PDA

View Full Version : One of Asia's largest banks says bitcoin is 'a bit of a ponzi scheme'



Silver and Gold
11-14-2017, 07:31 PM
One of Asia's largest banks is of the opinion that bitcoin is currently a financial scam.

"We see bitcoin as a bit of a ponzi scheme," David Gledhill, group chief information officer and head of group technology and operations at DBS, told CNBC on Wednesday.

Bitcoin transactions are "incredibly expensive" and "all the fees are hidden through the crypto-mechanisms," he said on the sidelines of the Singapore Fintech Festival. "We don't think DBS being in that game right now is going to create a competitive advantage for us."

Instead, Gledhill said, it currently makes more sense for the bank to focus on its electronic transactions of government-backed currencies.




https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/14/dbs-groups-david-gledhill-bitcoin-is-a-ponzi-scheme.html

Chump Change
11-14-2017, 09:15 PM
Ethics Clauses in Contracts maybe more to blame than anything else, IDK

In case most don't remember, the largest users, as I've read, are the drug cartels and dark transactions
(note: it would seem there are more payers than there are collectors, perhaps that's one reason the price is up so high, again, IDK)

anyway
I'm sure there are links, etc but Ethic's in a Contract are Not Necessarily Arbitrary, Can Be Subjective, are Costly to Litigate, and Contracts are Completely Binding in a Court of Law

IDK if this is the case here

imho, good call

i'm for the USD w/o the Fed

AnotherDave
11-14-2017, 09:50 PM
Now, there's a word you don't hear so much any more.

Good!

insidedealer
11-15-2017, 01:09 AM
One of Asia's largest banks is of the opinion that bitcoin is currently a financial scam.

"We see bitcoin as a bit of a ponzi scheme," David Gledhill, group chief information officer and head of group technology and operations at DBS, told CNBC on Wednesday.

Bitcoin transactions are "incredibly expensive" and "all the fees are hidden through the crypto-mechanisms," he said on the sidelines of the Singapore Fintech Festival. "We don't think DBS being in that game right now is going to create a competitive advantage for us."

Instead, Gledhill said, it currently makes more sense for the bank to focus on its electronic transactions of government-backed currencies.




https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/14/dbs-groups-david-gledhill-bitcoin-is-a-ponzi-scheme.html

Thank you for the report.
To your credit you've been all over the bitcoin bubble stories from the start on these boards, since bitcoin was 70.
So far you've been a bit wrong but keep trying.

Poor Twisted Monk
11-15-2017, 06:55 AM
Bitcoin transactions are "incredibly expensive" and "all the fees are hidden through the crypto-mechanisms,"

That part is actually true, as every single transaction now uses over $100 worth of electricity. Even if you're just paying someone a few bucks, it costs over $100 to do it. For now, this very real cost is disguised by bitcoin's sky-high price, which is reflected in the large rewards miners receive and in the low transaction fees you actually pay. But such a system is not sustainable in the long term, especially as mining difficulty increases and electricity costs rise even higher.

Count Stacula
11-15-2017, 09:29 AM
That part is actually true, as every single transaction now uses over $100 worth of electricity. Even if you're just paying someone a few bucks, it costs over $100 to do it. For now, this very real cost is disguised by bitcoin's sky-high price, which is reflected in the large rewards miners receive and in the low transaction fees you actually pay. But such a system is not sustainable in the long term, especially as mining difficulty increases and electricity costs rise even higher.


If every bitcoin transaction costs $100 in electricity I wonder how much Internet porn downloads cost?

Transmitting a few Megabytes of information per download has to cost more than just a few kilobytes of information I would think.

It's just math right?

Poor Twisted Monk
11-15-2017, 06:48 PM
If every bitcoin transaction costs $100 in electricity I wonder how much Internet porn downloads cost?

Transmitting a few Megabytes of information per download has to cost more than just a few kilobytes of information I would think.

It's just math right?

No, these are very different operations in terms of power consumption. When downloading porn, you're merely transmitting data, whether over copper, fiber, or radio waves, which uses up relatively little electricity. Even when you're consuming that porn, the video/audio decoding/rendering involve inexpensive and well-optimized mathematical calculations. In contrast, the calculations needed for bitcoin mining are extremely compute-intensive, by design. Moreover, bitcoin miners tend to run 24/7, while I believe most people spend less time than that watching porn. In short, anything you normally do, like watching porn, simply cannot compare to bitcoin mining in terms of electricity usage.

AnotherDave
11-15-2017, 08:06 PM
No, these are very different operations in terms of power consumption. When downloading porn, you're merely transmitting data, whether over copper, fiber, or radio waves, which uses up relatively little electricity. Even when you're consuming that porn, the video/audio decoding/rendering involve inexpensive and well-optimized mathematical calculations. In contrast, the calculations needed for bitcoin mining are extremely compute-intensive, by design. Moreover, bitcoin miners tend to run 24/7, while I believe most people spend less time than that watching porn. In short, anything you normally do, like watching porn, simply cannot compare to bitcoin mining in terms of electricity usage.

There! Fixed it.

Count Stacula
11-15-2017, 11:14 PM
No, these are very different operations in terms of power consumption. When downloading porn, you're merely transmitting data, whether over copper, fiber, or radio waves, which uses up relatively little electricity. Even when you're consuming that porn, the video/audio decoding/rendering involve inexpensive and well-optimized mathematical calculations. In contrast, the calculations needed for bitcoin mining are extremely compute-intensive, by design. Moreover, bitcoin miners tend to run 24/7, while I believe most people spend less time than that watching porn. In short, anything you normally do, like watching porn, simply cannot compare to bitcoin mining in terms of electricity usage.

Ah, but you didn't say "mining" you said "every single transaction".

I agree that mining a NEW bitcoin is very energy and time intensive. But simply sending a piece of a bitcoin from my wallet to your wallet is far less energy intensive than many of the other types of data transmission that happen on the Internet everyday. I used porn downloads as an extreme example. Streaming music or YouTube videos would be other examples. I still stand by my statement that sending a piece of a bitcon from me to you is far less energy intensive as compared to other activities on the Internet.

I do, however, agree that mining new bitcoins consumes a lot of energy.

Enough energy for me to worry about? Not at all. If ever it gets too bad I have plenty of trees out back I can hug to make me feel better. :)

Poor Twisted Monk
11-15-2017, 11:57 PM
Ah, but you didn't say "mining" you said "every single transaction".

I agree that mining a NEW bitcoin is very energy and time intensive. But simply sending a piece of a bitcoin from my wallet to your wallet is far less energy intensive than many of the other types of data transmission that happen on the Internet everyday.

Actually, I did mean every single transaction, and it costs over $100 in electricity today. Basically, the cost of a transaction is the cost of the electricity needed to produce a block divided by the number of transactions contained in that block.

This is separate and distinct from the bitcoin reward you get by producing a block (currently 12.5 BTC per block). "Mining" means doing the calculations to produce a block and successfully adding your block to the blockchain, getting rewarded in the process.

yellowsnow
11-16-2017, 12:07 AM
it's ok, I buy bitcoin with fiat bank notes that are created out of thin air everyday

wickedgoodtrader
11-16-2017, 12:47 AM
This is where Ethereum comes in. Mark my words, if ETH can get Proof of Stake to Work, it will rock bitcoin. Is ETH a ponzi?

Count Stacula
11-16-2017, 02:25 PM
This is where Ethereum comes in. Mark my words, if ETH can get Proof of Stake to Work, it will rock bitcoin. Is ETH a ponzi?


I've thrown a few Ethereum on the stack in the past 24 hours. These are the first, and perhaps only, Ethereum I will ever buy.

Why? The charts say Ethereum is getting ready for a massive break out. If this happens as expected I will not want to be buying in the future at 2, 3, or 4 times the current price.

Depending on how long this takes I may just try for an easy double and get out. I don't know for sure yet how long I will hold, all I know is I don't want to be on the sideline when the break out happens.....:cool:

4nineFine
11-16-2017, 05:31 PM
I still can't get over what a PITA it was to buy BTC & ETH when I tried. Coinbase wasn't accessible on multiple attempts when trying to time a low. It was a discouraging enough to make me worry about selling when that time rolls around. I wish you guys the best, but I'll be remaining a spectator for the time being.

Poor Twisted Monk
11-16-2017, 05:37 PM
This is where Ethereum comes in. Mark my words, if ETH can get Proof of Stake to Work, it will rock bitcoin. Is ETH a ponzi?

There are already a good number of coins using proof of stake and other more lightweight consensus schemes, but none are "rocking" bitcoin thus far. There's a lot more to it that just lightweight operation, or Ripple and Stellar would've already broken out far beyond BTC and ETH. Moreover, certain prominent crypto exponents still hold that proof of work is a good thing, as it adds real value to the tokens produced, just as gold is valuable partly because it takes a great deal of effort to pull it out of the ground and turn it into coins and bars.

ynot2k
11-16-2017, 05:48 PM
I still can't get over what a PITA it was to buy BTC & ETH when I tried. Coinbase wasn't accessible on multiple attempts when trying to time a low. It was a discouraging enough to make me worry about selling when that time rolls around. I wish you guys the best, but I'll be remaining a spectator for the time being.

It's been accessible at all times for me. For buying or selling quickly you'd probably want to be on GDAX - coinbase's trading platform.

Count Stacula
11-16-2017, 11:04 PM
I still can't get over what a PITA it was to buy BTC & ETH when I tried. Coinbase wasn't accessible on multiple attempts when trying to time a low. It was a discouraging enough to make me worry about selling when that time rolls around. I wish you guys the best, but I'll be remaining a spectator for the time being.

I agree. It's a PITA when we are talking speed and turn around times. To me Coinbase is more for swing trading or just accumulation over time but definitely not for day trading. It works OK for something moving as fast and far as Bitcoin. If you want to day trade you definitely need another platform.

Even if you don't catch the exact low or sell at the exact high after a $2,000 move does it really matter that you didn't get every last cent of it? To me it would be nice but it doesn't really matter.

I'm not jumping in and out often enough to worry about it.

AnotherDave
11-17-2017, 11:20 AM
I still can't get over what a PITA it was to buy BTC & ETH when I tried. Coinbase wasn't accessible on multiple attempts when trying to time a low. It was a discouraging enough to make me worry about selling when that time rolls around. . .


What will Bitcoin be good for without an economy that trades in it? Trading BTC for FRN is an idiotic business plan. The exchanges are NOT going to subsidize your folly as saturation is reached, and what are you going to do then?

We need to REPLACE the FRN with BTC, not game it to get more FRN. This means using Bitcoin as a currency, which has been the point all along. Sure, it has great potential, but that potential has to be utilized or you end up with zero.

But whoosh! Everybody's gettin' rich here, so why worry?

ynot2k
11-17-2017, 12:44 PM
What will Bitcoin be good for without an economy that trades in it? Trading BTC for FRN is an idiotic business plan. The exchanges are NOT going to subsidize your folly as saturation is reached, and what are you going to do then?

We need to REPLACE the FRN with BTC, not game it to get more FRN. This means using Bitcoin as a currency, which has been the point all along. Sure, it has great potential, but that potential has to be utilized or you end up with zero.

But whoosh! Everybody's gettin' rich here, so why worry?

Potential gain - whether a 'participant' see or desires the gain to be in FRN or something else - is probably what it takes at this time to entice people to begin to own BTC. I understand that those such as yourself who saw BTC rise in value to parity with a single FRN might regard the current timeline otherwise, but it may just be that BTC is only now getting into, or even still preceding, 'early adopter stage'.

I hope/want BTC to become a major currency which people get their employment pay in and use to pay the electric bill (or get that gallon of milk as was previously mentioned). But will this happen in a large scale every day usage kind of way until there are enough units with enough value to be usable? I know that equating some BTC value to some FRN value does not make good conversation for some folks here, but if I may take the liberty regardless of that, is it not likely that BTC won't become a everyday common man currency until, as an example, 0.00000100 BTC might have the purchasing power of one FRN? And hopefully none of the constant loss of purchasing power that occurs through theft by inflation.

If that 0.00000100 number comes to pass the people who now hold Bitcoin will have increased their purchasing power by a huge amount. Those potential gains are well deserved for taking the chance now since there can be no guarantee how BTC will play out or what value, if any, it will have in the future.

As for myself I'm not selling BTC for FRN . I am accumulating BTC generally by using FRN. I am a late comer to the Bitcoin world and my views may turn out to be very inaccurate. I encourage anyone interested in BTC to look into it using all availble avenues of information but certainly not to base any course of action on anything I write about it.

AnotherDave
11-17-2017, 01:37 PM
Potential gain - whether a 'participant' see or desires the gain to be in FRN or something else - is probably what it takes at this time to entice people to begin to own BTC. I understand that those such as yourself who saw BTC rise in value to parity with a single FRN might regard the current timeline otherwise, but it may just be that BTC is only now getting into, or even still preceding, 'early adopter stage'.

I hope/want BTC to become a major currency which people get their employment pay in and use to pay the electric bill (or get that gallon of milk as was previously mentioned). But will this happen in a large scale every day usage kind of way until there are enough units with enough value to be usable? I know that equating some BTC value to some FRN value does not make good conversation for some folks here, but if I may take the liberty regardless of that, is it not likely that BTC won't become a everyday common man currency until, as an example, 0.00000100 BTC might have the purchasing power of one FRN? And hopefully none of the constant loss of purchasing power that occurs through theft by inflation.

If that 0.00000100 number comes to pass the people who now hold Bitcoin will have increased their purchasing power by a huge amount. Those potential gains are well deserved for taking the chance now since there can be no guarantee how BTC will play out or what value, if any, it will have in the future.

As for myself I'm not selling BTC for FRN . I am accumulating BTC generally by using FRN. I am a late comer to the Bitcoin world and my views may turn out to be very inaccurate. I encourage anyone interested in BTC to look into it using all availble avenues of information but certainly not to base any course of action on anything I write about it.

I can agree with most of the things you say, but merely owning BTC isn't one of them. At this point we are simply using BTC as a proxy for FRN/USD, and hardly even that. This is not enough! History is full of great ideas that were never adopted. Without popular use, Bitcoin will degenerate into a curiosity like Pogs. There has to be a real economy built around Bitcoin, not just millions of unused stashes.

Buy-and-hold is not a rational strategy, neither is running every transaction thru an FRN exchange and then back. Without us actually buying and selling directly in this new currency, there will be no payday. Just another good idea that didn't make it.

Bitcoin "investors" should keep this in mind.

ynot2k
11-17-2017, 02:05 PM
I can agree with most of the things you say, but merely owning BTC isn't one of them. At this point we are simply using BTC as a proxy for FRN/USD, and hardly even that. This is not enough! History is full of great ideas that were never adopted. Without popular use, Bitcoin will degenerate into a curiosity like Pogs. There has to be a real economy built around Bitcoin, not just millions of unused stashes.

Buy-and-hold is not a rational strategy, neither is running every transaction thru an FRN exchange and then back. Without us actually buying and selling directly in this new currency, there will be no payday. Just another good idea that didn't make it.

Bitcoin "investors" should keep this in mind.

Dave unless it is invasive of your privacy would you share some of the ways that you now "actually buy and sell directly in this new currency"?

I get what you are saying about it has to be used to be useful, else it may end as yet another good idea that didn't make it to practical living. But I'm not sure that the timeline of when it 'must' start to be used in that way is now.

I can't buy anything with 0.00000100 (currently "valued" at a bit under 4/5ths of one cent if my math is correct) and the potential for increased valuation of that 0.000001 BTC is likely to be significant it only makes sense, at least to me, to accumulate at this point in time.

Regarding 'Bitcoin "investors" should keep this in mind": are you referring to the statement just before that unless buying and selling directly in BTC occurs there will be no payday?

4nineFine
11-17-2017, 03:44 PM
It's been accessible at all times for me. For buying or selling quickly you'd probably want to be on GDAX - coinbase's trading platform.

Thanks for the heads up. I wish I had known about that a few months ago.


I agree. It's a PITA when we are talking speed and turn around times. To me Coinbase is more for swing trading or just accumulation over time but definitely not for day trading. It works OK for something moving as fast and far as Bitcoin. If you want to day trade you definitely need another platform.

Even if you don't catch the exact low or sell at the exact high after a $2,000 move does it really matter that you didn't get every last cent of it? To me it would be nice but it doesn't really matter.

I'm not jumping in and out often enough to worry about it.

I'm not day trading, however I do like to stretch a dollar since I'm small potatoes. I understand your position on bitcoin, and in fact, few people here bang the bitcoin drum louder than you do. However, I'm not all-in on this up, up and away mentality.


What will Bitcoin be good for without an economy that trades in it? Trading BTC for FRN is an idiotic business plan. The exchanges are NOT going to subsidize your folly as saturation is reached, and what are you going to do then?

We need to REPLACE the FRN with BTC, not game it to get more FRN. This means using Bitcoin as a currency, which has been the point all along. Sure, it has great potential, but that potential has to be utilized or you end up with zero.

But whoosh! Everybody's gettin' rich here, so why worry?

Replace the FRN with BTC? That seems like a fantasy to me. I would expect a gov't takeover of BTC, or a release of a gov't created crypto before that ever happens. The only people getting rich are the ones taking profits, and those profits happen to be in the form of FRNs. On second thought you can still get a few kilos air dropped from Columbia for a couple BTC then flip that for, wait for it... more FRNs. You're right. Idiotic.

AnotherDave
11-17-2017, 07:25 PM
Dave unless it is invasive of your privacy would you share some of the ways that you now "actually buy and sell directly in this new currency"?

I get what you are saying about it has to be used to be useful, else it may end as yet another good idea that didn't make it to practical living. But I'm not sure that the timeline of when it 'must' start to be used in that way is now.

I can't buy anything with 0.00000100 (currently "valued" at a bit under 4/5ths of one cent if my math is correct) and the potential for increased valuation of that 0.000001 BTC is likely to be significant it only makes sense, at least to me, to accumulate at this point in time.

Regarding 'Bitcoin "investors" should keep this in mind": are you referring to the statement just before that unless buying and selling directly in BTC occurs there will be no payday?

Me, myself? I've promised to tell my Bitcoin story, but it's still playing itself out. Not yet.

I think the problem of getting BTC out and into the world is a good subject for its own topic here. I'll get to work on it! In the meantime, just give a little thought to what adds the value and power to a currency. It's NOT because everybody can get rich by loading up on it.

AnotherDave
11-17-2017, 07:38 PM
. . . Replace the FRN with BTC? That seems like a fantasy to me. I would expect a gov't takeover of BTC, or a release of a gov't created crypto before that ever happens. The only people getting rich are the ones taking profits, and those profits happen to be in the form of FRNs. On second thought you can still get a few kilos air dropped from Columbia for a couple BTC then flip that for, wait for it... more FRNs. You're right. Idiotic.

Do you realize how many have predicted a governmental takeover of Bitcoin? The early PONZI!!!!! screamers have faded into obscurity, and I fondly hope the "government's gonna hack it" people will be the next ones to go!

Yes, the trade in contraband is not big enough to push Bitcoin over the top. That's why I am calling for us to use as a general currency now, as Satoshi intended. Not as a vehicle for speculation. Hoarding it so you can get twice as many FRNs for it tomorrow isn't healthy.

ynot2k
11-17-2017, 08:50 PM
... I think the problem of getting BTC out and into the world is a good subject for its own topic here...
Sounds like a worthy topic - I look forward to learning a lot and to participating to whatever extent I can.

Too bad we can not see more examples of any who do "actually buy and sell directly in this new currency". It could possibly increase the speed at which others begin to do the same. But that part of the story will have to come from some other than myself, as I said I'm accumulating so no outgoing in any manner at the moment. I did recently want to see how much gold an amount of BTC would buy and it was quite a jolt. However currently when I do add metal I use FRN. And currently go for silver as I think the GSR favors that track for now.

ynot2k
11-17-2017, 09:06 PM
...That's why I am calling for us to use as a general currency now, as Satoshi intended. Not as a vehicle for speculation. Hoarding it so you can get twice as many FRNs for it tomorrow isn't healthy.

I would say it is too expensive to use as a currency now.

In the same way that it is too expensive to use AG or AU as a currency now. I don't know where POS or POG is going but it seems certain that at some point in the future if I look back and see that I spent 20 ounces of gold for some "new and shiny" sub-compact car I would have some serious remorse. For my own reasons I don't actually buy new vehicles but if I did say want to hop in something like a new Ford Mustang, Hyundai Santa Fe, or Subaru BRZ I for sure would be forking over ~25,000 FRN and not some of my stack. To me that is only common sense. Why would anyone spend the gold?

I get that to be a currency BTC has to be used as a currency but it just seems way to early now.


Edit to add: I think important to note is that "buying and selling" as a means of using anything as currency leaves a big part of the picture out. There are many people (maybe most?) who do not sell in any fashion in their life. Except their employable skills. For them to be included in "using BTC as a currency" they will need to be paid in Bitcoin. I 'edited to add' this after reflecting on the line of thought a bit more - and it seems BTC in payroll may be a bigger factor than 'buying and selling'. I haven't thought this part through so may not hold water.

AnotherDave
11-17-2017, 11:43 PM
I would say it is too expensive to use as a currency now. . .

In that case, Bitcoin as a currency is overvalued, and will have to "lose value" until the "price is right".

Both quoted phrases are disturbing examples of how distorted our language--and our reality--can actually be.

yellowsnow
11-17-2017, 11:47 PM
I would say it is too expensive to use as a currency now.

In the same way that it is too expensive to use AG or AU as a currency now. I don't know where POS or POG is going but it seems certain that at some point in the future if I look back and see that I spent 20 ounces of gold for some "new and shiny" sub-compact car I would have some serious remorse. For my own reasons I don't actually buy new vehicles but if I did say want to hop in something like a new Ford Mustang, Hyundai Santa Fe, or Subaru BRZ I for sure would be forking over ~25,000 FRN and not some of my stack. To me that is only common sense. Why would anyone spend the gold?

I get that to be a currency BTC has to be used as a currency but it just seems way to early now.


Edit to add: I think important to note is that "buying and selling" as a means of using anything as currency leaves a big part of the picture out. There are many people (maybe most?) who do not sell in any fashion in their life. Except their employable skills. For them to be included in "using BTC as a currency" they will need to be paid in Bitcoin. I 'edited to add' this after reflecting on the line of thought a bit more - and it seems BTC in payroll may be a bigger factor than 'buying and selling'. I haven't thought this part through so may not hold water.

I see btc is now treated as store of value, like gold.
Btc price is going up while trading volume is flat or slightly declining.
BTC is being bought and held. It's Gresham's law.

ynot2k
11-17-2017, 11:58 PM
In that case, Bitcoin as a currency is overvalued, and will have to "lose value" until the "price is right".

Both quoted phrases are disturbing examples of how distorted our language--and our reality--can actually be.

Language distortion probably not, mostly it's how the value is perceived. The point is that it is too expensive in terms of what its being valued at right now vs what it likely will be valued at in the future. The 'too expensive now' part is because one would be using (using up/throwing away) something that likely has a future value far greater. The logic, if it can be called that, only works if one is willing to see it as a choice between spending FRN now for a thing rather than spending BTC now for the thing.

I thought the point being made about using FRN instead ofusing Gold to buy a new car would have been clear?

ynot2k
11-18-2017, 12:03 AM
I see btc is now treated as store of value, like gold.
Btc price is going up while trading volume is flat or slightly declining.
BTC is being bought and held. It's Gresham's law.

I've heard of Gresham's law but had to search it to get informed of what it is.

In economics, Gresham's law is a monetary principle stating that "bad money drives out good". For example, if there are two forms of commodity money in circulation, which are accepted by law as having similar face value, the more valuable commodity will disappear from circulation.

With that definition is what you are saying is BTC is being held/accumulated (disappearing from circulation) as the better currency? Although it doesn't exactly fit the definition because of the 'by law' part and the 'having similar face value' thing.

AnotherDave
11-18-2017, 09:56 AM
Language distortion probably not, mostly it's how the value is perceived. The point is that it is too expensive in terms of what its being valued at right now vs what it likely will be valued at in the future. The 'too expensive now' part is because one would be using (using up/throwing away) something that likely has a future value far greater. The logic, if it can be called that, only works if one is willing to see it as a choice between spending FRN now for a thing rather than spending BTC now for the thing.

I thought the point being made about using FRN instead ofusing Gold to buy a new car would have been clear?

I think our banker friend here can explain arbitrage far better than I can, but if there is an opportunity to profit from exchanging from one system of value to another, the Smart Boys will be doing it. This is what the currency exchanges do, and this is what Kitco does as well. Perceived value is the game, and those with the best perception generally come out ahead.

Maybe you SHOULD buy that car with Bitcoin!

AnotherDave
11-18-2017, 10:09 AM
I've heard of Gresham's law but had to search it to get informed of what it is.


With that definition is what you are saying is BTC is being held/accumulated (disappearing from circulation) as the better currency? Although it doesn't exactly fit the definition because of the 'by law' part and the 'having similar face value' thing.

No! The lesser currency that the seller will accept is the one that will be used. The better currency (in the buyer's eyes) will be reserved, and thus for that transaction won't be a currency at all! "Face value" has no meaning in this scenario. See how the words and terms actually have a meaning that can alter your perception, often to your disadvantage?

My point: Make BTC a currency, or it will end up a useless asset.

ynot2k
11-18-2017, 10:29 AM
As much as anyone would like to "Make BTC a currency" it seems unlikely to be doable. It would seem to require voluntary usage by participants to financial transactions rather than by 'decree'. Although I think you likely meant 'Make' as in "Let us all begin to use BTC as a currency". edit to add: I hope you do start the topic you mentioned previously about 'getting BTC out into the world'.

I will rephrase a point I made above. Instead of "I would say it is too expensive to use as a currency now" kindly accept the revision "I would say it is too valuable to use as a currency now."

I don't think you argue simply for argument sake, Dave, and I understand that there is merit to your resoluteness regarding how language is used but to have a conversation with a broader range of people it would be helpful to work with others rather than rigidly enforcing a narrative (however valuable and accurate it may be).

An example, however flawed it may be, is my remark about Gresham's law. It seems that we may be saying the same thing: I propose that Bitcoin's potential is much greater than FRN's which would seem to equate to more valuable. The seller will accept FRN, the lesser currency, so I am certainly going to use (get rid of/use up) that lesser currency.

Are we not, in meaning, saying the same thing?


Crap, I just took in your statement " The better currency (in the buyer's eyes) will be reserved, and thus for that transaction won't be a currency at all!". I guess you are saying that Greshem's Law doesn't apply at all since your proposition is in the scenario above BTC is not a currency.

AnotherDave
11-18-2017, 10:42 AM
As much as anyone would like to "Make BTC a currency" it seems unlikely to be doable. It would seem to require voluntary usage by participants to financial transactions rather than by 'decree'. Although I think you likely meant 'Make' as in "Let us all begin to use BTC as a currency". edit to add: I hope you do start the topic you mentioned previously about 'getting BTC out into the world'.

I will rephrase a point I made above. Instead of "I would say it is too expensive to use as a currency now" kindly accept the revision "I would say it is too valuable too use as a currency now."

I don't think you argue simply for argument sake, Dave, and I understand that there is merit to your resoluteness regarding how language is used but to have a conversation with a broader range of people it would be helpful to work with others rather than rigidly enforcing a narrative (however valuable and accurate it may be).

An example, however flawed it may be, is my remark about Gresham's law. It seems that we may be saying the same thing: I propose that Bitcoin's potential is much greater than FRN's which would seem to equate to more valuable. The seller will accept FRN, the lesser currency, so I am certainly going to use (get rid of/use up) that lesser currency.

Are we not, in meaning, saying the same thing?

In that specific passage, yes. But keep in mind that it is the lesser in the eyes of the buyer. If Bitcoin is perceived so "valuable" that no one spends it, it won't be a currency at all! It loses its utility, and what is its "value" in that event?

I use these terms for a reason!

ynot2k
11-18-2017, 10:57 AM
In that specific passage, yes. But keep in mind that it is the lesser in the eyes of the buyer. If Bitcoin is perceived so "valuable" that no one spends it, it won't be a currency at all! It loses its utility, and what is its "value" in that event?

Now maybe it's me being argumentative :) but again it seems that while BTC's future is so extraordinarily greater than FRN's it may remain unspent. At the point in time when it's future value is more in line with it's [then] present value I imagine more people will become users of Bitcoin rather than holders of it.

By the way, I bring up again the point I made above about 'buying and selling' being only two factors in how BTC is utilized. One of the others being payroll. If only a very small percentage of people are being paid in BTC then the large majority of people will be left out. If they obtain their spendable currency only by payroll, they would have to buy BTC using FRN - which is not the 'buying' we are referencing, is it? (buying and selling meaning buying things with BTC and selling things for BTC.)




...I use these terms for a reason!

I know you do and, likely, for good reason as well.

yellowsnow
11-18-2017, 04:35 PM
As much as anyone would like to "Make BTC a currency" it seems unlikely to be doable. It would seem to require voluntary usage by participants to financial transactions rather than by 'decree'. Although I think you likely meant 'Make' as in "Let us all begin to use BTC as a currency". edit to add: I hope you do start the topic you mentioned previously about 'getting BTC out into the world'.

I will rephrase a point I made above. Instead of "I would say it is too expensive to use as a currency now" kindly accept the revision "I would say it is too valuable to use as a currency now."

I don't think you argue simply for argument sake, Dave, and I understand that there is merit to your resoluteness regarding how language is used but to have a conversation with a broader range of people it would be helpful to work with others rather than rigidly enforcing a narrative (however valuable and accurate it may be).

An example, however flawed it may be, is my remark about Gresham's law. It seems that we may be saying the same thing: I propose that Bitcoin's potential is much greater than FRN's which would seem to equate to more valuable. The seller will accept FRN, the lesser currency, so I am certainly going to use (get rid of/use up) that lesser currency.

Are we not, in meaning, saying the same thing?


Crap, I just took in your statement " The better currency (in the buyer's eyes) will be reserved, and thus for that transaction won't be a currency at all!". I guess you are saying that Greshem's Law doesn't apply at all since your proposition is in the scenario above BTC is not a currency.

I think I took Gresham's law as ' spending bad money and save up the good money', just like how the indian want to get rid of their old notes for the new rupee notes. I believe cryptocurrency wasn't around when Mr Gresham came up with this law, i'm sure if Mr Gresham is alive today, he'll refine his law:p Current definition of fiat is currency by decree of kings or gov't. Cryptocurrency is also fiat but decree and accepted by the population, against the will of gov't. In a sense, gold/silver are similar to cryptocurrency as both are decree and accepted by the general population. Gold and silver have the advantage of time like 5000 years of acceptance as gold bugs say but in the age on internet, 10 years of history like BTC feel like 5000 years back then ;). I think the gold bugs major beef about crypto is the definition of intrinsic value of gold versus electron of cryptos. I believe it is trust and faith that earn a currency as money, not the utilitarian value of the metal. It took me quite a while to accept this.

we hear gold bugs projecting gold price to be 10,000 - 50,000 USD.
we also hearing bitcoin could hit 25,000 - $1 million.
For a betting man, btc seem to have better upside even when $1 million/btc sound crazy

enemy of my enemy is my friend.
both gold/silver and crypto are enemy of bankers so stack both;)

AnotherDave
11-18-2017, 09:59 PM
Now maybe it's me being argumentative :) but again it seems that while BTC's future is so extraordinarily greater than FRN's it may remain unspent. At the point in time when it's future value is more in line with it's [then] present value I imagine more people will become users of Bitcoin rather than holders of it.

By the way, I bring up again the point I made above about 'buying and selling' being only two factors in how BTC is utilized. One of the others being payroll. If only a very small percentage of people are being paid in BTC then the large majority of people will be left out. If they obtain their spendable currency only by payroll, they would have to buy BTC using FRN - which is not the 'buying' we are referencing, is it? (buying and selling meaning buying things with BTC and selling things for BTC.)





I know you do and, likely, for good reason as well.

Being argumentative doesn't bother me at all. I think it's a good thing! Failing to defend your own statements, or to concede points you've lost is what drives me crazy. Not that you are guilty of either! :-) Please don't walk on eggs on my account.



As much as anyone would like to "Make BTC a currency" it seems unlikely to be doable. It would seem to require voluntary usage by participants to financial transactions rather than by 'decree'. Although I think you likely meant 'Make' as in "Let us all begin to use BTC as a currency".


I wanted to say "Let's start using BTC as our daily currency" as a Good Idea we should think about seriously. Bitcoin is a currency, and it has to function as a currency or it will fail. I foresee a lot of disappointed speculators should this happen.



I bring up again the point I made above about 'buying and selling' being only two factors in how BTC is utilized. One of the others being payroll.


"Payroll" is a feature/symptom of the commercial employer/employee relationship, a contract, with the state. I can't envision the state or its TPTB masters ever allowing anything other than their FRN house currency to be utilized on their plantation. Google "company store" (in the Tennessee Ernie Ford sense) and "contract law" for what I am trying to say here.



it seems that while BTC's future is so extraordinarily greater than FRN's it may remain unspent. At the point in time when it's future value is more in line with it's [then] present value I imagine more people will become users of Bitcoin rather than holders of it.


Tell me more of this word "value". Is it based on usefulness in an actual market, or is it something that will come later, after something magical happens?

Count Stacula
11-18-2017, 11:56 PM
Bitcoin is going to hit 10K.

Do with that what you will.....

ynot2k
11-19-2017, 01:13 AM
No issues regarding the "let's MAKE..." when what was meant was "Let's start...". Agreed that if (when) BTC begins to be used as our daily currency it will be a good thing (see more below, about wages i.e. payroll.)

Dave, sorry I can not get into the discussion of 'value' as I think you view it. Your view may be absolutely accurate but, and I'm sorry to disappoint if I do, I'm unable to understand the nuances. I get that it is important to you.

Same with where you've decided to take the talk regarding payroll. I simply mean the method that many, if not most, people in the world who are not self-employed are paid. If you feel it necessary to bring the points of 'the commercial employer/employee relationship, a contract, with the state" into the discussion about how Bitcoin may become used as a currency. If you must go there I'll not go along for the ride. The idea that everyday people will need to be paid in Bitcoin to bring BTC to a everyday usable currency is a very valid point to make. To bring the other stuff in, in reply, seems to defeat the proposition being discussed.

And lastly, to your first point, you're correct that civil arguing is a good thing. Called debating if I remember from school - long ago. and it can assist to inform all of us Given that (arguing/debating is good) I'll reiterate my thought that Bitcoin will be a more viable, usable, and common currency once a single bitcoin reaches an equivalency of 1 million USD. Because then there will be a tremendous number of spendable (i.e. viable, usable, and common) units of currency in circulation. Of course the $1 million is just a number I've used since it equates to 0.00000100 being equivalent to $1 in FRN - and to be viable, usable and common a smaller number could be proffered.

A thought about how BTC "price" may be affecting current holders. Someone holding 31 BTC at the moment probably can envision being able to "handle" $31 million. However it may be if someone had say 31,000 BTC (say someone who became heavily involved in Bitcoin "from the beginning" it might be actually frightening and concerning to see BTC going much higher than it is now since at current price that amount of BTC could purchase goods that nominally would cost $240 million USD. So at a $80k "price" the holder of that many BTC would be faced with $2.4 billion and once up towards $1 million they would personally have about $31 billion. I would personally be a bit concerned and frightened at that prospect to be honest. What I'm saying is if I currently had 31,000 bitcoin I would probably be encouraging usage now hoping the price would just settle down at this point. This paragraph probably a bit of a jag - my apologies for getting a bit out there.

And please be tolerant of my use of the words 'price' 'value' 'equal to' etc. As said before I (sort of) get your reminders - and do respect/admire them.

Finally my apologies to all for the above wall of text. It is often difficult to digest or I find it to be in any case. And I didn't proof read so most assuredly there will be spelling and grammar (loads of these I'm sure) errors.

ynot2k
11-19-2017, 01:20 AM
@yellowsnow - thanks for your thoughts. It took me a while to accept it as well.

4nineFine
11-19-2017, 08:25 AM
Do you realize how many have predicted a governmental takeover of Bitcoin? The early PONZI!!!!! screamers have faded into obscurity, and I fondly hope the "government's gonna hack it" people will be the next ones to go!

Yes, the trade in contraband is not big enough to push Bitcoin over the top. That's why I am calling for us to use as a general currency now, as Satoshi intended. Not as a vehicle for speculation. Hoarding it so you can get twice as many FRNs for it tomorrow isn't healthy.

IMO, blind faith will be the downfall of crypto bugs. If they can build something as complex, far reaching and intrusive as Stuxnet, then I'm pretty sure they can do what they will with a blockchain. Manipulation is a popular word on these forums, yet we are supposed to accept a new technology many of who (including the staunch supporters) do not fully understand. Today we can grab one of many tools such as a scale, a caliper, a loupe, or a magnet to detect a fake coin, but if someone were to skim your bitcoin during a transaction and feed you something fake but passable, you may never know until its too late. Public ledger my foot! Most would look at the code and scratch their head. There are many different ways to attempt an attack on bitcoin. Miners, contractors, buyers, transactions, wallets.. anything electronic can be exploited given enough funding, time & creativity.

No one is going to deny the success of BTC at the moment. I'm happy for those of you who are enjoying it. Just don't get stuck looking for a seat when the music stops.

AnotherDave
11-19-2017, 10:24 AM
No issues regarding the "let's MAKE..." when what was meant was "Let's start...". Agreed that if (when) BTC begins to be used as our daily currency it will be a good thing (see more below, about wages i.e. payroll.)

Dave, sorry I can not get into the discussion of 'value' as I think you view it. Your view may be absolutely accurate but, and I'm sorry to disappoint if I do, I'm unable to understand the nuances. I get that it is important to you.

Same with where you've decided to take the talk regarding payroll. I simply mean the method that many, if not most, people in the world who are not self-employed are paid. If you feel it necessary to bring the points of 'the commercial employer/employee relationship, a contract, with the state" into the discussion about how Bitcoin may become used as a currency. If you must go there I'll not go along for the ride. The idea that everyday people will need to be paid in Bitcoin to bring BTC to a everyday usable currency is a very valid point to make. To bring the other stuff in, in reply, seems to defeat the proposition being discussed.

And lastly, to your first point, you're correct that civil arguing is a good thing. Called debating if I remember from school - long ago. and it can assist to inform all of us Given that (arguing/debating is good) I'll reiterate my thought that Bitcoin will be a more viable, usable, and common currency once a single bitcoin reaches an equivalency of 1 million USD. Because then there will be a tremendous number of spendable (i.e. viable, usable, and common) units of currency in circulation. Of course the $1 million is just a number I've used since it equates to 0.00000100 being equivalent to $1 in FRN - and to be viable, usable and common a smaller number could be proffered.

A thought about how BTC "price" may be affecting current holders. Someone holding 31 BTC at the moment probably can envision being able to "handle" $31 million. However it may be if someone had say 31,000 BTC (say someone who became heavily involved in Bitcoin "from the beginning" it might be actually frightening and concerning to see BTC going much higher than it is now since at current price that amount of BTC could purchase goods that nominally would cost $240 million USD. So at a $80k "price" the holder of that many BTC would be faced with $2.4 billion and once up towards $1 million they would personally have about $31 billion. I would personally be a bit concerned and frightened at that prospect to be honest. What I'm saying is if I currently had 31,000 bitcoin I would probably be encouraging usage now hoping the price would just settle down at this point. This paragraph probably a bit of a jag - my apologies for getting a bit out there.

And please be tolerant of my use of the words 'price' 'value' 'equal to' etc. As said before I (sort of) get your reminders - and do respect/admire them.

Finally my apologies to all for the above wall of text. It is often difficult to digest or I find it to be in any case. And I didn't proof read so most assuredly there will be spelling and grammar (loads of these I'm sure) errors.

You sound awfully confused, but maybe you'll be able to figure it out in your own terms.

insidedealer
11-19-2017, 09:04 PM
You sound awfully confused, but maybe you'll be able to figure it out in your own terms.
I appreciate ynot's thoughts, and of course your thoughts Dave. It's good to talk even if one person(you) perhaps understand more than any of us.
I see your point about use of bitcoin. This is why in my old "Bitcoin News Of The Day" thread I always looked for signs of present/future usage from merchants willing to accept bitcoin. Overstock was a biggie at the time, we've come a lot further. Not far enough to get holders to spend bitcoin in any great quantity.
.
I always thought that the time when usage became critically important was when we were at or approaching the mining of the last bitcoin 10? years from now. Then miners would then need the income from transactions or else the whole ecosystem would crash. Right now they don't need any extra reward for transactions, they already get an outsize reward for mining. Or maybe I'm as confused as ynot.

AnotherDave
11-19-2017, 10:01 PM
I appreciate ynot's thoughts, and of course your thoughts Dave. It's good to talk even if one person(you) perhaps understand more than any of us.
I see your point about use of bitcoin. This is why in my old "Bitcoin News Of The Day" thread I always looked for signs of present/future usage from merchants willing to accept bitcoin. Overstock was a biggie at the time, we've come a lot further. Not far enough to get holders to spend bitcoin in any great quantity.
.
I always thought that the time when usage became critically important was when we were at or approaching the mining of the last bitcoin 10? years from now. Then miners would then need the income from transactions or else the whole ecosystem would crash. Right now they don't need any extra reward for transactions, they already get an outsize reward for mining. Or maybe I'm as confused as ynot.

I know nothing about the economy of Bitcoin mining. Are they selling most of what they produce, or are they hanging on to it? Are they still making large investments in machines, or are they spending it on the good life?

Overstock.com was a surprise because they are so corporate. I've expected most Bitcoin commerce to be in personal trades, yard sales, Craigslist, etc., and maybe it is! Also failing economies such as Venezuela and Argentina, and in concealing wealth from taxocracies like the U.S. and Europe.

But I guess they don't publish statistics on any of that!

insidedealer
11-19-2017, 11:23 PM
I know nothing about the economy of Bitcoin mining. Are they selling most of what they produce, or are they hanging on to it? Are they still making large investments in machines, or are they spending it on the good life?

Overstock.com was a surprise because they are so corporate. I've expected most Bitcoin commerce to be in personal trades, yard sales, Craigslist, etc., and maybe it is! Also failing economies such as Venezuela and Argentina, and in concealing wealth from taxocracies like the U.S. and Europe.

But I guess they don't publish statistics on any of that!
I don't know the economics of bitcoin mining. I was looking for your thoughts on the general concept that transactions whereby bitcoin shows it's utility aren't as important now in the interim as they will be once the mining reward is gone. Between now and as we approach then any use is good. Each utility company or property tax agency that accepts bitcoin with no fee is another brick in the wall. A so-called black market or underground economy peer to peer is always going to be there. If it uses bitcoin this just adds to the utility value of bitcoin. On public transactions, just one example would be Whole Foods in NYC downtown location which has been a meeting place for p2p bitcoin transactions for years. Now, Amazon/Whole Foods will be opening bitcoin as a payment option there, and look for it tomorrow in your neighborhood Whole Foods. Amazon/Whole Foods will publish the statistics going forward for them. It'll be easy enough to gather the stats from Amazon and others to determine the public transactions.

AnotherDave
11-20-2017, 12:11 AM
I don't know the economics of bitcoin mining. I was looking for your thoughts on the general concept that transactions whereby bitcoin shows it's utility aren't as important now in the interim as they will be once the mining reward is gone. Between now and as we approach then any use is good. Each utility company or property tax agency that accepts bitcoin with no fee is another brick in the wall. A so-called black market or underground economy peer to peer is always going to be there. If it uses bitcoin this just adds to the utility value of bitcoin. On public transactions, just one example would be Whole Foods in NYC downtown location which has been a meeting place for p2p bitcoin transactions for years. Now, Amazon/Whole Foods will be opening bitcoin as a payment option there, and look for it tomorrow in your neighborhood Whole Foods. Amazon/Whole Foods will publish the statistics going forward for them. It'll be easy enough to gather the stats from Amazon and others to determine the public transactions.

Whole Foods, really! This is huge. It means Amazon itself might be next. That would be the needed economy right there.

BUT Bezos is smart enough to think of his own crypto in that case, so I'm skeptical.

TPTB can't do much to stop personal trading, but income taxes are a side effect of Fed fiat. I don't see any way they would or could accept payment in BTC. Property taxes not so much, but still, It'll be a cold day in New Guinea before present governments and municipalities will go along.

AnotherDave
11-20-2017, 12:24 AM
. . . I was looking for your thoughts on the general concept that transactions whereby bitcoin shows it's utility aren't as important now in the interim as they will be once the mining reward is gone. Between now and as we approach then any use is good. . .


I don't see this as an interim until mining ceases. Mining's only purpose is to get the new currency into the hands of the public. I think it's been a clever solution, but it's not what Bitcoin is all about. Bitcoin will be valued on its usefulness in actual trading. Its imagined potential won't be worth squat, not after the Free Money euphoria wears off.

ynot2k
11-20-2017, 09:27 AM
You sound awfully confused, but maybe you'll be able to figure it out in your own terms.

Good morning. No I'm not confused although I might be incorrect and/or my presentation of what I'm saying could be unclear/confusing.

However if I really am then I think you should come back into this conversation and tell me where I'm confused so I can re-orientate to a clearer understanding.