I’m sure if Bitcoin had the largest and most powerful military in the world it would have become the world reserve currency by now
No because currency with built-in deflation is a bad idea. It would get scrapped very quickly.
Yes sir. Wouldn’t want regular folks to be able to retain the value of their savings! Government’s restricted to being fiscally responsible instead of printing their way out of problems with the hidden tax on the poor that is inflation? Ridiculous!
Oof, that’s not how economics works.
Inflation is good so long as wages are rising with it. It’s killing us right now because wages are stagnating hard right now.
That’s a feature not a bug.
Read about the great depression or the deflationary economics in Germany right before the Nazis took power. Deflation sucks, we already experienced it and we don’t need to try it out again.
Bitcoin: 4.7% believed to be in the hands of a single person, another 3.1% in the hands of four addresses. Deflatory so no incentive to use it to make transactions. Value depends on the network effect (i.e. a pyramid scheme). Small transactions now too expensive to be realistic. 24% of the supply was created in the first year, 35% over two years. Movement of funds takes too long to be useful. Those who got in early are guaranteed to be richer than those who got in late without having made any effort…
Crypto would be great as a replacement of the stockmarket but it’s fighting to be cash instead and it’s doing a bad job of it because it’s cash as envisioned by tech bros, not actual economists.
Also wastes energy and hardware (which includes rare earth metals mined by slaves) to endlessly compute hashes. Great solution for a post climate change world let me tell ya!
I love posts like this, it lets me know most people still don’t have the first clue what they’re talking about. It’s honestly a bit impressive how nearly every point you tried to make is either misleading or straight up wrong.
I love posts like this, it lets me know most crypto lovers don’t have the first clue what they’re investing in. It’s honestly a bit impressive how you didn’t even try to actually argue against what I said because it’s just a list of facts.
What is the difference between speculating in bitcoin vs speculating on forex or gold? Is gold investing a pyramid scheme?
But that is what the initial post said: bitcoin works as an investment, but not as a currency. Reading comprehension skills are through the floor.
Lol, you want me to spell it out for you dumb-dumb? Ok
4.7% believed to be in the hands of a single person,
You’re talking about Satoshi Nakamoro here. Other than a few test cases, no Bitcoin has ever been moved out of these wallets and Satoshi disappeared in 2010. People have continued to donate to these wallets over the years as a kind of tribute and to burn coins. While it’s technically possible he’s still alive, the fact that there has been zero movement from those accounts and that any movement, no matter how small, would immediately be seen and reported on makes it unlikely that these will ever be touched.
3.1% in the hands of four addresses.
Those are exchange addresses. It’s like trying to say that 4 entities control a percentage of all US currency and then it turns out you’re just talking about banks.
Deflatory so no incentive to use it to make transactions
Except of course the security, the fact it can be used across borders by anyone with an Internet connection, in poorer countries it can be more stable than their own currency, and just general preference.
Value depends on the network effect (i.e. a pyramid scheme)
This is absolute nonsense with “pyramid scheme” attached to the end. As more people use it, the value goes up because it’s accepted more and more places and has a higher liquidity? That’s literally part of every currency ever.
Small transactions now too expensive to be realistic
You show your hand that you haven’t bothered to update your views on Bitcoin since 2019. Not only are fees back to being low on the main network, with the introduction and adoption of the Lightning Network, fees are down to pennies or less.
24% of the supply was created in the first year, 35% over two years.
Yes, that’s how halving works. You present that with an insinuation that any point they could just mint more btc. This is ignorance at best, but more likely intentionally misleading.
Movement of funds takes too long to be useful.
Again, guess you haven’t been paying attention for a few years. This issue has been solved with the Lightning Network with transactions usually going through faster than tap-to-pay transactions with a regular debit/credit card.
Those who got in early are guaranteed to be richer than those who got in late without having made any effort.
Welcome to every investment opportunity. Those who get in early take a higher risk for more reward.
So yea, every point either misleading, or straight up wrong.
You’re right. But they don’t want to hear it. Just like how most of the world believes in sky people and don’t want to face reality.
The world has been living on FIAT currency since WW1 when virtually every country left the Gold Standard. It’s been ingrained into everyone that deflation = bad, inflation = good. Yet at the same time every single financial advisor recommends dumping your savings into deflationary assets (houses, stocks, etc)… Okay. Makes sense to me.
Remember the last time you traded your house for food?
Yeah, me neither 👍
What’s the title line of Bitcoin’s whitepaper?
-
We’re blindly trusting this person not to do anything with their fortune!
-
Exchanges have never done anything shady and (for a second time) we’re trusting them even though they’re all established in countries with as little regulations as possible.
-
If something that can fluctuate by 50% of its value is more stable than your local currency you’re not investing in it, you’re buying USD, or in the case where you have access to Bitcoin you’re buying stable coins.
-
What the network effect means is that the only reason it keeps its value is that more people buy it at a price where people who were there earlier are making profit. If there’s no new buyers then it’s worthless. See the pyramid drawing itself now?
-
So the technology is bad enough that it requires a separate tech to work properly? Going back to your people in poor countries, how do you expect them to deal with the transaction cost to move their funds in and out of the L2 when required if they can only afford to buy a couple of dollars worth at a time?
-
It just shows how much early adopters could pocket and how unfair it is if it was to become the default currency, even more unfair than regular cash.
-
See #5 and let’s add that the reason fees are lower and transaction speeds faster is only because demand is low at the moment, Bitcoin’s network hasn’t changed. Still, when transactions were taking an hour or more to go through, how would you have dealt with paying for something if you had realized you didn’t have enough funds on the LN and you needed to transfer from your regular wallet? Or very simply, if you’re paying for something and the person at the receiving end is a true maximalists that sees how flawed the LN is, do you pay them hours ahead for something they’re selling you? That’s what I call a trustless transaction!
-
Oh so as pointed out in OP’s meme it’s not ok for traditional rich to be rich because they jumped on opportunities, but it’s ok for the Bitcoin rich to be rich because they jumped on an opportunity, got it 👍
-
deleted by creator
Surely it’s collapsed since this meme was made 10 years ago.
By over 30%:
Source: in2013dollars.com
Meanwhile…
$1000 would’ve bought 7.388 BTC in August 2013.
7.388 BTC today is worth… $193,186.08
Tell me again which one is the best place to store value?
Edit: Downvoted for showing facts. Not surprised.
Tell me again which one is the best place to store value?
I don’t think you are ready to hear this yet, but it’s monero :P All jokes aside, bitcoin ain’t terrible, especially compared to the dollar, but I worry that botcoin’s security model will crumble more with each halfing. Transaction fees are already unusable in some cases, yet they barely contribute to the miner rewards. The math doesn’t seem to work out.
Lightning has onion routing and lower fees.
Sidechains (like BIP 300) will allow ring signatures backed by bitcoin.
We don’t need a new money supply for each new feature.
I didn’t talk about features, but specifically about the security budget.
How much do you think the total security budget needs to be, and why? Where’s the math that doesn’t work out?
The security budget is total fiat denominated miner reward of the entire network. The higher it is, the the more resistant bitcoin becomes to 51% attacks.
As you know, each halfing decreases the block reward, which is currently the largest part of the total miner reward. In order keep a steady security budget, the price and market cap has to double each time as well. But remember, the security budget stays constant, so an ever increasing amount is secured by a relatively lower share.
Transaction fees make up the remaining tiny share, and I honestly don’t see it growing much. Because the higher this fee becomes, the more people will find ways to avoid it, and just keep it on exchanges, custodial solution or lightning. This reduces the decentralization , the primary feature of bitcoin, and thereby reduces it value proposition.
All this can be side-stepped by having holders pay a small, program-ably guaranteed fee proportional to their holdings, which is then paid out to miners. Yes, this is similar to inflation, but as long as it is lower than fiat inflation I can be worth the trade off. Considering how cult like bitcoin holder are, I don’t think this is a change they are willing to make, at least not before it’s too late.
Why would we need to hold the total security budget steady/constant? We’re currently paying FAR more than necessary. If we assume total fee revenue won’t increase, then Bitcoin fees alone are already more than the entire security budget for some reasonably secure blockchains today.
And that’s a very conservative assumption. Lightning and p2p sidechains (which don’t hurt decentralization) increase efficiency, so the Jevons paradox predicts that total transaction fees paid will continue to increase. Lightning is less dependent on quick confirmations than base layer commerce is, reducing the impact of 51% attacks if/when they do happen.
When evaluating Monero’s monetary inflation trade-off, its primary competitor is Bitcoin, not the dollar. It’s not very hard at all to do better than the dollar. :-P I for one am strongly in favor of making changes in general (go BIP 300!) but tail emission has been proposed for over a decade and has been repeatedly rejected as unnecessary.
Though great privacy when used offline, which is also pretty sick and the adoption levels defies reason, it’s virtually usable globally both online and offline.
Bank notes have unique identifiers allowing the government to track the path of your money. Privacy is dead
That also assumes every bill you use will be immediately returned to a bank. You’d have no way of knowing where money comes from and belongs to after one hop. Just make a purchase at the supermarket to exchange a 50 for 45 and you’ve got anonymous cash.
This assumes the supermarket doesn’t track everything
They don’t. It wouldn’t benefit the corporation in any way. They’ll only do what makes money and that would cost money with no return.
What if the government pays the supermarket to do it? They’d have a financial incentive, then. I could imagine this scenario in a high-security authoritarian paradigm.
And this would be different from Bitcoin? You know you can track it pretty easily, right?
