wachtwoord

Thanks for sharing!

Sorry to be so blunt but that's complete nonsense. Or are you talking quantum computers? If so, that technology is no where near ready to attack Bitcoin and if they ever are all the S&P500 companies will be just as disrupted (and Bitcoin will adapt).

What are you talking about man? None of these supercomputers are double sha256 asics and wouldn't make a dent in the hash rate. Complete hogwash. When people talk about (peta)flops as a unit in the context of Bitcoin mining they don't know what they are talking about (on this topic at least). His larger point still holds that it is physically possible to spend $X to build a system that could 51% attack Bitcoin. My point was that you would never be able to cash out and earn a return on your investment if you did that, because the $X you would have to spend is so high and the price of Bitcoin would plummet immediately upon your attack. The danger is that a state actor does this not to profit, but to destroy Bitcoin. State actor can (malignantly, not profitably) attack Bitcoin although today the battle will be close and only the very top of the state actors stand a chance (if they were to collaborate they'd certainly win but that seems unlikely). Mind though that the turn around time (attaining hash power) can be long and hard to keep quiet provoking counter reactions by both other state actors and groups of individuals, both in the increase in hash rate, sky rocketing of mining equipment and/or Bitcoin price.

What are you talking about man? None of these supercomputers are double sha256 asics and wouldn't make a dent in the hash rate. Complete hogwash. When people talk about (peta)flops as a unit in the context of Bitcoin mining they don't know what they are talking about (on this topic at least).

I'm surprised no one else has commented on this, as a non-expert on this stuff it seems like a big deal, are the other cryptos at risk for this? Ethereum (the real Ethereum) was forked years ago to undo some theft (it gave of up immutability). The article you linked is about Ethereum classic, some small (but still top 20, showing there isn't much serious crypto short of Bitcoin) fork of Ethereum that was created at the time for people that thought giving up immutability was stupid (they were right of course but never got traction as the public followed the Vitalik messiah). Neither of these things will happen in Bitcoin. The culture will not break immutability and a 51% attack is economically unviable (Eth classic had a pittyfull hash rate protecting the network because of the low value and overall lack of interest in it). It's also unlikely (but not impossible) to happen to other serious crypto (e.g. LTC and XMR). Of course a shit show like Ripple already has no immutability (it's not a cryptocurrency but a centralized database so Ripple Labs can do whatever it wants), bcash does all sorts of retardation (hard fork every few months) and most of the token crap everyone seems to like so much is on the Ethereum blockchain to start with. So no not a big deal at all. Crypto is Bitcoin and Bitcoin is fine.

I'm missing the option: "Interest rates should be set by the free market rather than a central bank." Edit: While reading all the posts saw rkbabang already made my point.

Can you link me to the gilded age (I had to look up the term, only knew the European equivalents belle epoque and Victorian) reset information?

Oh it is a feature, to those in power of influencing the monetary supply. It's detrimental to everyone else. Due to that asymmetry it undermines the free market (and is therefore by definition bad in my opinion as I consider the free market to be the optimal system). While I can certainly sympathise with the libertarian stance, the money-printing-is-100%-evil-argument just doesn't seem that convincing to me. Sure, the moral hazard is there, there is no free lunch and with great power comes great responsibility. I think most will agree to that. However, turning it into good vs evil dilutes the discussion and turns the focus away from discussing the actual trade-offs of different monetary policies and systems. Let's, for a few seconds, assume that the central banks of the world are not some nefarious actors trying to transfer wealth to a select few, but rather trying to use the tools at their disposal, in order to ensure the smooth functioning of the payment system. My first question would be: Is a central bank necessary? The US was relatively late compared to Europe to establish a central bank. Prior to the Fed, banks would issue their own banknotes which were backed by each bank's gold reserves and there was a very limited secondary market for the commercial loans that the banks would make. In times of pessimism, the banks would reduce the supply of money, which in turn would have a deflationary effect on the local economy, much to the detriment of all affected. I think it's hard to argue against the case that the adoption of central banks by the monetary systems across the world was not only an improvement but an absolute necessity. The second question would be: Is infinite supply of money detrimental to the actors within the system? The most common argument I hear against a free-floating fiat currency revolves around the "seniorage as illegal taxation" argument. In short: the government can dilute the purchasing power of others by creating money and spending it before the market has adjusted prices to the new denominator a.k.a. "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output". Personally, the stance that I have come to adopt as I have delved deeper into the topic is that the monetary base does not really play a causal role in the determination of the money supply and that the money multiplier (M3 / M0) is not that useful as an analytical framework. In the words of Claudio Borio: "In fact, in systems without reserve requirements, the multiplier is practically infinite; and nothing calamitous has ever happened. Increasing bank reserves (the means of payment) beyond what markets want simply pushes interest rates to the deposit facility or, in its absence, to zero. Increasing the monetary base is like pushing on a string and could result in loss of control over interest rates. Bank lending reflects banks’ management of the risk-return tradeoff they face, and bank transaction deposits the non-bank sector’s portfolio preferences. The ultimate anchor of the monetary system is not the monetary base but the interest rate the central bank sets." It's not that I think the lunch is free, I just think the crypto-punks and libertarians overstate the actual cost/detriment of the lunch. You basically state two premises that you hold true I don't agree with. Firstly I don't believe anyone or any group of people can act in a non-corrupt fashion when given the enormous power central banks have (just like there is no such thing as a non-corrupt politician except the ones without power) and even if that were possible, no centralized entity would be able to outperform a properly decentralized decision making process where all actors are allowed to make decisions for their own benefit. (It's always hard for people to accept that doing nothing is optimal. This is why investing is so hard for most people). Secondly I disagree central banks have added any form of value to the economic market. Quite the opposite, since the introduction (through British subterfuge!) of central banks in the USA in the early 1900s it never returned to the prior high standards (and directly caused the bubble that ended in 1929 and the following economic crisis). Central banks are a powerful tool used by very powerful people to preserve their current status. They're not going anywhere. I don't think it is neccessary to agree with any of the above to see the value (to an individual) of Bitcoin though so perhaps it's too off topic. I mean gold has a very limited elasticity and I don't think you're arguing it has no value ;)

And this have been avoided with a decently written will.

Oh it is a feature, to those in power of influencing the monetary supply. It's detrimental to everyone else. Due to that asymmetry it undermines the free market (and is therefore by definition bad in my opinion as I consider the free market to be the optimal system). For those mentioning power waste, perhaps this recent study is an interesting read. It's on the price and sources of Bitcoin mining (both geographically and how the power is produced). The main conclusions are that at least 77.6% of the power consumption is from renewables and that a large part of this comes from stranded assets: power that is otherwise wasted. https://coinshares.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Mining-Whitepaper-Final.pdf (Note the source of the study is unlikely to be impartial based on the name alone)

I tend to agree with this line of thinking, and the portion of bitcoins that have been lost due to lost keys is staggering, some reports say its like 23% of all the mined coins have been lost. Could you imagine if 23% of the gold reserve disappeared. If you account for the dollar value of the loss at the time of loss the numbers are far less impressive. People will try harder for millions than for a few dollars.

This reply is to writser: That and on your opinion on the first point. I think theoretical security can equal actual security for those willing to be diligent and educate themselves sufficiently. Nothing in this world comes completely without risk (although we often like to tell ourselves differently). About the pouch of diamond (or rather gold as to me carbon doesn't have much value) comparison: realize that those take space and are far harder to move and conceal.

I mostly agree with what you write above. It's extremely secure, no system in human history has ever been so secure, but at the cost of having your own responsibility. You seem to also use the term security for that and I don't agree with that use of the word. So yes the ecosystem is inherently secure. Humans may not be. Further, you say losing your private keys would destroy all your wealth but that is what diversification is for. You can spread your wealth over more than just one investment and your Bitcoin can be spread over as many wallets as you choose. I imagine many people will indeed choose custody solutions for holding Bitcoin, undoing some of the benefits. I also don't think it's the best store of wealth for the majority of people (but neither is gold). I think it's (potentially) an important store of wealth for a significant portion of the world's wealth (and with the very unequal division of wealth this does not translate to the majority of people).

A lot of energy compared to what? Cause that is what provides the enormous level of security. The no recourse thing is a direct consequence of the absence of a censoring gatekeepers and the direct control you have over your assets. Choose your poison I guess, but to me that's well worth it. (There's also solutions for some of the problems you mention with multisig and/or timelocked transactions).

Wow, that wasn't very good. His main research question is the wrong one (store of value is the right topic here). His first limitation is both irrelevant (doesn't matter if not solved) and very likely solved or at least mitigated by second layer solutions. His second limitation is actually a much stronger limitation of the current monetary system. I do admire your conviction. If, as you say, the store of value thesis is "the correct topic" when it comes to crypto, would you then also say that crypto should be seen more as an asset rather than money? If the first limitation has to be mitigated by second layer solutions, would that not entail that the finality/settlement of the cryptocurrency (the second limitation) would start to resemble the current monetary system? What do you consider gold? I consider that primarily an asset but it can be used as money if needed (but not very efficiently). Bitcoin is an improved version of gold. That is the whole thesis. The current monetary system doesn't have a finite but infinite supply giving the monetary units marginal value at best. Secondly the control of the monetary system is highly centralized giving these actors the power of censorship. Thirdly the current system isn't very secure (balances are simple entries in databases that can be altered by people with access to these databases). Edit: To clarify: you are asking questions about crypto here. I'm answering them with Bitcoin in mind. Most of this doesn't hold for the vast majority of altcoins.

Wow, that wasn't very good. His main research question is the wrong one (store of value is the right topic here). His first limitation is both irrelevant (doesn't matter if not solved) and very likely solved or at least mitigated by second layer solutions. His second limitation is actually a much stronger limitation of the current monetary system.

Ohio becomes the first state to accept bitcoin for tax payments https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/25/ohio-becomes-the-first-state-to-accept-bitcoin-for-tax-payments/ "Ohio filers will technically send their tax payments to an Atlanta-based payments processor called BitPay, which will then convert the bitcoin to dollars for the state treasurer’s office." They still are asking for dollars and the amount is denominated in dollars, they're just making it more convenient to convert. Not nothing, but not quite what the headline makes it seem. It's silly, who would make use of this? Who'd want to pay taxes with their gold or their BRK shares?

Bitcoin isn't exactly doing great right now either... For a while Litecoin, BCH, XRP and ETH and others were stars too, it's not like no other coin had success (even if temporary). When your "store of value" is down 80% in a year, after being up hundreds of percents before, maybe the value isn't being stored, but rather the tulip bulbs are being ferociously traded back and forth and speculated on because nobody can know what the thing is actually worth but everybody hopes that they can be on the "ground floor" of this new-age MLM. Even the utility of sending money anywhere around the world is pretty theoretical for most people at this point when you never know if your account will be worth 20% more or 20% less a week from now... It's doing just great as far as I can see. You must be referring to the short term price changes but I thought we were on a value forum?

Sorry for throwing a wet towel on the thread & you're right, he could be wearing a Folex, which would probably be appropriate for him. Hey, at the risk of sounding like an idiot (like I've never done that before, right?) What's an SMA? I Googled it & came up with "spinal muscular atrophy". Separately managed accounts. Basically putting this guy in charge of managing your portfolio.

This is a sham. Despite what is claimed, I guarantee he doesn’t manage a hedge fund. These are SMA’s. Ah that makes a lot more sense.

Is that even possible? I mean that clients are on the hook for losses of the hedge fund exceeding the capital?

One big difference that I see between cryptocurrencies and gold is that you can't make new versions of gold to increase the total supply of "gold-like" things, while you can always (and they do) create new cryptocyrrencies to increase the total supply of "bitcoin-like and ethereum-like" things in circulation even if the supply within once currency is limited. That's silly. I can start painting rocks gold and declare them wachtwoordGold or write the word gold on pieces of paper and call it wachtwoordgoldlight. Neither inflate the supply of gold just as altcoins (colloquially known as shitcoins) don't do this for Bitcoin. The difference between Bitcoin and gold is that in the crypto markets many stupid people gather who fall for the proverbial gold painted rock scam. Just looking at the market caps on coinmarketcap.com and seeing that Ripple is second should tell you all you need to know.

Why not the worldwide one?

To question 1: because it sells less well? Normal people don't want to be in stocks that go from shit to slightly less shit, they don't want to lose money when everyone else (the market) is going up but are more okay with it when everyone else is losing as well etc etc.

But why sell the German index specifically?