wachtwoord

Yes but % is all that matters of course otherwise any btc crash is always the largest.

You mean smaller drop? 69 to 20 is a bigger drop than 125 to 60.

https://www.coinwarz.com/mining/bitcoin/difficulty-chart

There was more freedom then. You simply have no clue what personal freedom constitutes and underestimate election manipulation in modern times. Your bias is showing. No oppression by the nation state so no involvement by them and voluntary choice otherwise. It's really not that difficult, why are you trying to not understand just do you can hold on to your comfy beliefs?

No they are not as supply is constantly inflated (melting ice cube). Do yourself a favor and look up the maximum and average survival times of currencies historically. Lets add counter party risk on top for no gain? Agreed, and to transfer wealth from the productive class to the parasitic class (politicians and all the professions that only exist or are as large due to politicians eg tax advisors). That's a feature not a bug. Frequent small crises every few years is the natural way of an economy. All central banks do is block the economy from going through these release cycles taking out the poor allocators of capital. Their continued existence, financed through direct and indirect transfer of capital, supports Malinvestment of capital which comes with a huge societal cost (opportunity cost). Central banks are a core tenet of communism. Free societies by definition cannot have central banks as their very existence is coercive and exploitative. The US was much more free until the UK bankers Trojan horsed the Fed into existence in the US (I'm European btw, the oppression and stagnation the founding fathers fled from, unfortunately you were followed there by our crap institutions centuries later). What does "run on" mean in your mind? In mine people should be free to use whatever medium of exchange, store of value and unit of account they choose and not be coerced into one or a few. Enforcement that exists now through enforcing acceptance of a specific fiat currency, enforcement of tax settlement in a specific fiat, forcing tax calculation with a specific fiat (eg paying capital gains on a,loss,of purchasing power through inflation) and restriction of what assets can and cannot be owned by a private individual is barbarous.

Luke, what you wrote was nonsensical and inconsistent to meaningfully respond to. Not worth my effort to comb through. You don't have to rewrite and I will simply not engage. All good.

Luke if you want a reply please rewrite all your messages so they don't assume I consider Bitcoin as a currency. Like this it's pretty pointless to respond. You simply stating the retarded religious belief that a 2% tax inflation is a good thing, just using an argumentem auctoritatem as its legitimization, rather than a political scheme to steal from the productive class and keep them down as part of your response to what I wrote does not give me much hope btw.

Misnomers abound in the real messy world. The state calls CPI increases inflation, not the increase of the money supply. Liberalism once being used to point to people valuing individual freedom above all else, now used to those that wish all are stripped of their individual freedoms and coerced to act by the state executed "collectivism". Vaccine, once equivalent with engendered stimulation of immunity developed by the body, now used for shots that at best reduce symptoms. Etc etc etc Bitcoin, nor gold, nor paper, nor seashells are currencies. They can be used as such, with varying degrees of efficiency as anything with value that's at least somewhat fungible. Btw if you are that married to terms, don't be fooled like eg Ripple calling their chucky cheese coins "cryptocurrency". If it has a centralized ledger it's just an inefficient database. Well yes. Bitcoin is gold with superior qualities. Originally posted in early 2012: https://medium.com/lux-initiative/bitcoin-the-libertarian-introduction-c616edd8496c It's the people in charge of the economic institutions that "do not understand enough about economics". This is because the Keynesian political ideology was used to push utter falsehoods on generations of economics students. So many believe that nonsense now and few practice the actual science (austrian economics). Eg Inflation of a currency being a good thing is so incredibly stupid. How did they convince people of that nonsense? Btw did you see that central banker laugh about bitcoin at Davos? Did you hear him speak? he has zero clue but speaks with utter confidence. For example he thinks a single person controls the bitcoin blockchain

Ding ding ding ding, we have a winner. Also lol at all the Schadenfreude posters in the topic . Indeed what always happens in this part of the cycle so it must still be alive. Human nature is hilariously ironic sometimes

Lol of course it is. Did that really surprise you Bitcoin is still fully in learning curve/price discovery. In the short run fiat devaluation is such a tiny part of its price it's going to be invisible. Expect that after it grew up and displaced gold, not before.

Quantum risk is not really a risk unless you store your bitcoin in addresses with the 2009 standard (P2PK) or reuse addresses (when you move coins out of an address always move all and retire that address). Losing access or being robbed are real threats though, but those also apply to gold.

Yeah and did you see the condescending little fucker smile, laugh and mock while being as wrong a he could possibly be? Mind boggling how such incompetents are in such influential positions in society (central bankers are our system's central planners equivalent, yes a communistic pillar of western society).

Well apparently Sham won? Somehow. .. Against Tim Eriksen btw (one of our forums own. Among other things responsible for the SODI turnaround).

Bitcoin won't have cheap transactions on chain. Other crypto isn't truly worth anything.

My man c'mon..... Transaction fees.

Great that the system has a use case,(maybe, far from certain) that doesn't give the tokens value though. Even more so after they moved to POS. They deserve at least many orders of magnitude of discount vs Bitcoin and are overvalued (again: on a relative basis vs Bitcoin) by orders of magnitude.

I understood you as trading out of Bitcoin in favor of gold for the longer term so I asked at what relative valuation would you exchange btc for gold (parity being when both market caps are equal) and what portion of your current btc allocation (however large or small it is). But your answer seems to be you would sell speculatively (to buy back later?) Instead of a longer term relative rebalancing and it sounds like you'd base it on an exact Dollar value than the price relative to gold (really?!) So not what I thought you meant at al it seems. So that seems to confirm you would roll over btc to gold only speculatively and temporarily right? I'm not one for speculation/trading but good luck.

In part or nearly full? What relative valuation are you thinking? Parity? How do you deal with the chance btc displaces gold (purely conceptually it's simply better gold after all. Whether Mr Market will agree remains to be seen of course).

You mean being allowed to paint the walls? If you mean certainty of living there for the long term you wont have that either when owning as governments can force you to sell to them "for the common good" and frequently do so at least here in Europe. Also homeowners (I hate the English term landlord, prefer the German Vermieter, we know ours personally) cant easily make renters leave in Europe so renters have nearly the same ability to remain living where they live as homeowners. My non-financial reason to prefer renting even more is no maintenance responsibility.

Yup the cost to rent : cost to own ratio certainly affects this decision strongly and I live in a country where this ratio is more extreme to the detriment of owning relative to other places. That's on a relative basis though. However, also on an absolute basis the ratio is, in the western world, stacked to the detriment of owning primarily because (i) people culturally value owning too much for non-financial reasons (eg as a sign of success or a demonstrator of status), (ii) people conflating investment and utility and believing real estate is the primary method to build wealth because of visibility bias (people they know) and conflating nominal and real returns, (iii) governmental policies that peg home prices higher in many jurisdictions (tax bebefits, more beneficially treated loans called mortgages etc) that CAN go away and are already starting to be removed and (iv) historically low interest rates unnaturally set by our central planning overlords (central banks). Yes, to make it more complex, like John says, some jurisdictions on top of the tax systems that have pushed housing prices higher in the past, also tax owning the property more (than other assets) undoing some of that price increase but also moving some of the proceeds of owning the risky assets to the government. Finally the zeitgeist is against residential RE as an investment. Home owners are considered to have unfairly benefited by a LARGE portion of society and are likely scapegoats and victims in the future (govs always take from small unpopular groups). Squatting is getting increasingly common and societally accepted. At the same time population increase (the main push for increasing prices) is leveling off.

You can just rent a house my friend. Don't mix consumption and investment. You can't own real estate as the state can take it whenever it likes and you can't take it with you to another jurisdiction. Residential RE (non-diversified so holding individual properties) needs to cost 2 orders of magnitude, everything else being equal, for me to even consider owning it the value proposition is so horrendous. It's very unlikely I'll ever live in a house I own.

It's relative. CHF is clearly better than all other Fiat currencies (compare loss of purchasing power, eg 22% over the last 30 years with USD losing 111%) but it's still a damn fiat currency. What's a good source for Swiss M2?

Not a default in nominal terms. They did it post WW2: default by devaluing the debt. Easy peasy if you control the currency. Pushing up Bitcoin enables them to devalue USD faster (and blame external factors). Afterwards effectively banning Bitcoin (the bad guy that caused all that inflation and hardship for the plebs) would allow reintroducing a new currency (New Dollars) resetting debt levels. I don't think they'll be able to effectively ban Bitcoin but they might (believe they can). Governments voluntarily reducing their spending (and by proxy power) is not going to happen. They suck up all resources everything until they implode (revolution, a reset even after a new gov starts the entropy away from individual liberties again).

They can use Bitcoin to extinguish their USD denominated debt. Of course after that they'd have lost all the power they have now with controlling their currency but perhaps they think they can control it and effectively ban Bitcoin if they want control of their currency back after that?

Indeed, I also dont see much of a difference: https://medium.com/coinmonks/bitcoins-ipo-moment-let-s-hope-not-f6505bde9442