wachtwoord

Higher value yes, higher price no, not directly at least. If it wouldn't give any value it wouldn't be utility. Utility is worth something (of value) by very definition. Considering your guesses for current value it's obvious you just get glued to whatever the market price seems to be at a time. When the price was in the tens you thought it was around that, same with the hundreds the thousands and now the tens of thousands. When it's in the hundred thousands you'll think that's the right range. This is exactly the psychology which explains why price gets stuck in ranges until is violently moves to a new range: price stickiness in the individual translates to price stickiness in the market.

It always will. If not, it's not true utility. People spend wealth (in any form) on utility. Finding underpriced utility is value investing. Undervalued cash flows that you mention is one of them. But so are undervalued assets on the balance sheet, which you'll likely also agree with. You just don't seem to get that finding any underpriced utility is value investing. Speculative would be if your profits come from (predicted) future increase of utility. So Bitcoin is can/be both: current utility is underpriced (value) and utility is likely to increase in the future (speculation/growth). The point is that the first one is sufficient and the second is gravy. @rkbabang @fareastwarriors thanks it's easier when you enable desktop mode appearently as mobile mode hides many of the relevant buttons (I am on my phone)

I do as using his stash will hurt Bitcoin a lot and even at this point could still threaten both its continued existance and integrity (attacks on its integrity are continuous, eg increasing the blocksize and POS). If I were him I wouldn't touch it at this point. Don't worry I'm sure he owns plenty not tracable to Satoshi. I hope he's okay btw. His Twitter went silent early 2021 and was always quite active prior to that. [Quote] I still made a killing off of it, buying at $8 and selling a bunch at over $4000. [/quote] I find this hilarious/ironic and it's one of the prime reasons why I never give investing advise. Even if I'm right I might advise someone out of the windfall of a lifetime or into the financial mistake of a lifetime. Anyway the way you see it now is the same as me. Both the conclusion and the reasons for it. Ps: how do you multiquote on this forum software to cut up a single quote as I attempted above?

Indeed. In just H1 of 2020 it was 25%. Yes inflation is money supply increase, not some CPI BS. Nick Szabo most likely. No chance he wasn't involved imo. Store of wealth. It's very safe as a store of wealth cause you can still buy it for pennies (or fractions of that) on the dollar of today's value and it's only growing still. Only a large society changing event could upset that (very possible as the events of the last years have shown more and more). Combine that with the fact you can actually access, store and move this yourself without 3rd parties (great when you need to flee) and it's clearly the best store of wealth for private individuals we have discovered. The utility IS the value. Not just for Bitcoin but for anything ever. There's nothing else but utility that gives something value. It was always a scam from the very beginning (pre-mine, rolling back transactions etc) it had to be because it's complex and complexity unavoidably leads to centralization. Centralization undermines the very nature of the concept of cryptocurrency. Without it you just have an inefficient database. Only a handful of cryptocurrencies exist and only one is of serious size.

Good to read this . It means you've seen through the ETH ruse right? (Or am I completely wrong in remembering you didnt think it was a scam before? If so, sorry ). Most of your posts here are upvote worthy here btw. Not attacking you at all.

It didnt. Price went down. Value did not.

She really does seem to hate freedom above all else.

Well said. Wrt Unit of Account I want to add that currently there isn't any good financial Unit of Account. For most things we want to keep track of the absolute value matters. Eg. For the size if your house the floor space as measured in m2 stays the same every year both in the unit of Account as in actual size that it implies. You can directly compare the size if your house vs someone's house 100 years ago without any issues. For a monetary Unit this is not the case however since the absolute value of this abstract concept is meaningless. The ratio of nr of units vs total outstanding units is better (and for this Bitcoin actually does do better than other currencies because of the limited supply) but still there are issues with it as what monetary value it represents also strongly depends on the amount of people in the market and the supply of desirable things to own or consume in the market. Both the supply (products) and demand (humans) have uniformly increased exponentially over the last 2 centuries (amazingly with supply growth even outpacing demand growth leading to the highest average standard of living in history). I don't how to objectively and subjectively normalize for both these factors. However, I do know that Bitcoin is a better unit of Account theoretically than fiat currencies (as total supply of monetary units is constant). Just a matter of waiting until price discovery is further along. The spring is still widely oscillating after being pulled and let go off.

To start: Bitcoin isn't primarily a currency. Just like gold it's primarily a store of value. However in responce to: "From a monetary policy perspective, a global cryptocurrency area is unlikely to be an optimal currency area, as this would lead to an inability to adjust exchange rates within the ‘area’." That makes a giant assumption that adjusting rates in a centralized fashion that is beneficial (better than letting the market set it, eg decentralized) is both: 1. Theoretically possible 2. Given 1 that any party or subset of actors with this ability would be incentivized to do so rather than optimize for self-enrichment. I reject both as extremely naive (and 1 as terribly arrogant too).

And I'm 100% sure time has. Time and time again. Only for those that actually care too look of course

In the past SEC would postpone to the last possible date, use all possible extensions and then reject non-constructively. Now it gives feedback early and constructively. Most of the proposals have refiled a correction already. A very positive development. It looks like, for the first time, SEC is actually considering to accept these.

Anyone that matters ignores Binance.

And Binance and the other cowboy exchanges are exactly like that Azerbajani gold exchange in the example: just ignore it it affects nothing. Other have already told you about the recent price spike that happened on Binance and nowhere else. Only consider the serious exchanges for price discovery. Edit: And btw I was talking about Bitcoin exclusively. Not what they call "crypto" now, that's just altcoin crap. Nothing to do with one another.

Cool, so if someone starts an offshore gold trading platform which is full of wash trading at 10x the current daily volume (making it 90% of the market) you think the gold ETFs get removed? Very silly idea.

You yourself said that's fake trading I'm agreeing with you on that one. Stay consistent in your analysis though. It's not quantum mechanics where its in a super position of wash trading and not wash trading

Considering all the wash trading at the other exchanges I would argue the situation is likely already like this todat in 2023.

I dont know if it will be accepted but let me point out the main flaw in yiur reasoning above: Binaince has nothing to do with Bitcoin (just like FTX didnt) as it's an Altcoin shithole. Altcoin ETFs have no chance of being approved no. Bitcoin is a class of its own. Again, I dont know whether they'll accept it as that mostly politics (although Blackrock must believe they can do this for some reason) but it certainly wouldnt be inconsistent with going after Binance.

+1 Btw there are other examples of non-securities but most of them were made long ago in the first wave of Bitcoin copy cats. LTC is still alive today as an example. In the same era eg XMR was released which also isn't a security. Btw in my opinion ETH most definitely is a security. The pre-mine and pre-sale plus promises prior to pre-sale make that true. Politics is the only reason the SEC and EU are isolating ETH (too many people favor it and those involved with the project have done a lot of lobbying). Edit: I just wanted to add I agree with TwoCitiesCapital that regulation through litigation the SEC is pursuing now is terrible (but expected of them). They are simply defending and empowering themselves (define everything strict and see what you can get away with in court).

Ah sorry, I thought you only confined your last point to the US, not your entire comment. I was already surprised of not agreeing with you on something

10-15 years isn't true worldwide at all. Maybe the US although I'd argue the socialist takeover started in yhe early 1900s with the Brits shoving their Trojan horse (federal reserve aka a central bank, a communist concept) down your throats. Traditionally the most restrictive have been religions (Christianity in the west) but they've been passed truly well in the 20th century by the socialists and the nation state. I wonder if it was inevitable after the French revolution marked the end of traditional feudalism (it's still there but hidden better) and the birth of nation states.

It just contradicted with the statement I quoted. Nothing to do with open/closed mindedness.

Switzerland IS the best in class because of the way it's run. The US was run like this too a long time ago a time when it was still great. Btw: if any country hosts the most money laundering it's the US (and whether that's bad thing is a story for another day as it really depends).

Ah that's a big gemeinde then. The capital of Tessin (Ticino in your language). Cool! I like how politics is organized in Switzerland. Better than anywhere else at this point in time as far as I can tell.

Then how can you be agnostic? A almighty being existing within the universe its almighty in automatically leads to (internal) contradiction. Wrt determinism: the current theory of super-determinism is a fun theory (far from the most "popular" one though).

Do you just mean Zug or a smaller municipality?