. etc. etc.
Bitcoin in particular fails miserably at these sorts of use cases because nobody wants to sit around waiting 10 minutes for a transaction to confirm over a $2 soft serve.
Crypto in general fail because they're complicated and fiddly to work with. This creates way, way too much friction these sorts of casual transactions, and effectively shuts out people who aren't technically sophisticated enough to feel comfortable messing around with this stuff.
That isn't to say that crypto doesn't work as a store of wealth. But, as a circulating, everyday currency, it seems to be stuck in the same situation that Linux on the Desktop has been for the past couple decades: for a variety of reasons, some of them very good and no real fault of its own, per se, the community just doesn't seem to be capable of sorting out the UX.
But if we weigh up pro- and con- Bitcoin is pretty solidly pro. Having a government-resistant unit of exchange was one of the things keeping Wikileaks alive for example.
All the negative stuff was going to happen anyway - including energy waste. Humans waste a lot of energy. Wikileaks on the other hand would have folded like an origami in any pre-cryptocurrency era.
This is the sort of press freedom that humanity has been longing for since ... I don't know. The birth of the press. It is really hard to financially abuse the truth out of conversation now. Which is part of why the blowback is so panicked.
Edit for spite: "contrary to the interest of civilisation" is the sound of a wealthy man who is friends with wealthy men who are terrified of what an organisation like Wikileaks could uncover.
All the negative stuff was going to happen anyway - including energy waste. Humans waste a lot of energy. Wikileaks on the other hand would have folded like an origami in any pre-cryptocurrency era.
This is the sort of press freedom that humanity has been longing for since ... I don't know. The birth of the press. It is really hard to financially abuse the truth out of conversation now. Which is part of why the blowback is so panicked.
Edit for spite: "contrary to the interest of civilisation" is the sound of a wealthy man who is friends with wealthy men who are terrified of what an organisation like Wikileaks could uncover.
That is the thing, many people do not believe having anything "government-resistant" is good, as they believe government is good, thus if something is resistant to government it must be bad.
If anything the last 2 years has shown me how fragile freedom is, and how much people are willing to give up freedom for safety and security. Sadly people like you and me that see Government as something that should be controlled and feared are in the minority as most people view government as the solution to all their problems, and as their moral compass.
If anything the last 2 years has shown me how fragile freedom is, and how much people are willing to give up freedom for safety and security. Sadly people like you and me that see Government as something that should be controlled and feared are in the minority as most people view government as the solution to all their problems, and as their moral compass.
Monetary value and its instruments are amoral. They're neither good nor bad, so "weighing" their uses would be entirely unfair. The demonetization in India was a perfect example of moralizing currency instruments. (The IMF loved it because of the resale of data from digitizing transactions and India loved it for tracking people's financial habits. Modi loved it because it punished poor people.)
If you're trying to ban cash because you can buy illegal things with it, then you have a logic problem.
If you're trying to ban cash because you can buy illegal things with it, then you have a logic problem.
The explicit purpose of bitcoin is to avoid government interference. In all other respects, it is inferior to standard government-backed currency, with slow transactions and huge amounts of wasted electricity. We should therefore expect BTC's primary use-case to be activity the government would interfere with, i.e. illegal activity.
True, but "illegal" is dependant on the nation it is relevant to, as an international currency legality is relative. Another way of seeing this: the benefits of global government / infrastructure without the need for global control - few nations are so democratically representative that the tax laws well represent the wills of the people.
Also true - but you might call that a separate problem, and one for which the solution is very unlikely to be "no government at all". Bitcoin takes currency permanently out of the purview of all forms of organized governance, barring unreasonable invasion of privacy. All of us now have to live in that world, and none of us were consulted - Satoshi didn't take a vote. That is far less democratic. Deliberately and unilaterally undermining our organized institutions - flawed as they are - is, if not illegal, then certainly antisocial.
Of course, you could say all the same things about e2e encryption, which society seems to have decided - grudgingly, and with much pushback - is ultimately a good thing. But perhaps free speech and financial exchange are different animals, McCutcheon vs. the Federal Election Commission notwithstanding.
Of course, you could say all the same things about e2e encryption, which society seems to have decided - grudgingly, and with much pushback - is ultimately a good thing. But perhaps free speech and financial exchange are different animals, McCutcheon vs. the Federal Election Commission notwithstanding.
> All of us now have to live in that world, and none of us were consulted
No one consulted me wrt the existence of other nations (outside my own) and their laws either, I'm not sure democracy needs to extend globally for all things.
To some degree, I think the "more/less democratic" argument is a little "whataboutism: individual freedoms are the goal of democracy, not the other way around, and btc/e2e are a form of power and civil disobedience that might help get them.
> undermining our organized institutions
Many of those institutions are private banks - they are not "mine", even though they get bailed out by tax money on occasion. Is it antisocial to be antisocial towards antisocial institutions?
> you could say all the same things about e2e encryption
You could, and the reason is a terrible record globally wrt privacy rights. I don't consider it a matter of free speech - free speech (to me) is primarily about what you can say/promote in public, privacy (to me) is about what you can keep private.
No one consulted me wrt the existence of other nations (outside my own) and their laws either, I'm not sure democracy needs to extend globally for all things.
To some degree, I think the "more/less democratic" argument is a little "whataboutism: individual freedoms are the goal of democracy, not the other way around, and btc/e2e are a form of power and civil disobedience that might help get them.
> undermining our organized institutions
Many of those institutions are private banks - they are not "mine", even though they get bailed out by tax money on occasion. Is it antisocial to be antisocial towards antisocial institutions?
> you could say all the same things about e2e encryption
You could, and the reason is a terrible record globally wrt privacy rights. I don't consider it a matter of free speech - free speech (to me) is primarily about what you can say/promote in public, privacy (to me) is about what you can keep private.
The difference is that someone can safely collect a Bitcoin ransom far from the police and can use it far from the police (no way to freeze a wallet etc.). This is called the "perfect crime" in research on ecash dating back to the early 90s.
criminals tend to prefer privacy coins like monero over bitcoin because of how easy it is to track bitcoin transfers. If any of their bitcoin transfers ever touches a KYC wallet they are screwed; until taproot gets activated for bitcoin it requires a ton of work to truly stay anonymous
> criminals tend to prefer privacy coins like monero over bitcoin
This is speculation with very little connection to reality. If you actually go on crime forums you will see that privacy coins are not as widely used as you might think.
This is speculation with very little connection to reality. If you actually go on crime forums you will see that privacy coins are not as widely used as you might think.
As far as known darknet markets go they've all switched from Bitcoin to Monero.
If we're talking bigger fish it's speculation that they prefer cryptocurrency over traditional assets or cash in the first place. Follow the money and it often leads you to illegal activity. Banks like HSBC know all about laundering drug money and enabling scams.
https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/hsbc-moved-...
If we're talking bigger fish it's speculation that they prefer cryptocurrency over traditional assets or cash in the first place. Follow the money and it often leads you to illegal activity. Banks like HSBC know all about laundering drug money and enabling scams.
https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/hsbc-moved-...
> As far as known darknet markets go they've all switched from Bitcoin to Monero.
This is not true. A few big markets have switched, not “all”.
Besides drug markets, all the conventional cybercrime markets and forums still run on bitcoin.
This is not true. A few big markets have switched, not “all”.
Besides drug markets, all the conventional cybercrime markets and forums still run on bitcoin.
The vast majority of goods sold in those markets is just drugs. Though admittedly I'm not a criminal and don't know anything about the more evil corners of the dark web.
Can you name a few of those "conventional" crime markets? I'm curious to know.
Can you name a few of those "conventional" crime markets? I'm curious to know.
Exploit.in, verified, maza, xss. Loads of public runet forums, english language crime forums like darkode have all died but the russian forums welcome english speakers.
Fraud shops like unicc, ferum, slilpp move more money than darknet drug markets and primarily use BTC or LTC (I don’t think any accept XMR)
Hydra, the biggest darknet drug market still doesn’t accept monero.
Of course it would make sense for all of these people to be using monero, just like the efficient market hypothesis makes sense.
Fraud shops like unicc, ferum, slilpp move more money than darknet drug markets and primarily use BTC or LTC (I don’t think any accept XMR)
Hydra, the biggest darknet drug market still doesn’t accept monero.
Of course it would make sense for all of these people to be using monero, just like the efficient market hypothesis makes sense.
Cheers!
Hard to say what's the biggest shadow market of course but afaik WHM is the largest one for drugs and they only accept Monero. You're right, Bitcoin is still popular in the Russian forums, but that's at least partly because it's easier to cash it out anonymously over there. Lots of services that let you exchange your BTC for cash and my guess is the remaining coins just go through tumblers until they're clean.
https://news.bitcoin.com/darknet-giant-white-house-market-dr...
Hard to say what's the biggest shadow market of course but afaik WHM is the largest one for drugs and they only accept Monero. You're right, Bitcoin is still popular in the Russian forums, but that's at least partly because it's easier to cash it out anonymously over there. Lots of services that let you exchange your BTC for cash and my guess is the remaining coins just go through tumblers until they're clean.
https://news.bitcoin.com/darknet-giant-white-house-market-dr...
FWIW Hydra is vastly bigger drug market than WHM.
A major talking point of the pro bitcoin people is that it is "permissionless and decentralized". And it is a good way to bypass governmental interference. They usually talk about the FED in this capacity, but it also applies to drug and ransomware legal controls as well. I think that is what he is talking about here. He isn't saying that cartels don't deal in cash. I'm sure he understands that.
To steelman the argument here, it sounds me like the concerns isn't in how it's used, but it's usefulness in certain applications.
Bitcoin has many of the traceability problems as cash, while also being easier to transact. While I personally think it's a good thing that companies banned from traditional banking / merchant services are using Bitcoin to fund their operations, there is a reason for them using it.
Bitcoin has many of the traceability problems as cash, while also being easier to transact. While I personally think it's a good thing that companies banned from traditional banking / merchant services are using Bitcoin to fund their operations, there is a reason for them using it.
Dollars are inflationary and therefore primarily currency, not assets. They're also far more useful, so people are likely to only pay the massive crypto tax (exchange fee, loss of liquidity) if they need to be outside of a legal system.
Also, is it "in extremis"? It seems like the vast majority of transactions of crypto are for ransomware, contraband (guns, drugs, humans), or exchange between speculators.
Also, is it "in extremis"? It seems like the vast majority of transactions of crypto are for ransomware, contraband (guns, drugs, humans), or exchange between speculators.
> the vast majority of transactions
Are transactions relevant though? A lot of BTC is just being held, presumably for the sake of future popularity. You could see BTC investment as a bet on the future of BTC as a normal/common currency.
Are transactions relevant though? A lot of BTC is just being held, presumably for the sake of future popularity. You could see BTC investment as a bet on the future of BTC as a normal/common currency.
> You could see BTC investment as a bet on the future of BTC as a normal/common currency.
Yes, I totally agree. The question is: what has to happen before it's a common currency?
See my other comment for my thoughts on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27104956
Yes, I totally agree. The question is: what has to happen before it's a common currency?
See my other comment for my thoughts on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27104956
I think they're envious and jealous because they didn't think of it and didn't get in on it. (Sour grapes) In that context, associating a financial instrument with particular real-world crimes seems like throwing FUD.
[deleted]
extremis? And the petrodollar is useful to slavers, murderers and colonialists; Show me a currency-issuing superpower with no blood on its hands.
Much like piracy prevented the most deranged attempts of the copyright industry - cyber-currency may put limits on state seizures and overtaxing.
At least for now BTC isn't anonymous (leaves a public paper trail) so it's not so perfect for crime. And an anonymous currency will still be liable at the entry/exit points.
Much like piracy prevented the most deranged attempts of the copyright industry - cyber-currency may put limits on state seizures and overtaxing.
At least for now BTC isn't anonymous (leaves a public paper trail) so it's not so perfect for crime. And an anonymous currency will still be liable at the entry/exit points.
Just bear in mind, what he says you probably shouldn't take at face value. After all, he is king of shorting currencies that has actively ruined lives.
[deleted]
Especially how at one point apparently a high percentage of US currency had traces of cocaine and other drugs on them.
Except the primary use of the dollar is good. The same can't be said about the primary use for Bitcoin (which is, at best, speculation).
[deleted]
Have you traveled? Enough places where the dollar is not the national currency but still accepted and used for purchasing drug and weapons.
I'm not familiar with foreign drug and weapons markets, but even so,
That is still a significant minority compared to USD as a whole. BTC as a whole is used for just that and gambling.
That is still a significant minority compared to USD as a whole. BTC as a whole is used for just that and gambling.
Even the most Pollyanna reports from firms that exist to ‘fight’ crime say it 2% criminal. I don’t know how much of that is illegal source versus regulatory evasion. World black market GDP is estimated somewhere around 25%.
And it make sense that it would be so low. Let’s say you just got $1M in Bitcoin and you have to pay your suppliers $500k in cold cash. Not going to happen. Only from other criminals that take profits in cash. But there is obviously a limit to that. I think the point is that those 2% can help a lot in fighting the 25%.
The fear is that illegal commerce could be conducted without fiat conversion. That would require that regular commerce would also be done in the same currency that the criminals use. This is fiat’s game to lose.
And by the way, this is why I love crypto. It has promise as an amazing technology for choosing financial participation according to personal and private community values. Although I’ll admit we’re not there yet, and a lot of the stuff might now be owned by people we wouldn’t want to have power over us. We’re still in the phase of speculation and fear and power struggles. I just hope that fear of the old power structures doesn’t bring good people to ally with values that we would not want in a new system.
And it make sense that it would be so low. Let’s say you just got $1M in Bitcoin and you have to pay your suppliers $500k in cold cash. Not going to happen. Only from other criminals that take profits in cash. But there is obviously a limit to that. I think the point is that those 2% can help a lot in fighting the 25%.
The fear is that illegal commerce could be conducted without fiat conversion. That would require that regular commerce would also be done in the same currency that the criminals use. This is fiat’s game to lose.
And by the way, this is why I love crypto. It has promise as an amazing technology for choosing financial participation according to personal and private community values. Although I’ll admit we’re not there yet, and a lot of the stuff might now be owned by people we wouldn’t want to have power over us. We’re still in the phase of speculation and fear and power struggles. I just hope that fear of the old power structures doesn’t bring good people to ally with values that we would not want in a new system.
> I just hope that fear of the old power structures doesn’t bring good people to ally with values that we would not want in a new system.
That's why people need to call BS on the current hype train. Otherwise, when a sufficient solution surfaces, people are going to distrust it just as much as the old power structures. And I'd say we're already getting close to that point.
The problem is, with equal distrust, people will tend to choose the option that doesn't require change.
That's why people need to call BS on the current hype train. Otherwise, when a sufficient solution surfaces, people are going to distrust it just as much as the old power structures. And I'd say we're already getting close to that point.
The problem is, with equal distrust, people will tend to choose the option that doesn't require change.
It is getting pretty ridiculous out there. The gas price today was higher than recent memory with about half of it spent on dog coins. Also, Vitalik is now far wealthier in dog coins than Ethereum. If he was a US citizen he would owe billions on that, and last I checked, the treasury doesn’t accept dog coins.
I’m kind of neutral on which financial system prevails so long as it’s the best for society. I stand to gain a lot more if it’s the cypherpunk version, but, I’m not sure that the conditions that would bring that on would be good. The rule of all aspects of society by a maniacal banking elite is pretty dystopic too though.
Ultimately I think the best monetary system will emerge through competition among societies. Obsolescence more than decision. That might take a long time, and perhaps it’s too hopeful. What evidence do I have for that?
I’m kind of neutral on which financial system prevails so long as it’s the best for society. I stand to gain a lot more if it’s the cypherpunk version, but, I’m not sure that the conditions that would bring that on would be good. The rule of all aspects of society by a maniacal banking elite is pretty dystopic too though.
Ultimately I think the best monetary system will emerge through competition among societies. Obsolescence more than decision. That might take a long time, and perhaps it’s too hopeful. What evidence do I have for that?
Looking at your comment history, it's too bad we're seeing this type of trolling leak out of Reddit onto HN.
Isn’t that the same for gold? That it’s for speculation? Or stocks.
Stocks represent an ownership in a company. They can be speculated on but that's not the primary purpose.
I very much disagree. How many people with 401ks and/or other retirement vehicles actually know what companies they "own"? How many of them vote? How many of them actually have enough of the right kinds of shares to vote?
To say that stocks are about owning a company in practice is the same as saying bitcoin is just money like the dollar. It's true in theory, but it's not the practical reality of this moment in history.
To say that stocks are about owning a company in practice is the same as saying bitcoin is just money like the dollar. It's true in theory, but it's not the practical reality of this moment in history.
If they bought the stock they are helping fund the business. The shareholders are keeping the stock because it represents their stake but the actual money paid can be used by the company selling its stock and that’s the primary purpose. Whether the buyer/investor votes, or knows what they bought, doesn’t change anything in that respect.
If you buy into an IPO you're helping the business raise funds. If you buy stock from other stock owners it doesn't help the business.
The existence of a secondary market helps the business to sell their IPO in the first place. Additionally they can raise more funds by selling additional shares.
Additionally the people who own shares own the company so what benefits the shareholders benefits the company and vice versa as their interests are the same.
Additionally the people who own shares own the company so what benefits the shareholders benefits the company and vice versa as their interests are the same.
> If you buy stock from other stock owners it doesn't help the business
Incorrect. That's what keeps the market for the stock liquid, and that contributes to value which the company can exploit through future stock issuing. Not to mention the indirect benefits to stakeholders within the company in terms of price and liquidity.
Incorrect. That's what keeps the market for the stock liquid, and that contributes to value which the company can exploit through future stock issuing. Not to mention the indirect benefits to stakeholders within the company in terms of price and liquidity.
If I buy the stock in order to hold it for 30 years, doesn't that reduce liquidity?
No, because your holding increases the price until someone else decides it's time to tell. In other words, the lack of liquidity increases price. Regarding your original question, that increase is GOOD for the company because it can raise more money for selling the same amount of stock.
Well, of course there are other subtleties involved, but even the money that I pay for a given stock doesn't just go to the company unless it's an IPO. It might indirectly benefit the company because I'm adding to the demand and driving the stock price up, which helps all holders of the stock, including the company that issued the stock originally.
However, my point is that people are not buying stocks to own OR to benefit the company. They're buying stock so that a "bigger sucker" will come around later and buy it from them and they can make a profit.
So I guess it depends on who we're talking about when we say "primary purpose", but for anyone who is purchasing stocks, the primary purpose is NOT to be an owner of a company. The primary purpose is to speculate.
However, my point is that people are not buying stocks to own OR to benefit the company. They're buying stock so that a "bigger sucker" will come around later and buy it from them and they can make a profit.
So I guess it depends on who we're talking about when we say "primary purpose", but for anyone who is purchasing stocks, the primary purpose is NOT to be an owner of a company. The primary purpose is to speculate.
A trillion dollars a year are disbursed by the companies of the S&P 500 to their shareholders, in the form of dividends and stock buybacks. Berkshire Hathaway itself bought back $25B of its stock in 2020.
Buybacks absolutely count under speculation-then-bigger-sucker.
The difference between a stock buyback and iterative speculation is that the "bigger sucker" in a stock buyback is the customer interested in the actual product being sold by the company.
Gold has a practical application creating demand, in addition to it being a speculative product. I guess you could argue the same for BTC in that you can put short messages in it, but I don't think that's a very valuable thing to have.
You forget the payment network without a third party.
I feel the same argument can be make about Tor. While it primary uses are probably illegal (doesn't necessary mean immoral) activity, it helps a lot free press in oppressed regimes (also illegal, but by western standards moral).
Bitcoin doesn't have the equivalent of a "free press."
And TOR is rarely used. Journalists use apps like Signal now.
And TOR is rarely used. Journalists use apps like Signal now.
> And TOR is rarely used. Journalists use apps like Signal now.
Absolutely not. Internet censorship is growing rapidly - worldwide.
A lot of "legitimate" websites like newspapers get blocked around the world and can only be accessed over Tor.
Absolutely not. Internet censorship is growing rapidly - worldwide.
A lot of "legitimate" websites like newspapers get blocked around the world and can only be accessed over Tor.
In Russia a few independent newspapers were killed by arresting their bank accounts.
Signal does not let public fund jurnalists.
Signal does not let public fund jurnalists.
>I feel the same argument can be make about Tor. While it primary uses are probably illegal
I very much doubt that. Its primary uses are probably porn and researching embarrassing medical conditions.
I very much doubt that. Its primary uses are probably porn and researching embarrassing medical conditions.
I'm confused by this statement. The primary use of the dollar is as a currency. The primary use of Bitcoin is as a currency. The fact that so much of Bitcoin's traded volume is used for speculation is actually an issue with excess dollar liquidity available for speculation, not because of some problem inherent to Bitcoin. That liquidity would just move to some other financial product that probably wouldn't make the news because the concept is too complicated to grok, unlike "BITCOIN BAD AND NOT REAL MONEY".
> The primary use of Bitcoin is as a currency
An intended hypothetical use, or actual use in paying for goods or services now?
An intended hypothetical use, or actual use in paying for goods or services now?
The primary use case of Bitcoin is to evade governments control over capital. Sometimes that’s good (governments disgorging kidnappers of their ransom). Sometimes that’s bad (Nazis seizing wealth of targeted groups). Sometimes it depends on your perspective (governments preventing the trade in illicit drugs).
Overall how you feel about this in aggregate will depend on how comfortable you are with government power. Let’s even ignore the fact that Bitcoin today is being used to circumvent unquestionably oppressive governments (Venezuela, China, Iran). Even as a hardened libertarian, I’ll freely admit that Americans and Europeans live under a generally fair and just government. Bitcoin is still worth it as a fail safe against future totalitarianism.
It’s the same reason I support the Second Amendment. Having a bunch of people run around with guns probably doesn’t help much today, and may even have ongoing social costs. But it would make things a hell of a lot harder for any would be tyrants. Not that it’d be impossible, but small frictions can have big impacts on the course of history. That’s a civilizational insurance policy worth paying.
Overall how you feel about this in aggregate will depend on how comfortable you are with government power. Let’s even ignore the fact that Bitcoin today is being used to circumvent unquestionably oppressive governments (Venezuela, China, Iran). Even as a hardened libertarian, I’ll freely admit that Americans and Europeans live under a generally fair and just government. Bitcoin is still worth it as a fail safe against future totalitarianism.
It’s the same reason I support the Second Amendment. Having a bunch of people run around with guns probably doesn’t help much today, and may even have ongoing social costs. But it would make things a hell of a lot harder for any would be tyrants. Not that it’d be impossible, but small frictions can have big impacts on the course of history. That’s a civilizational insurance policy worth paying.
> It’s the same reason I support the Second Amendment [...] would make things a hell of a lot harder for any would be tyrants.
Yet, somehow the rest of the democratic world spins around just fine without millions of semi-automatic weapons sloshing about.
Yet, somehow the rest of the democratic world spins around just fine without millions of semi-automatic weapons sloshing about.
Most of the democratic world fell under fascist and/or Marxist-Leninist totalitarian regimes within living memory.
There’s only four independent democracies uninterrupted over the past century. Two have widespread civilian firearm ownership.
There’s only four independent democracies uninterrupted over the past century. Two have widespread civilian firearm ownership.
> Most of the democratic world fell under fascist and/or Marxist-Leninist totalitarian regimes within living memory.
Are you suggesting that a few extra light weapons floating around in the 1930s would have stopped the Nazis and Soviets steam rolling across the Europe?
Are you suggesting civilian firearm ownership somehow prevented the Nazis from skipping over the Atlantic and taking over America? Why did America waste all that money on submarines and aircraft carriers, when they had such deep reserves of plucky gun enthusiasts at the ready?
I'm so confused by your comment.
Are you suggesting that a few extra light weapons floating around in the 1930s would have stopped the Nazis and Soviets steam rolling across the Europe?
Are you suggesting civilian firearm ownership somehow prevented the Nazis from skipping over the Atlantic and taking over America? Why did America waste all that money on submarines and aircraft carriers, when they had such deep reserves of plucky gun enthusiasts at the ready?
I'm so confused by your comment.
Based on your numbers, owning guns has no affect or even a negative affect.
You… really think a tyrant would fail because of a bunch of armed general population? The make or break is having public support, a bunch of people armed with guns don’t make a difference - maybe they would when the amendment was written, but the efficiency gap between a person with a gun vs US military has increased 1000x.
This logic only holds if you assume that the US military are merciless killing machines that unquestioningly follow orders. There are plenty of examples of much weaker revolutionary forces prevailing over modern well-funded militaries.[1] Heck, there are many examples of civilian areas that are so persistently violent that the state simply refuses to enforce laws there.[2]
No leader has unilateral control to unleash the full force of the military on their own citizenry. Imagine what would happen if POTUS tried to order a nuclear strike, or even aerial bombing, on an American city? The Joint Chiefs would almost certainly arrest him immediately. Ordering soldiers to fire on their fellow citizens drastically raises the probability of outright mutiny. This is true even in the most oppressive regimes. Even the Nazis were genuinely scared of average German citizens turning on them for perceived abuses.[3]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_revolution_of_2011 [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-go_area [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Netherlands#The_...
No leader has unilateral control to unleash the full force of the military on their own citizenry. Imagine what would happen if POTUS tried to order a nuclear strike, or even aerial bombing, on an American city? The Joint Chiefs would almost certainly arrest him immediately. Ordering soldiers to fire on their fellow citizens drastically raises the probability of outright mutiny. This is true even in the most oppressive regimes. Even the Nazis were genuinely scared of average German citizens turning on them for perceived abuses.[3]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_revolution_of_2011 [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-go_area [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Netherlands#The_...
You provided more evidence for my case - you don’t need an armed population, just enough public support that can overwhelm armed forces and would cause a bloodbath/loss of military and police loyalty. You linked Egyptian revolution which was literally triggered by civil disobedience. Same for Nazis afraid of average German citizens.
None of the no-go areas sound like historical examples you would want to follow unless you like anarchy. They are messy pro-longed conflicts unlike eg Euromaidan.
None of the no-go areas sound like historical examples you would want to follow unless you like anarchy. They are messy pro-longed conflicts unlike eg Euromaidan.
[deleted]
maxqin1(2)
I also find it strange. The same thing could be said of airplanes, slow cookers, and propane tanks.
There are harmful, fringe, uses of those items but the vast majority of the use-cases fit a slow cooker aren’t harmful. The same cannot be said of bitcoin, where the primary use-case is facilitating nefarious business.
For better it worse, the primary use case of Bitcoin is as a store of value. I find it misleading to tell people that the “primary use-case is facilitating nefarious business”. Do you have some data to back up a statement which says that the vast majority of Bitcoin is used in that way? I’m not suggesting there aren’t bad actors out there. But there are plenty of bad actors who deal in fiat as well. But this was the point I was trying to make. The nefarious actors are an edge case.
Bitcoin wouldn't function as a store of value if it didn't have an underlying use case. This is true of all stores of value - with gold it's shiny and useful, with cash you can pay taxes, with a home you can live in it, etc.
In Bitcoin that use case is wealth transfer that is uninhibited by law.
That essentially makes it kind of like an index tracker for the underground economy.
In Bitcoin that use case is wealth transfer that is uninhibited by law.
That essentially makes it kind of like an index tracker for the underground economy.
Something is valuable because someone else also believes it has value. Have you considered that people put their money in Bitcoin to avoid it being stolen by nefarious/oppressive governments or to hedge against inflation or as speculative investment that Bitcoin will offer additional use cases in the future? Those all seem like legitimate use cases to me.
I don't disagree that it's an underground economy, but that's only because it hasn't hit the mainstream. But being underground doesn't necessarily mean nefarious or illegal. Those bad actors definitely exist in the Bitcoin economy and all other economies. But without some data I'm having trouble coming around to the idea that the majority of Bitcoin is used for illegal purposes.
I don't disagree that it's an underground economy, but that's only because it hasn't hit the mainstream. But being underground doesn't necessarily mean nefarious or illegal. Those bad actors definitely exist in the Bitcoin economy and all other economies. But without some data I'm having trouble coming around to the idea that the majority of Bitcoin is used for illegal purposes.
I have considered that. Nonetheless, the people who try the hardest to get money out of oppressive countries are typically the corrupt - they know that their rackets have an end date and they want an exit strategy when that happens. We shouldn't kid ourselves - this is who we are really helping here. It's the same people who buy luxury apartments in New York and London and leave them empty just in case.
I find it hard to believe that anything beyond a small minority of transactions are the "good kind of underground transaction".
I find it hard to believe that anything beyond a small minority of transactions are the "good kind of underground transaction".
[deleted]
Working together is in the best interest of humans. Humans require trust to operate. A system designed around mistrust is inherently against our nature.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Do you consider the middleman banking system a sign of trust? How about the invasion of privacy required by the state in order to collect taxes?
It used to be that humans could exchange value without third parties. The third party was introduced exactly because of mistrust, and eventually this practice grew so widespread and big that it became a new industry all on its own. Cryptocurrency cuts out that third party, and makes business a one-to-one interaction again, where contracts can even be fully automated.
Of course all third parties out there dislike this, but there might still be a silver lining for them. For the state, all Bitcoin transactions are visible on the blockchain, for instance. This makes Bitcoin inherently less useful to kidnappers and extortionists and so forth... And for the banks it makes the transfer of big amounts of value extremely safe (contrast this to what's going on in South Africa at the moment, where value transports are being violently targeted by cutthroat bandits). It also opens up a wholly new business opportunity for them if they start exchanges and on- and offramps for crypto. Already new organizations are being made that grant interest on loaning out or staking crypto, for instance.
It used to be that humans could exchange value without third parties. The third party was introduced exactly because of mistrust, and eventually this practice grew so widespread and big that it became a new industry all on its own. Cryptocurrency cuts out that third party, and makes business a one-to-one interaction again, where contracts can even be fully automated.
Of course all third parties out there dislike this, but there might still be a silver lining for them. For the state, all Bitcoin transactions are visible on the blockchain, for instance. This makes Bitcoin inherently less useful to kidnappers and extortionists and so forth... And for the banks it makes the transfer of big amounts of value extremely safe (contrast this to what's going on in South Africa at the moment, where value transports are being violently targeted by cutthroat bandits). It also opens up a wholly new business opportunity for them if they start exchanges and on- and offramps for crypto. Already new organizations are being made that grant interest on loaning out or staking crypto, for instance.
Trustless systems expand who you can cooperate with. Systems which require trust limit you to cooperating with those you trust.
Furthermore, systems which are manipulable by a central group that you are supposed to trust are often used not because they are trusted, but because there are not good alternatives. The trust element is only a factor if there are options. Decentralized systems are about moving control to a protocol all participants agree to rather than a small group of people.
Furthermore, systems which are manipulable by a central group that you are supposed to trust are often used not because they are trusted, but because there are not good alternatives. The trust element is only a factor if there are options. Decentralized systems are about moving control to a protocol all participants agree to rather than a small group of people.
Modern civilization is designed around mistrust. It's the reason we have police, contracts, lawyers, double-entry accounting, the SEC, and all sorts of other things. Blockchains are just a logical progression now that we have internet.
So you never sign contracts?
I would say our whole legal system is based on mistrust.
I would say our whole legal system is based on mistrust.
It's not designed around mistrust, it's designed to not require trust. There's a big difference.
Why would you want trust where it's not needed? Trust is a barrier, not a feature.
Why would you want trust where it's not needed? Trust is a barrier, not a feature.
Designed around mistrust? Surely you mean motivated by distrust in the financial system? You know, the same financial system that launders cartel money, rigs interest markets against the poor, and crashes housing markets to make pensioners go broke?
The moral problems exist for a minority of USD, but a majority of BTC.
That's why there are control systems in place. Institutions. Their effectiveness may be debatable, but by embracing Bitcoin (imho) we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater for not a good enough reason.
But what do I know. For me this whole Coin-Thing looks like Online Poker did 20 years ago. People like to gamble and they like Robin Hood type of stories..
But what do I know. For me this whole Coin-Thing looks like Online Poker did 20 years ago. People like to gamble and they like Robin Hood type of stories..
If you think of all investments as a bet, what are you betting on when you buy crypto?
In my opinion, you're betting that crypto will be useful as an exchange of value, which means the people exchanging it are either: A) criminals or B) living in a failed state.
Personally, if crypto becomes so widely used that it justifies its market caps, that means a lot of states have failed, and I don't want to live in (or bet on) that world.
It's also scary that some very rich and powerful people are betting against our society continuing to be viable.
In my opinion, you're betting that crypto will be useful as an exchange of value, which means the people exchanging it are either: A) criminals or B) living in a failed state.
Personally, if crypto becomes so widely used that it justifies its market caps, that means a lot of states have failed, and I don't want to live in (or bet on) that world.
It's also scary that some very rich and powerful people are betting against our society continuing to be viable.
I'm betting that finally there is an asset that works as store of value that doesn't deflate and which is easy to use. Let's be honest, BTC could be the best one. Owning gold (or other rare metal) is an assle. Need a safe place to store it and transport it is so risky. Or I need to trust someone else or an institution to hold it if I don't want to hold it myself.
Real estate takes a lot of time and research to chose a proper investment. Besides, what I want to store 100 dollars only? Or 10000? not enough for that. And REITs again require a lot of research and are not risk-free. Then you have other assets like art and so on, but again, needs research, and what are the likelyhood of findind something exactly at my price range? Besides they can be destroyed in fire or something else.
Also not stocks sorry. I don't want to risk my hard earned money. Maybe part of it, i can, and I nicely get some positive return. But not all. Also not bonds or bank interest. I don't want to have my money stuck for years. I want something where I can easily set and forget, liquid, immaterial, which is safe, and where I don't need to trust anybody but myself. It doesn't even need to appreciate, just hold its value. What do you propose besides BTC?
I don't see anything that can be potentially better.
Real estate takes a lot of time and research to chose a proper investment. Besides, what I want to store 100 dollars only? Or 10000? not enough for that. And REITs again require a lot of research and are not risk-free. Then you have other assets like art and so on, but again, needs research, and what are the likelyhood of findind something exactly at my price range? Besides they can be destroyed in fire or something else.
Also not stocks sorry. I don't want to risk my hard earned money. Maybe part of it, i can, and I nicely get some positive return. But not all. Also not bonds or bank interest. I don't want to have my money stuck for years. I want something where I can easily set and forget, liquid, immaterial, which is safe, and where I don't need to trust anybody but myself. It doesn't even need to appreciate, just hold its value. What do you propose besides BTC?
I don't see anything that can be potentially better.
How is BTC a better store of value than real estate or gold? It literally has no intrinsic value, unlike real estate or gold. Stocks are also technically valuable because they are a share of a real company and that company's profits.
These are also a store of value / investments but Bitcoin is different.
As far as I know, I can not buy small parts of real estate. Gold supply is not fixed and it’s hard to validate. Companies can go bankrupt.
I can not transfer real estate, gold or stocks over the internet to someone else directly, without using a third party.
As far as I know, I can not buy small parts of real estate. Gold supply is not fixed and it’s hard to validate. Companies can go bankrupt.
I can not transfer real estate, gold or stocks over the internet to someone else directly, without using a third party.
> As far as I know, I can not buy small parts of real estate.
Of course you can[1].
> Gold supply is not fixed and it’s hard to validate.
Gold supply is more difficult to shock than crypto supply.
> Companies can go bankrupt.
Yes they can, but that doesn't mean you lose your stake in them. Large, public companies go bankrupt very slowly anyway. You usually have years of warning.
> I can not transfer real estate, gold or stocks over the internet to someone else directly, without using a third party.
How many people self-host their wallet? Very, very few.
Also, you can absolutely buy stocks without an intermediary[2]. I don't see why you'd want to, though.
1. https://www.investopedia.com/top-reits-4582128
2. https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-ba...
Of course you can[1].
> Gold supply is not fixed and it’s hard to validate.
Gold supply is more difficult to shock than crypto supply.
> Companies can go bankrupt.
Yes they can, but that doesn't mean you lose your stake in them. Large, public companies go bankrupt very slowly anyway. You usually have years of warning.
> I can not transfer real estate, gold or stocks over the internet to someone else directly, without using a third party.
How many people self-host their wallet? Very, very few.
Also, you can absolutely buy stocks without an intermediary[2]. I don't see why you'd want to, though.
1. https://www.investopedia.com/top-reits-4582128
2. https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-ba...
Didn’t know about real estate trust funds. Thanks! :)
Nobody does, but it’s a possibility, and we’re hoping that self-sovereign money makes for a more peaceful transition in those places.
If it’s total chaos, the criminals will have total control. We have seen this many times. To see why people buy it, understand their fear of what might happen to them if they don’t.
If it’s total chaos, the criminals will have total control. We have seen this many times. To see why people buy it, understand their fear of what might happen to them if they don’t.
> To see why people buy it, understand their fear of what might happen to them if they don’t.
Yes, I totally understand it. My opposition to crypto speculation is as follows:
1) Investments can be a self-fulfilling prophecy if extremely powerful/wealthy people are involved. If you bet on an outcome and also have the power to create it, can we really trust you not to do that?
See also: Peter Thiel buying property in NZ to prepare for societal collapse, even as he worked for the previous presidential administration.
2) This one is just personal to me -- if crypto becomes an important alternative to USD fiat, the world has likely collapsed and I'll probably either be dead or ready to die.
It's hard to overstate the consequences of the US collapsing, considering the enormous amount of military power that our country has.
Yes, I totally understand it. My opposition to crypto speculation is as follows:
1) Investments can be a self-fulfilling prophecy if extremely powerful/wealthy people are involved. If you bet on an outcome and also have the power to create it, can we really trust you not to do that?
See also: Peter Thiel buying property in NZ to prepare for societal collapse, even as he worked for the previous presidential administration.
2) This one is just personal to me -- if crypto becomes an important alternative to USD fiat, the world has likely collapsed and I'll probably either be dead or ready to die.
It's hard to overstate the consequences of the US collapsing, considering the enormous amount of military power that our country has.
> 2) This one is just personal to me -- if crypto becomes an important alternative to USD fiat, the world has likely collapsed and I'll probably either be dead or ready to die.
This is pretty fatalistic. Life goes on, even through war and grief. Just because you don't like the contemplations doesn't make them unrealistic or un-navigable.
Major power transitions are historically accompanied by world war, in such a war the electrical grid will be one of the first casualties. You can't use Crypto without a functional power grid. IMHO, Cryptocurrency isn't a good fit for this scenario. War is bad for cryptocurrency.
> It's hard to overstate the consequences of the US collapsing, considering the enormous amount of military power that our country has.
War has ever been unthinkable, yet it is historically common.
The US military needs an incredible amount of high tech supplies and upkeep to sustain, it would not survive as-is in a significant downturn.
This is pretty fatalistic. Life goes on, even through war and grief. Just because you don't like the contemplations doesn't make them unrealistic or un-navigable.
Major power transitions are historically accompanied by world war, in such a war the electrical grid will be one of the first casualties. You can't use Crypto without a functional power grid. IMHO, Cryptocurrency isn't a good fit for this scenario. War is bad for cryptocurrency.
> It's hard to overstate the consequences of the US collapsing, considering the enormous amount of military power that our country has.
War has ever been unthinkable, yet it is historically common.
The US military needs an incredible amount of high tech supplies and upkeep to sustain, it would not survive as-is in a significant downturn.
You're basically denying that the future will be unlike the past. I'm sure people had a much rosier view of war before WWI, too.
We've never seen an all-out war in the nuclear era.
We've never seen an all-out war in the nuclear era.
Scary but plausible. I never assume that the richest and most powerful of people are also the most moral, ethical, or even viable. Seems to me it's more likely to go the other way, and that the richest and most powerful of people are that way because they're incredibly toxic and to them, even that is not nearly enough.
To someone like that, the only question about bitcoin is 'can I gain something off this in some way no matter who or what it destroys in the process?'
Sounds like a natural match to me, and so I'm unsurprised that some of the richest and most powerful people are all in on bitcoin. It's just that they have no intention of bitcoin, or society, ending up viable. They see a way to game it.
Period.
To someone like that, the only question about bitcoin is 'can I gain something off this in some way no matter who or what it destroys in the process?'
Sounds like a natural match to me, and so I'm unsurprised that some of the richest and most powerful people are all in on bitcoin. It's just that they have no intention of bitcoin, or society, ending up viable. They see a way to game it.
Period.
Crypto right now is more like something people are speculating on, but it's like a collectible piece of art or something. It's cool as an idea, but that's about it. It's not going to become the currency of a failed state, there are far more power efficient and opaque ways of doing things.
Basically states print money anyway, and just hand it to the banks.
Basically states print money anyway, and just hand it to the banks.
> It's not going to become the currency of a failed state, there are far more power efficient and opaque ways of doing things.
It's already being used as a proxy for USD in some failed states (which is exactly what every stablecoin's value proposition would be). It's certainly not widespread, but it makes sense in a society where you don't actually need/want to convert to fiat to transact.
It's already being used as a proxy for USD in some failed states (which is exactly what every stablecoin's value proposition would be). It's certainly not widespread, but it makes sense in a society where you don't actually need/want to convert to fiat to transact.
In my somewhat limited circle, most people that I know are buying it as its price is rising. They are betting they can sell it for more than they paid. Only a few actually use it as a currency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory
Totally agree. What I was saying was theoretical: just as the value of a stock is a dividend (which some stocks will never give out to investors!), the value of crypto is its future liquidity.
Those are both theoretical, of course. Most trading activity of those assets will be from speculation (assuming they'll find a "greater fool") and not a fundamental belief in the currency or in the dividend.
Those are both theoretical, of course. Most trading activity of those assets will be from speculation (assuming they'll find a "greater fool") and not a fundamental belief in the currency or in the dividend.
First up, there is no worldwide currency. It would be nice in an internet world, to have a worldwide currency.
Next, decentralization is awesome.
You can always claim that any improvement is the proof of a failed earlier system.
If the success of crypto means the system has failed, maybe you should blame the problem and not the solution.
Next, decentralization is awesome.
You can always claim that any improvement is the proof of a failed earlier system.
If the success of crypto means the system has failed, maybe you should blame the problem and not the solution.
> First up, there is no worldwide currency. It would be nice in an internet world, to have a worldwide currency.
Crypto is not a currency, especially if it's deflationary. It's an asset.
Crypto is also not even close to useful worldwide, and it's hard to imagine why it would be come useful worldwide. USD works pretty well as a global currency at the moment. It has cheaper exchange fees than crypto.
> Next, decentralization is awesome.
Until a 51% attack takes all your money away, or your wallet gets hacked...
Crypto is not a currency, especially if it's deflationary. It's an asset.
Crypto is also not even close to useful worldwide, and it's hard to imagine why it would be come useful worldwide. USD works pretty well as a global currency at the moment. It has cheaper exchange fees than crypto.
> Next, decentralization is awesome.
Until a 51% attack takes all your money away, or your wallet gets hacked...
> It's an asset.
Your US government policies don't apply to the rest of the world. Wikipedia defines it as currency. It's also in the name: cryptocurrency.
> USD works pretty well as a global currency
Lol
Your US government policies don't apply to the rest of the world. Wikipedia defines it as currency. It's also in the name: cryptocurrency.
> USD works pretty well as a global currency
Lol
I just posted an article that talks about how awful Bitcoin is. One thing to have in mind is that many who are contrary to Bitcoin love the legal tender we are forced to use... which is also awful.
* https://henvic.dev/posts/bitcoin/
* https://henvic.dev/posts/bitcoin/
Another arrow for the Four Horsemen of the infocalypse:
- child pornographers, - terrorists, - drug dealers, - money launderers / organized crimes
- child pornographers, - terrorists, - drug dealers, - money launderers / organized crimes
I'm not a fan of Bitcoin,
but often "contrary to the interest of civilization" means "contrary to the interest of me".
but often "contrary to the interest of civilization" means "contrary to the interest of me".
When the environment or climate is involved I think Warren Buffet is pretty far down the list of people who will be directly personally affected.
Yes, and yes. But, if Berkshire wanted to they could pump BTC to new heights and undoubtedly make a profit.
Doubt they are rich enough to corner the BTC market if that is what you are suggesting.
Berkshire Hathaway's market capitalization is more than $600B, so actually they could corner the market on it if they really wanted to (though it would probably become obvious that they were trying that long before it happened). They have no interest in Bitcoin because, from their previous comments on it, it produces nothing and they only invest in productive assets.
I think what the parent comment suggests is "Seal of approval" situation, similar thing that happened with Tesla buying bitcoin caused price surge. When a well known entity invests in crypto, trust in crypto goes up.
Berkshire buying bitcoin would definitely make me buy more bitcoin.
Berkshire buying bitcoin would definitely make me buy more bitcoin.
All they have to do is invest a billion or so in bitcoin, announce it (as they are required to), then sell it. It would be relatively trivial.
Exactly. But these guys are too old for the short game at this point. They are about legacy. And that should make these statements hit that much harder.
If they could undoubtedly make a profit, why haven't they done so. What investment firm would miss making a profit on a sure thing?
Buffett and Berkshire in fact have a long history of intentionally not always seeking the maximization of profit. Read Lowenstein's Buffett: The Making of an American Capitalist for several examples.
Berkshire is not an "investment firm" (although that may have been an accurate description 40 or 50 years ago). And they operate almost solely by the dictate of Buffett, not by theroetical shareholder demand for optimizing for max profit. That means they operate by parameters that Buffett deems prudent. Berkshire for example could have been deep into the supposed sure thing of the real-estate bubble circa 2005, instead they were one of the few mega corporations on the planet almost entirely insulated from it (so much so they were the ones doing the bailing out of other large corporations). That philosophy is the same reason why Berkshire might choose to pass on a supposed sure thing in crypto today: they don't like the risk; others may see a sure thing, they're skeptical (for better or worse).
Berkshire is not an "investment firm" (although that may have been an accurate description 40 or 50 years ago). And they operate almost solely by the dictate of Buffett, not by theroetical shareholder demand for optimizing for max profit. That means they operate by parameters that Buffett deems prudent. Berkshire for example could have been deep into the supposed sure thing of the real-estate bubble circa 2005, instead they were one of the few mega corporations on the planet almost entirely insulated from it (so much so they were the ones doing the bailing out of other large corporations). That philosophy is the same reason why Berkshire might choose to pass on a supposed sure thing in crypto today: they don't like the risk; others may see a sure thing, they're skeptical (for better or worse).
One that has a long and storied history of only investing their money in productive assets. Buffet doesn’t even buy gold.
Buffett isn't entirely adverse to metals such as gold, the reason he doesn't buy gold is he doesn't think it's often undervalued.
His history with silver for example:
"Warren Buffett made an unusual move in 1997 when he bought 111 million ounces, or nearly 3,500 tons, of silver. The famed investor's purchase helped make Thomas Kaplan a billionaire."
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/warren-buffe...
https://seekingalpha.com/article/376711-evidence-that-warren...
His history with silver for example:
"Warren Buffett made an unusual move in 1997 when he bought 111 million ounces, or nearly 3,500 tons, of silver. The famed investor's purchase helped make Thomas Kaplan a billionaire."
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/warren-buffe...
https://seekingalpha.com/article/376711-evidence-that-warren...
Legacy. Do you really think they're only worried about profits at this point?
> Warren Buffett: "I knew there’d be a question on bitcoin or crypto and I thought to myself, well, I watch these politicians dodge questions all the time … The truth is, I’m going to dodge that question. Because the truth is, we’ve probably got hundreds of thousands of people that are watching this that own bitcoin. And we’ve probably got two people that are short. So, we’ve got a choice of making 400,000 people mad at us and unhappy and making two people happy. And it’s just a dumb equation."
> Charlie Munger: “Those who know me well are just waving the red flag at the bull. Of course, I hate the bitcoin success. And I don’t welcome a currency that’s so useful to kidnappers and extortionists and so forth. Nor do I like shoveling out a few extra billions and billions and billions of dollars to somebody who just invented a new financial product out of thin air. So, I think I should say modestly that the whole damn development is disgusting and contrary to the interest of civilization."
That's all they have to say about this? None of this is particularly insightful (in fact I think it's disappointingly devoid of interesting insight). I don't see why this is on the frontpage.
> Charlie Munger: “Those who know me well are just waving the red flag at the bull. Of course, I hate the bitcoin success. And I don’t welcome a currency that’s so useful to kidnappers and extortionists and so forth. Nor do I like shoveling out a few extra billions and billions and billions of dollars to somebody who just invented a new financial product out of thin air. So, I think I should say modestly that the whole damn development is disgusting and contrary to the interest of civilization."
That's all they have to say about this? None of this is particularly insightful (in fact I think it's disappointingly devoid of interesting insight). I don't see why this is on the frontpage.
Agree that it would be more insightful if specific reasons were given rather than generic fallacies. I think we need to be even more specific is in the type of cryptocurrencies discussed (i.e proof-of-work protocol brings to mind environmental concerns in a way that proof-of-stake does not). This is just speculation, but it's possible that the frame of mind they look at crypto is an asset made "out of thin air" that does not do anything inherently useful in the physical world. Yes, we use gold as currency, but at least it's a good conductor and doesn't oxidize. We can value a company by the amount of goods it can produce in a year. It's harder to make the same case for crypto, whose value is more ethereal (it's stored as bits and bytes rather than a coin in your wallet). It's possible this is what they're thinking.
Crypto will be valuable as long as we as a society think it's so and have the infrastructure to support it. If we enter a nuclear winter, out goes the crypto market, and we'll be left exchanging copper pieces.
Crypto will be valuable as long as we as a society think it's so and have the infrastructure to support it. If we enter a nuclear winter, out goes the crypto market, and we'll be left exchanging copper pieces.
> Nor do I like shoveling out a few extra billions and billions and billions of dollars to somebody who just invented a new financial product out of thin air.
Sounds like Munger doesn’t like that financial innovation is coming from outside the established club. — I mean this argument has nothing to do with the safety of children and everything to do with classism.
Sounds like Munger doesn’t like that financial innovation is coming from outside the established club. — I mean this argument has nothing to do with the safety of children and everything to do with classism.
In the past they have called it useless digital gold. Why do you think they should have significant comments to make on Bitcoin? They are experts are evaluating corporate balance sheets, and by his own admission Warren Buffet does not understand technology (which is why he mostly stays away from tech companies).
It's very interesting, actually.
I interpreted as "Bitcoin is bad but the cult of Bitcoin is nuts so we have to be careful about what we say."
What's more interesting is how the Bitcoin investor club is managing to delude themselves even with inputs from real proven financiers.
I interpreted as "Bitcoin is bad but the cult of Bitcoin is nuts so we have to be careful about what we say."
What's more interesting is how the Bitcoin investor club is managing to delude themselves even with inputs from real proven financiers.
As Upton Sinclair once said, it is difficult to get a man to understand something if the value of his crypto stash depends upon him not understanding it.
I would clarify that just a bit.
It's difficult to get a man to understand something if the value of his crypto stash depends on OTHER PEOPLE not understanding it.
This is what bitcoin is. It's not a mass delusion: it's a will TO delude masses. I suppose some manage to fool themselves but I consider it a lot more likely that the majority are fully aware of what they're doing.
But it depends on deluding another level of the pyramid, and there's no real way to tell how high it goes before it collapses, so people are all-in, to the point where even Warren Buffett is talking in code and messaging 'I'm not going to say what I think about this, but I am going to say outright that I'm not saying what I think'. Not terribly hard to work out the message there.
Of course they're right.
It's difficult to get a man to understand something if the value of his crypto stash depends on OTHER PEOPLE not understanding it.
This is what bitcoin is. It's not a mass delusion: it's a will TO delude masses. I suppose some manage to fool themselves but I consider it a lot more likely that the majority are fully aware of what they're doing.
But it depends on deluding another level of the pyramid, and there's no real way to tell how high it goes before it collapses, so people are all-in, to the point where even Warren Buffett is talking in code and messaging 'I'm not going to say what I think about this, but I am going to say outright that I'm not saying what I think'. Not terribly hard to work out the message there.
Of course they're right.
Yeah, that's makes it even more insidious.
It’s front page because most of HN hates Bitcoin and it makes them feel better
If, indeed, bitcoin is inimical to civilization, then HN is smart and prescient to hate it. That would be a plausible interpretation if you figure that the HN crowd are smarter and more capable of thinking through problems than the average bear.
Perhaps if you don't agree, you should be listening :)
Perhaps if you don't agree, you should be listening :)
I did listen.... when bitcoin was $1 and everyone here was saying it was a scam. I learned that just because the group is smart, they may not be prescient.
Look up any successful Y Combinator company's Show HN thread on here, and the top comment is usually something along the lines of "this will never work"
Look up any successful Y Combinator company's Show HN thread on here, and the top comment is usually something along the lines of "this will never work"
Remember that Coca-Cola is responsible for one of the biggest health issue of our civilisation: obesity, and Berkshire invested heavily in it.
Warren Buffet has given many interviews on the topic, and on the topic of Berkshire's investments in tobacco companies. His view is basically that as long as those industries are legal he has a responsibility to his shareholders to invest in them because it is so profitable to do so. He has also summarized his views on Bitcoin many times -- he has no interest in investing in it because it is not a productive asset (the same reason he does not invest in gold).
Ah, so he's merely being _responsible_ by investing in the destruction of public health. What a clown.
Responsible to his shareholders, who want a maximum return on their investment. He may be a clown, but the fact is that he is very good at giving his shareholders a return.
These industries are legal. If you think they should be abolished, fine -- but don't go around getting angry that people are investing in legal businesses that produce popular, if harmful, products. Until these industries are illegal, someone is going to invest in them, and because these industries are extremely popular those who invest in them will see their wealth expand.
These industries are legal. If you think they should be abolished, fine -- but don't go around getting angry that people are investing in legal businesses that produce popular, if harmful, products. Until these industries are illegal, someone is going to invest in them, and because these industries are extremely popular those who invest in them will see their wealth expand.
I call it hypocrisy.
That’s why I only drink Pepsi.
It's just one more investment vehicle/speculative asset among thousands. What is the specific factor about Bitcoin that makes it "contrary to the interest of civilization"? Are these financiers telling us that the financialisation of literally everything on the planet and in low orbit might actually have negative externalities?
* The titanic carbon footprint.
* Its use in facilitating illegal transactions.
* The fact that unlike cash it's used (as opposed to speculated with) for little else other than illegal transactions.**
This pretty much covers it ^^
** Yes, I'm aware. Not all prohibited transactions are bad. Donating to wikileaks is good.
The fact it is used for not much else other than illegal transactions would seem to me to be the biggest risk to its value. Regulatory crackdown will be coming sooner or later and when it does, there's gonna be investor tears.
* Its use in facilitating illegal transactions.
* The fact that unlike cash it's used (as opposed to speculated with) for little else other than illegal transactions.**
This pretty much covers it ^^
** Yes, I'm aware. Not all prohibited transactions are bad. Donating to wikileaks is good.
The fact it is used for not much else other than illegal transactions would seem to me to be the biggest risk to its value. Regulatory crackdown will be coming sooner or later and when it does, there's gonna be investor tears.
These are the ones who told us the financial instruments that crashed the world in 2008, had negative externalities, before they had crashed the world.
Seems plausible that these particular ones would be prepared to both spot, and tell us about, another impending disaster.
Seems plausible that these particular ones would be prepared to both spot, and tell us about, another impending disaster.
Ironic right?
Lol. So the relatively few mega-wealthy — who hoarded practically all the USD in the world — are angry that the relatively-poor have come up with a new system of value within which they are now relatively-rich? Well maybe the wealthy class should have left some for the rest of the people. Maybe the wealthy shouldn’t have fleeced every market they cornered as aggressively. Maybe they should not have constantly avoided providing healthcare, education, maternal/paternal, and quality-of-life benefits because they would cost them a few percent of annual profits.
Is it a wonder that so many hope that mankind abandon the USD for BTC with such force that half the billionaires become millionaires and the other half go broke?
Is it a wonder that so many hope that mankind abandon the USD for BTC with such force that half the billionaires become millionaires and the other half go broke?
Cryptocurrency has not solved the problem of a few people owning the majority of the assets. The problem has just been recreated with different people.
Not BTC but central banks now are planning their own digital currencies, BTC will be the first and old legacy cryptocurrency where it will hold as value until it stop mining BTC. BTC will be replaced by other digital currency in the future eventually.
Won't happen. The billionaires will just buy Bitcoin.
Their investment managers probably already are.
Their investment managers probably already are.
One of the shocking things is how much cryptocurrency has poisoned the minds of youth who see it as their easy path to riches. Young people simply don’t want to work anymore, everyone is planning to retire very soon and a job is only a temporary inconvenience while they wait for their crypto coins to moon in value and make them millionaires set for life.
The truth is while many people did get very rich getting in early on the cryptocurrency wave, less and less people these days are actually growing meaningful wealth by investing in crypto. Eventually reality will catch up and people will not be able to afford keeping a bunch of coins with questionable prospects, and when they begin liquidating all at once I guarantee some people will become very poor, poorer than they could ever imagine.
The truth is while many people did get very rich getting in early on the cryptocurrency wave, less and less people these days are actually growing meaningful wealth by investing in crypto. Eventually reality will catch up and people will not be able to afford keeping a bunch of coins with questionable prospects, and when they begin liquidating all at once I guarantee some people will become very poor, poorer than they could ever imagine.
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."It's a sign of decadence, the question "what's my contribution to society?" is out of sight. Becoming rich by the crypto lottery should not be seen as an achievement with pride, but as the shame of becoming a harmful parasite.
It's hard to feel that shame when the system is so obviously rigged badly against everyone except the harmful parasites.
Only a very small percentage, and even then, most of them can only throw a few dollars into it, so they know they won't become rich from it. I wouldn't worry about it. Like another commentor alluded to, there have always been and always will be outliers.
regardless of this, I think there is no future for cryptocurrency as it is today, anyway.
it can't remain so unregulated as it is now. either corporations will take over and legitimize it but this means it will become centralized and owned by big tech. or, it will remain the wild west that it is now, for a while, and then gov will shut it down.
cryptocurrencies are the same as torrents. only popular while unregulated. but this only lasts until some big player decides to stop it
it can't remain so unregulated as it is now. either corporations will take over and legitimize it but this means it will become centralized and owned by big tech. or, it will remain the wild west that it is now, for a while, and then gov will shut it down.
cryptocurrencies are the same as torrents. only popular while unregulated. but this only lasts until some big player decides to stop it
Heck. I am not a fan of bitcoin but I think that statement is flawed. The technology is young and developing. Instead of killing it/or wanting it dead, work with its potential.
As someone without much knowledge of the area, is it developing? Bitcoin seems very staid and featureless compared to something like Ethereum, does it deserve to have the biggest market cap just because it was first?
Also is it wise to advocate for a future where the richest people in the world will just be whoever hung out on the right forums in 2011? At least the current occupants of the Forbes list mainly built companies.
Also is it wise to advocate for a future where the richest people in the world will just be whoever hung out on the right forums in 2011? At least the current occupants of the Forbes list mainly built companies.
Berkshire like big bags love civilization. It’s the best. Trust them.
I love Berkshire, it will be one of the stocks I hold forever, but this is a blatant case of "old men yell at Internet cloud"
The real issue with Bitcoin is tether. Tether printing is practically responsible for almost all the gains in Bitcoin. Just look at Tether volume versus Bitcoin volume and tell me you trust bitcoins valuation when it's backed by make belief tethers.
When you can print make belief dollars, in volumes that were never proven to exist, and pretend trading them for Bitcoin is the same as trading dollars, then of course Bitcoin can arbitrarily rise. The scale of the scam is huge and regulators completely miss it.
The day regulators finally ban tether (because printing dollars should be illegal), you're going to see Bitcoin crash spectacularly. The reason Bitcoin defies all expectations is because it was never supported by real dollars.
When you can print make belief dollars, in volumes that were never proven to exist, and pretend trading them for Bitcoin is the same as trading dollars, then of course Bitcoin can arbitrarily rise. The scale of the scam is huge and regulators completely miss it.
The day regulators finally ban tether (because printing dollars should be illegal), you're going to see Bitcoin crash spectacularly. The reason Bitcoin defies all expectations is because it was never supported by real dollars.
> "Tether printing is practically responsible for almost all the gains in Bitcoin"
It was a meme in the crypto community that when you see tether being printed, you long. Maybe it was true at some point that tether was propping up the market or maybe not fully backed[0], but AFAIK they are now doing audits[1] and transparency reports[2].
> "The day regulators finally ban tether"
I'm not sure how you would go about banning a cryptocurrency (it's been tried 100's of times) but, again, people have been saying something like this about tether forever. Every time someone tries and fails, it just gains more legitimacy (and is no longer the only stablecoin).
FYI I am in no way a BTC maxi/fanboi, but this kind of narrative has been the same since the beginning of tether and everyone so far has been wrong and the chance of a "spectacular crash" has become more and more unlikely
0. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/23/tether-bitfinex-reach-settle...
1. https://www.coindesk.com/tether-first-attestation
2. https://wallet.tether.to/transparency
It was a meme in the crypto community that when you see tether being printed, you long. Maybe it was true at some point that tether was propping up the market or maybe not fully backed[0], but AFAIK they are now doing audits[1] and transparency reports[2].
> "The day regulators finally ban tether"
I'm not sure how you would go about banning a cryptocurrency (it's been tried 100's of times) but, again, people have been saying something like this about tether forever. Every time someone tries and fails, it just gains more legitimacy (and is no longer the only stablecoin).
FYI I am in no way a BTC maxi/fanboi, but this kind of narrative has been the same since the beginning of tether and everyone so far has been wrong and the chance of a "spectacular crash" has become more and more unlikely
0. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/23/tether-bitfinex-reach-settle...
1. https://www.coindesk.com/tether-first-attestation
2. https://wallet.tether.to/transparency
> I'm not sure how you would go about banning a cryptocurrency (it's been tried 100's of times)
The same way we ban heroine. Or murder. We just make trading cryptocurrencies illegal and prosecute people who are found doing it.
Many IT people are biased by their work into thinking that any solution to a problem is a failure if it does not solve 100% of the problem. But in practice, most solutions are good enough if they solve 99.9% of the problem.
Regarding cryptocurrency, making it illegal would mean that no sane company would touch it with a ten-foot pole, which would not just hamper legal usage of cryptocurrency, but also illegal usage. (For instance, ransomware would not be able to have their victims pay in bitcoin if the victims don't have a legal way of exchanging legal tender for bitcoin.)
The same way we ban heroine. Or murder. We just make trading cryptocurrencies illegal and prosecute people who are found doing it.
Many IT people are biased by their work into thinking that any solution to a problem is a failure if it does not solve 100% of the problem. But in practice, most solutions are good enough if they solve 99.9% of the problem.
Regarding cryptocurrency, making it illegal would mean that no sane company would touch it with a ten-foot pole, which would not just hamper legal usage of cryptocurrency, but also illegal usage. (For instance, ransomware would not be able to have their victims pay in bitcoin if the victims don't have a legal way of exchanging legal tender for bitcoin.)
> The same way we ban heroine. Or murder
Our attempt to ban heroin (war on drugs) has been a massive failure[1] only replaced/made worse by prescription opioids[2]. Not a good example.
Murder is not something that really needs "banning" to stop the vast majority of people from committing it. The amount of people willing to use crypto is not comparable to the amount of people willing to murder (illegal or not). Not a good example.
If you want a semi-comparable example, take the attempt to make torrenting/pirating illegal. Look how that turned out.
> We just make trading cryptocurrencies illegal and prosecute people who are found doing it
Good luck with that. No other country has made much of an impact and it would require an enormous amount of resources to persecute ordinary people.
> no sane company would touch it with a ten-foot pole
> if the victims don't have a legal way of exchanging legal tender for bitcoin
There will always be another country willing to host exchanges. VPN's exist. You will never get all governments to ban crypto. Again, you are just listing ideas that have been tried and failed.
> but also illegal usage.
You think making crypto illegal... would stop people already using it for illegal reasons? They would be ok with one illegal act, but not another less valid one?
1. https://www.samhsa.gov/data//sites/default/files/report_1943...
2. https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/pres...
Our attempt to ban heroin (war on drugs) has been a massive failure[1] only replaced/made worse by prescription opioids[2]. Not a good example.
Murder is not something that really needs "banning" to stop the vast majority of people from committing it. The amount of people willing to use crypto is not comparable to the amount of people willing to murder (illegal or not). Not a good example.
If you want a semi-comparable example, take the attempt to make torrenting/pirating illegal. Look how that turned out.
> We just make trading cryptocurrencies illegal and prosecute people who are found doing it
Good luck with that. No other country has made much of an impact and it would require an enormous amount of resources to persecute ordinary people.
> no sane company would touch it with a ten-foot pole
> if the victims don't have a legal way of exchanging legal tender for bitcoin
There will always be another country willing to host exchanges. VPN's exist. You will never get all governments to ban crypto. Again, you are just listing ideas that have been tried and failed.
> but also illegal usage.
You think making crypto illegal... would stop people already using it for illegal reasons? They would be ok with one illegal act, but not another less valid one?
1. https://www.samhsa.gov/data//sites/default/files/report_1943...
2. https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/pres...
> take the attempt to make torrenting/pirating illegal. Look how that turned out.
95+% of people don't use torrenting/pirating. That worked out fine. Not great, but it's not the total failure you make it out to be.
> You think making crypto illegal... would stop people already using it for illegal reasons?
No, but it would add more friction if you did not have a choice of legal exchanges.
95+% of people don't use torrenting/pirating. That worked out fine. Not great, but it's not the total failure you make it out to be.
> You think making crypto illegal... would stop people already using it for illegal reasons?
No, but it would add more friction if you did not have a choice of legal exchanges.
> 95+% of people don't use torrenting/pirating. That worked out fine. Not great, but it's not the total failure you make it out to be.
Have any data to back that up? I do:
"More than a third of music consumers still pirate music."
"In 2016, 57 million Americans were still pirating music in one form or another."
"Illegally uploading or downloading copyrighted materials takes up nearly 24% of the bandwidth used in North America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific"
"57% of computer uses in the Asia Pacific and Central/Eastern Europe regions confess to having pirated software at least once."
https://dataprot.net/statistics/piracy-statistics/
> No, but it would add more friction if you did not have a choice of legal exchanges
"legal" in this sense means very little 1. because they are already doing something illegal so why would they care what interface they use? and 2. Making a site "illegal" in one country is very easy to get around - or else would you have to essentially advocate for a Great Firewall (which is still pretty easily circumvented)
Have any data to back that up? I do:
"More than a third of music consumers still pirate music."
"In 2016, 57 million Americans were still pirating music in one form or another."
"Illegally uploading or downloading copyrighted materials takes up nearly 24% of the bandwidth used in North America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific"
"57% of computer uses in the Asia Pacific and Central/Eastern Europe regions confess to having pirated software at least once."
https://dataprot.net/statistics/piracy-statistics/
> No, but it would add more friction if you did not have a choice of legal exchanges
"legal" in this sense means very little 1. because they are already doing something illegal so why would they care what interface they use? and 2. Making a site "illegal" in one country is very easy to get around - or else would you have to essentially advocate for a Great Firewall (which is still pretty easily circumvented)
> I'm not sure how you would go about banning a cryptocurrency (it's been tried 100's of times)
I don't think it's ever been tried in a western country.
The process is fairly simple. Pass a law banning it, if necessary with certain exemptions. Arrest and charge people who purchase, sell or even possess Bitcoin.
Most demand will disappear in that country. For the rest, handle it as we already handle similar financial crimes, like tax evasion and money laundering.
I don't think it's ever been tried in a western country.
The process is fairly simple. Pass a law banning it, if necessary with certain exemptions. Arrest and charge people who purchase, sell or even possess Bitcoin.
Most demand will disappear in that country. For the rest, handle it as we already handle similar financial crimes, like tax evasion and money laundering.
> Arrest and charge people who purchase, sell or even possess Bitcoin
Can you imagine the amount of resources required to accomplish this? The war on drugs was a massive failure and that was arguably a much easier sell than crypto. As if the US doesn't already imprison enough of it's population... talk about a victimless crime...
> Most demand will disappear in that country
Not when all you need is internet access. Supply might, but demand will not be effected much. There will also be exchanges hosted in other countries that can be easily accessed.
Crypto is made to be resilient and/or hard to trace. The normal avenues of tracking and enforcement (which already can be pretty ineffective) cannot compete. You can act like it's "fairly simple" but, as I have stated, it's been tried and continues to fail.
Can you imagine the amount of resources required to accomplish this? The war on drugs was a massive failure and that was arguably a much easier sell than crypto. As if the US doesn't already imprison enough of it's population... talk about a victimless crime...
> Most demand will disappear in that country
Not when all you need is internet access. Supply might, but demand will not be effected much. There will also be exchanges hosted in other countries that can be easily accessed.
Crypto is made to be resilient and/or hard to trace. The normal avenues of tracking and enforcement (which already can be pretty ineffective) cannot compete. You can act like it's "fairly simple" but, as I have stated, it's been tried and continues to fail.
Just because they held appropriate balance at one point in time doesn't mean they are actually sitting on dollar reserves corresponding to tethers. They could have borrowed to reach these numbers for the report.
The current state is still that the majority of Bitcoin volume comes from tether, and these tethers aren't regulated and required to exist the same way dollars traded for stocks are required to exist. They already mixed tether reserves with other funds in the past, don't trust them to suddenly stop.
The current state is still that the majority of Bitcoin volume comes from tether, and these tethers aren't regulated and required to exist the same way dollars traded for stocks are required to exist. They already mixed tether reserves with other funds in the past, don't trust them to suddenly stop.
Again, you can have rational reasons for not trusting tether - and I don't necessarily disagree - but the fact is that people have been trying to "expose" it for years with no success.
The NYAG didn't find anything substantive, and neither has anyone before them. In the crypto sphere that builds trust and proves resiliency. With every piece of FUD about tether that comes and goes, the chance of it all coming crashing down gets smaller and smaller.
Nothing you have stated is a new accusation. They have been around as long as tether and the entire ecosystem has only gained more and more legitimacy.
The NYAG didn't find anything substantive, and neither has anyone before them. In the crypto sphere that builds trust and proves resiliency. With every piece of FUD about tether that comes and goes, the chance of it all coming crashing down gets smaller and smaller.
Nothing you have stated is a new accusation. They have been around as long as tether and the entire ecosystem has only gained more and more legitimacy.
I'm the furthest thing from a technical analysis expert of price movement, but the BTC chart looks manipulated to me. I assumed at first that it was just people trading BTC between themselves to move the market, but this theory makes more sense. BTC miners are extracting USD from their mining, while the price is controlled by other coins printing and buying BTC. New buyers of BTC are providing the cashflow into the system.
What does "manipulated" mean to you?
What does a "manipulated" chart look like?
(I'm not being cheeky, I am just trying to get a grasp on your perspective)
What does a "manipulated" chart look like?
(I'm not being cheeky, I am just trying to get a grasp on your perspective)
For the past 8 weeks it has traded in a 10% band. Why have none of the events or momentum moved the price by more than 10%. You can make the case that Tesla selling some wasn't a big deal. But with everything happening over the past 2 months there should have been at least 1 swing up or down by a lot.
> there should have been at least 1 swing up or down by a lot.
says who? why is this your criteria for "manipulation"? Are you saying that it's only been manipulated for the last 8 weeks?
says who? why is this your criteria for "manipulation"? Are you saying that it's only been manipulated for the last 8 weeks?
If you Google "statistical anomalies and fraud" you will see several examples of where public data pointed to corruption without hard evidence. ( Madoff, Putin election )
>Just look at Tether volume versus Bitcoin volume and tell me you trust bitcoins valuation when it's backed by make belief tethers.
That's consistent with tether being "printed" (ie. issued without dollars backing them), but it's also consistent with dollar inflows to bitcoin exchanges that use tether. Without further evidence that's not indicative of anything.
That's consistent with tether being "printed" (ie. issued without dollars backing them), but it's also consistent with dollar inflows to bitcoin exchanges that use tether. Without further evidence that's not indicative of anything.
Financial exchanges need to prove to you that trades really do happen with real money at the prices they say it happens, and that the order book isn't cooked. If I were to open an exchange for shitcoin, and show you pretty graphs and fake orders to buy shitcoin, would you believe me when I tell you that's what shitcoin is worth? no. Trades with tether are exactly that: trades with make belief dollars. Bitfinex prints tethers and shows you orders for trades in tether, while most of these trades are probably bitfinex trading it's make belief currency with itself. You should be the one requiring evidence that the trades are real.
It's funny that you talk about real dollars and their backing.
If they printed more Tether than there is demand for tether wouldn't the price for Tether-to-USD tank ?
I would like to point out that Berkshire/Buffet for years called derivatives weapons of mass destruction. People said Warren you are out of touch and don’t understand. 2008 showed him to be right.
Of course it is. Bitcoin is just capitalism evolved, and capitalism is, of course, contrary to the interest of civilization.
True for a particularly dark interpretation of capitalism.
I think it'd be a good idea for capitalism to evolve in different ways than this. Not sure if it's a foregone conclusion, but if you end up able to say 'I told you so' then I won't argue :)
I think it'd be a good idea for capitalism to evolve in different ways than this. Not sure if it's a foregone conclusion, but if you end up able to say 'I told you so' then I won't argue :)
How does the saying go?
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. After that, they fight you. Finally, you win.
When a significant portion of established powers start claiming that new threat to power is (insert hyperbolic word here), I’d say we are on step 3 of the above process.
Bitcoin has a lot of issues, but cryptocurrency/blockchain in general are real, useful technologies. Don’t let the prevalence of scams and duplicitous individuals distract you from this fact.
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. After that, they fight you. Finally, you win.
When a significant portion of established powers start claiming that new threat to power is (insert hyperbolic word here), I’d say we are on step 3 of the above process.
Bitcoin has a lot of issues, but cryptocurrency/blockchain in general are real, useful technologies. Don’t let the prevalence of scams and duplicitous individuals distract you from this fact.
> but cryptocurrency/blockchain in general are real, useful technologies.
Whats the last time you bought anything (besides other coins) with cryptocurrency?
Whats the last time you bought anything (besides other coins) with cryptocurrency?
I’m guessing you’re from a country with a reliable banking system and without rapid inflation.
In places where this doesn’t exist, crypto is a miracle.
Beyond that, crypto has existed for about a decade now. It’s absolutely absurd to claim that it’s “not useful” because it hasn’t been widely adopted by everyday merchants. Traditional currency has a ten-thousand year head start. Perhaps we can be patient?
And that’s not even including all of the other use cases blockchain has.
In places where this doesn’t exist, crypto is a miracle.
Beyond that, crypto has existed for about a decade now. It’s absolutely absurd to claim that it’s “not useful” because it hasn’t been widely adopted by everyday merchants. Traditional currency has a ten-thousand year head start. Perhaps we can be patient?
And that’s not even including all of the other use cases blockchain has.
I’m not sure I believe under banked societies are actually a good use case. I’ve lived in a country without established banking - and what I wanted most for the cash I earned locally was a bank, not a crypto wallet.
Crypto might be safe from the government, buts it is significantly less safe from extortion. Anyone with a will and a ballpeen hammer can steal a crypto wallet with same ease it takes to mug someone out of $20.
Crypto might be safe from the government, buts it is significantly less safe from extortion. Anyone with a will and a ballpeen hammer can steal a crypto wallet with same ease it takes to mug someone out of $20.
How would crypto different than forex in that case ?
I don’t have firsthand experience with this, so don’t quote me. But presumably because many countries have capital controls (with regular currencies) that aren’t or can’t be applied to crypto. Plus the simple fact that FOREX still requires a functioning overall banking infrastructure, as compared to crypto which doesn’t.
The guy behind Cardano has talked a lot about crypto in Africa, so if you’re interested, I would start there.
https://youtu.be/vTVrUOFXIT0
The guy behind Cardano has talked a lot about crypto in Africa, so if you’re interested, I would start there.
https://youtu.be/vTVrUOFXIT0
You don't need a ten-thousand year head start to be widely adopted. Bitcoin is 12 years old now. PayPal was that old in 2010/2011. PayPal was definitely more widely adopted at that age than Bitcoin is now.
And besides, claiming that "traditional currency has a ten-thousand year head start" lumps so many wildly different forms of currency into a single category that the category is borderline meaningless.
And besides, claiming that "traditional currency has a ten-thousand year head start" lumps so many wildly different forms of currency into a single category that the category is borderline meaningless.
PayPal or other online banking apps are nowhere near as big of a leap as crypto is. Not even remotely comparable. The former is simply making a trusted single location for a database of transactions. The latter is making that database global and uncontrollable by any single entity. A vastly more difficult and complex task.
And again, the idea that a technology can be deemed useless a mere decade after its launch is deeply historically ignorant. Automobiles, airplanes, he printing press, the list goes on and on. None of these things replaced their competitors in a decade.
And again, the idea that a technology can be deemed useless a mere decade after its launch is deeply historically ignorant. Automobiles, airplanes, he printing press, the list goes on and on. None of these things replaced their competitors in a decade.
None of the technologies you name had that big of a negative effect on society while they were maturing.
We are a decade in with cryptocoins and 98% of the things that cryptocoins have currently accomplished are a net loss for society. A net loss of which we are currently already "paying" for; Ransomware, waste of energy, people getting scammed with pump and dumps, etc.
We are a decade in with cryptocoins and 98% of the things that cryptocoins have currently accomplished are a net loss for society. A net loss of which we are currently already "paying" for; Ransomware, waste of energy, people getting scammed with pump and dumps, etc.
Incorrect.
Early automobiles killed so many people that it became a major public health issue.
The Printing Press essentially fueled the Reformation and the subsequent Wars of Religion.
Airplanes were used in bombing raids during WW1, just over a decade after the successful flight of the Wright Brothers.
All technologies have both positive and negative consequences.
Edit: here’s a nice quote illustrating this.
Serious debate was held in courtrooms and in editorials over whether the automobile was inherently evil. The state of Georgia's Court of Appeals wrote: "Automobiles are to be classed with ferocious animals and … the law relating to the duty of owners of such animals is to be applied ... . However, they are not to be classed with bad dogs, vicious bulls, evil disposed mules, and the like."
Early automobiles killed so many people that it became a major public health issue.
The Printing Press essentially fueled the Reformation and the subsequent Wars of Religion.
Airplanes were used in bombing raids during WW1, just over a decade after the successful flight of the Wright Brothers.
All technologies have both positive and negative consequences.
Edit: here’s a nice quote illustrating this.
Serious debate was held in courtrooms and in editorials over whether the automobile was inherently evil. The state of Georgia's Court of Appeals wrote: "Automobiles are to be classed with ferocious animals and … the law relating to the duty of owners of such animals is to be applied ... . However, they are not to be classed with bad dogs, vicious bulls, evil disposed mules, and the like."
Bitcoins use-case right now seems to be a "store of value", or in other words, a hedge against inflation.
As a short-term store, the price fluctuation is too big. But as a long-term store... Haven't seen a better one up until this point.
As a short-term store, the price fluctuation is too big. But as a long-term store... Haven't seen a better one up until this point.
Things as NFTS or smart contracts are really new it need years and development for higher adoption.
So basically he's just in favour or secret or closed in transactions from regular institutions?
I don't get why we care what these random people say who clearly have very little knowledge on the topic. Munger demonstrates an amount of expertise one could have gained from watching a 60 Minutes segment about bitcoin. Buffet at least dodges the issue rather than discuss something he doesn't necessarily know that much about.
I can understand why many people don't like bitcoin. The argument against it is not stronger because of these soundbytes.
I can understand why many people don't like bitcoin. The argument against it is not stronger because of these soundbytes.
Still think of all the Beeenie babies wastefully produced and ending up in landfill. Now we achieve the same thing but without the Beenie baby. So kind of a little bit of progress.
Also Buffett: "I'll tell you why I like the cigarette business. It costs a penny to make. Sell it for a dollar. It's addictive. And there's fantastic brand loyalty."
Your point is that Buffett is usually right and speaks inconvenient truths?
Why would you trust his opinion on BTC? Does anybody here think he spent hours studying how it works to be able to make an informed comment? Would you ask your grandfather about Netflix or smartphones? This guy didn't invest in neither Microsoft or Apple. Can he be trusted to be on top of the latest technology that if it works is not even going to affect him in any way? I don't think he knows enough about BTC to make such a claim.
He's not wrong. I think eventually it all becomes government coin or outlawed and at that point the government gets to monitor everything you do with money and possibly more, it's a goddamn nightmare.
I'm doubling down on my crypto purchases... Thanks!
You've built a world where Bitcoin despite not being "real" is the only real store of value, there will only ever be 21 million...