Cryptocurrencies

[Buckeye]

2 hours ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

 

Yes. Because those are both still true?

 

You can still buy the same houses, in the same time, overseas with Bitcoin ? It just might require more Bitcoin now given the price movement? But that isnt an indictment of its ability - it's a reflection of the current market price?

 

Additionally, Bitcoin hash rate is down from the peak, but still higher than mid-2025 or the start of 2025 so YoY is still up and more secure than 95% of its existence?

 

So why are you claiming these are somehow different now in June of 2026? 

 

 

No. You just simply haven't stated what's changed to suggest this benefits are no longer present? 

 

 

Still true. It takes 10 minutes to use Bitcoin and send it anywhere. 

 

I just paid $30k to a Porsche dealership in Ohio. Guess what? They don't accept PayPal, Venmo, or Zelle. They do accept debit, but my bank blocked the transaction for being above my $20k daily allowable limit

 

...you have limits on how much of your own money your allowed to spend BTW.

 

Even when I asked them to raise the limit I was told 'no'. So I tried to run $20k on my debit and $10k on my credit card and just eat the processing fees - bank still declined the $20k debit.

 

So I had to pay $20 to wire the funds and then sit in the dealership for 90 minutes while waiting for them to confirm receipt of the wire. Whole ordeal took nearly 3 hours just to make a payment...

 

This is how the traditional banking system works. You require 1) permission and 2) time to spend your own money. And even when you have both, the bank can still fuck it up. 

 

Had I wanted to spend Bitcoin, and the dealership open to receiving it, I could have sent the hole amount in 10 minutes for pennies and saved time, fees, and headaches. 

 

 

It's not why I invest - but I can see the benefits to people in under developed markets. I have a hard time I understanding why having global demand would be a bad thing? Or why recognizing the perspective of others is a negative? 

 

 

No - was just a point that Bitcoin is still spendable and being accepted for large purchases because your post implied something had changed there? I'm still not hearing anything supporting your claims of the change that is occurring to remove the benefits that have long been demonstrated? 

 

 

This is a strawman - it wasn't proof it would work out great. It was simply demonstrating that the characters of a handful of involved individuals doesn't detail a thesis for an entire industry. 

 

You should probably spend that time in the sun. It's pretty clear that your comments about things having changed were empty and your relying on price confirmation bias instead of an actual developed thesis and evidence

Oh boy.  Yes, I know these are all still "great" "benefits" that have been touted for years by the Bitcoin bulls...except for the fact that no one, or very, very few people will ever use Bitcoin for these "benefits."  You've even admitted yourself, that "I expect I may do something like buying a house halfway across town in ~2-years."  Please let us know how that goes, in two years, if it happens.

 

PS, I've got a Porsche I'll sell you for Bitcoin.  It's a 911, and I'll give you a great deal.  LMK once you've sent me the Bitcoin and I'll come up with a title

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Buckeye

[TwoCitiesCapital]

16 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Oh boy.  Yes, I know these are all still "great" "benefits" that have been touted for years by the Bitcoin bulls...except for the fact that no one, or very, very few people will ever use Bitcoin for these "benefits."  You've even admitted yourself, that "I expect I may do something like buying a house halfway across town in ~2-years."  Please let us know how that goes, in two years, if it happens.

 

PS, I've got a Porsche I'll sell you for Bitcoin.  It's a 911, and I'll give you a great deal.  LMK once you've sent me the Bitcoin and I'll come up with a title

 

 

 

"No one."

 

"very, very few". 

 

 

 

[73 Reds]

1 hour ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

 

Reading comprehension not a strong suit? 

 

 

It may not be. But I see no superior alternative at this point and Bitcoin is the first thing that has come around that has been superior to gold in just about every way. I don't think it's "easy" to do this. 

 

 

I still think you're looking at this from a 1) short term 2) Western perspective and 3) focusing on a very limited subset of Bitcoin's capabilities. 

 

Longer term - fiat depreciates without exception. Bitcoin is volatile, but has demonstrated near constant appreciation over intermediate and long duration periods since it's inception. Dramatic appreciation. Relative to fiat. Relative to real assets. That growth will slow - but ANY appreciation is infinitely better than constant depreciation. 

 

Outside of the Western perspective, inflation isn't limited to 2-4% per year, or 7-8% in an inflation shock. Your monetary value erodes monthly, or the money is confiscated by the government, or your subject to US sanctions that tank your economy/currency, or your unregulated banks fail, or it gets stolen by gangs/thugs/politicians, etc etc etc

 

Having a hard money that retains/grows over time, is permission-free and censorship resistant, self-custodied, and readily transferable globally are all exceptionally valuable qualities to have basically every where in the world - but more so in developing nations. 

 

 

Agreed. But I think we're seeing societal level changes. People were angry enough about the status quote to elect billionaire felon, rapist, pedo-associate and known-shyster to the White House because they were fed up enough with the status quo to believe whatever he told them about making it better....before making it worse...a second time. 

 

 

It won't let me attach charts for some reason, but are you not looking at wallet addresses with > 0.01 BTC in them or BTC held by ETFs or hash-rate? 

 

How could you look at this over 1-, 3-, 5-, or 10-years and claim there is no adoption and use that as evidence against BTC? 

 

 

Because TwoCities believes in selling worthless money before his valuable money and doesn't like selling things when they're down 50% regardless of what we're discussing. 

 

 

I didn't ask. Wouldn't be shocked if it was a no. But they also don't accept PayPal, Venmo, or Zelle which hasn't stopped those being from being widespread forms of payment in the economy. Why would that also have any implications for BTC at this time? 

 

 

OK then, conclusion is BTC didn't even serve you when you needed it.  And next time arrange that bank wire in advance; it takes less than 5 minutes from start to finish and if your bank charges you, change banks.

[TwoCitiesCapital]

3 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

OK then, conclusion is BTC didn't even serve you when you needed it.  And next time arrange that bank wire in advance; it takes less than 5 minutes from start to finish and if your bank charges you, change banks.

 

 

Reads story about debit transaction failing, getting permission from bank for debit transaction, it still failing, arranging wire transaction, paying fee, and still having to wait 90 minutes only to conclude it was Bitcoin that was problematic because I'didn't desire, nor attempt, to use it

 

 

What an upside down world we live in...

 

To everyone else reading this, on either side of the debate, is it just me or are the bearish arguments against just getting really weak and poorly supported? 

Edited 1 hour ago by TwoCitiesCapital

[73 Reds]

1 minute ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

 

 

Reads story about debit transaction failing, getting permission from bank for debit transaction, it still failing, arranging wire transaction, paying fee, and still having to wait 90 minutes only to conclude it was Bitcoin that was problematic because I'didn't desire, nor attempt, to use it

 

 

What an upside down world we live in...

LOL, if you didn't attempt to use it that's on you!  You make my point when a BTC advocate complains about the fiat system and doesn't even make an effort to use the very thing he is advocating.  

[TwoCitiesCapital]

1 minute ago, 73 Reds said:

LOL, if you didn't attempt to use it that's on you!  You make my point when a BTC advocate complains about the fiat system and doesn't even make an effort to use the very thing he is advocating.  

 

I've long since said it will be 1) a store of a value before it becomes 2) a widely accepted medium of exchange. 

 

Secondly, if you believe one money is rapidly becoming worthless and another is gaining in value rapidly, why would you ever get rid of the rapidly appreciating one just to prove a point to anonymous strangers on the Internet who will find a way to ignore it even if you did? 

 

3) Buckeye made fun of Ferrari accepting BTC above as if it isn't  an important use case. Here, you're making fun of me/Porsche for Porsch not/me not attempting. Bears don't get it both ways. Either a car company accepting it ilfor a large purchase is a meaningful metric, or is not, but you don't get to use both acceptance and non-acceptance as bearish arguments for BTC use cases

[73 Reds]

Just now, TwoCitiesCapital said:

 

I've long since said it will be 1) a store of a value before it becomes 2) a widely accepted medium of exchange. 

 

Secondly, if you believe one money is rapidly becoming worthless and another is gaining in value rapidly, why would you ever get rid of the rapidly appreciating one just to prove a point to anonymous strangers on the Internet who will find a way to ignore it even if you did? 

 

3) Buckeye made fun of Ferrari accepting BTC above as if it isn't  an important use case. Here, you're making fun of me/Porsche for Porsch not/me not attempting. Bears don't get it both ways. Either a car company accepting it ilfor a large purchase is a meaningful metric, or is not, but you don't get to use both acceptance and non-acceptance as bearish arguments for BTC use cases

Your logic makes no sense to me.  Either BTC is useful for its intended purpose or it is not.  Evidently it is not useful for you.  Neither is it for me.  

[TwoCitiesCapital]

I've transferred value on the BTC network on many occasions. But never to dispose of it. 

 

The network exists. The transfer protocol exists. The fees are low. The settlement near instantaneous. I didn't wait 90 minutes, pay a $20 fee, nor seek permission to spend my own money when doing it. 

 

I don't need Porsche to accept a payment  for a new engine to prove that concept for me.

 

It would strengthen the medium of exchange argument of Porsche accepted it, but we're still not there yet... And bears would ignore it even if Porsche did just like you're ignoring it that Ferrari does. People can't even agree that it's a store of value which is still step #1. We're still early and there's plenty of time for it to be adopted as a medium of exchange and unit of account next. 

[73 Reds]

Just now, TwoCitiesCapital said:

I've transferred value on the BTC network on many occasions. But never to dispose of it. 

 

The network exists. The transfer protocol exists. The fees are low. The settlement near instantaneous. I didn't wait 90 minutes, pay a $20 fee, nor seek permission to spend my own money when doing it. 

 

I don't need Porsche to accept a payment  for a new engine to prove that concept for me.

 

It would strengthen the medium of exchange argument of Porsche accepted it, but we're still not there yet... And bears would ignore it even if Porsche did just like you're ignoring it that Ferrari does. People can't even agree that it's a store of value which is still step #1. We're still early and there's plenty of time for it to be adopted as a medium of exchange and unit of account next. 

I don't care about Porsche or Ferrari.  The fact is, you didn't even TRY to use it.  Tells me what I need to know.  And unless I'm desperate and trapped in a Country with a currency that depreciates by the week, I don't need another store of value.  That is what investments are for.  Until the advent of BTC, who used the term "store of value"?   Currency was always a "means of exchange".  No one with any sense at all retained large sums of non-interest bearing cash for long periods of time.  

[TwoCitiesCapital]

2 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

I don't care about Porsche or Ferrari.  The fact is, you didn't even TRY to use it.  Tells me what I need to know.  And unless I'm desperate and trapped in a Country with a currency that depreciates by the week, I don't need another store of value.  That is what investments are for.  Until the advent of BTC, who used the term "store of value"?   Currency was always a "means of exchange".  No one with any sense at all retained large sums of non-interest bearing cash for long periods of time.  

 

 

"Tells me everything I need to know" that you're ignoring the entirety of economic theory and historical observations of people spending 'bad' money before 'good' money. 

 

[73 Reds]

Just now, TwoCitiesCapital said:

 

 

"Tells me everything I need to know" that you're ignoring the entirety of economic theory and historical observations of people spending 'bad' money before 'good' money. 

 

Oh I see, it all comes down to "bad money" vs. "good money".  Honestly, I couldn't have even made that one up!  The only economic theory that matters is whether I am accumulating wealth through my investments efforts.  So far so good sans BTC.    

[SharperDingaan]

It comes down to BTC man systematically benefiting from inflation (digitally), versus fiat man benefiting from inflation via a hard asset such as house (analog). Of course, nothing prevents either man from using both approaches, and many do  . It just needs the US Federal Reserve to run the presses!

 

SD

 

 

   

Edited 1 minute ago by SharperDingaan