Cryptocurrencies

[TwoCitiesCapital]

25 minutes ago, Parsad said:

 

Ok, you guys are the ones making the argument that BTC will replace fiat currencies.  Well, you don't need billions of trading happening, you need trillions each day!  You need price stability in the currency...you need transparency of ownership...you need regulation otherwise you will create behavior that perpetuates destructive correlated risk.  

 

In terms of daily transactions...the USD and other fiat currencies aren't moving 10% a day in value.  You need stability in any fiat currency.  The lightning network you speak of has nothing to do with the cryptocurrency and everything to do with blockchain technology...which I've been a proponent of for 10+ years!  Blockchain is in it's infancy, like the internet was or the combustion engine.  It is incredibly difficult to predict long-term winners within early days of new technology.  Trying to is speculation...not investing!

 

Cheers!

 

You're going to have to find a quote where I've said its here to replace the USD. 

 

I've definitely said it's a payment system. I've said I believe it's a long term store of value. 

 

But what I've actually said is the US will be one of the last to use it, if it ever does, because it has the most to lose and that BTC isn't here to replace the USD as much as it is here to replace Visa/Mastercard. I can find the exact quote for you if you'd like. 

 

Using BTC as currency in developing countries OR using it to settle global trade isn't the same thing as saying it'll replace the USD. 

 

Also, differentiating lightning network from BTC is like trying to differentiate the bits/bytes sent over the visa network from USD. Functionally its the same. 

[Parsad]

29 minutes ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

 

Also, differentiating lightning network from BTC is like trying to differentiate the bits/bytes sent over the visa network from USD. Functionally its the same. 

 

No, it's completely different.  It would be like eliminating visa altogether.  The idea would be the transaction goes from my wallet to your wallet with no middleman fee.  The only fee would be a nominal one from my wallet institution to me for the transaction.  The transaction would also be instantaneous with no hold, no fraud, regulated and could be corrected if an error is made.  Current wallets cannot do that other than no hold.  Cheers!  

[TwoCitiesCapital]

47 minutes ago, Parsad said:

 

No, it's completely different.  It would be like eliminating visa altogether.  The idea would be the transaction goes from my wallet to your wallet with no middleman fee.  The only fee would be a nominal one from my wallet institution to me for the transaction.  The transaction would also be instantaneous with no hold, no fraud, regulated and could be corrected if an error is made.  Current wallets cannot do that other than no hold.  Cheers!  

 

The lightning network literally does all of that? And is the middleman? Ledger entries have the potential to be corrected as nothing is formalized on the actual BTC blockchain until pairing is closed and the balances netted out. 

 

The lightning network is Visa. They're the middleman. They're processing BTC. Until transactions are finalized on the BTC Blockchain, there is a potential for them to be altered/corrected/changed pending the authorities at the lightning network. 

 

Visa is the middleman. They process bits/bytes that represent USD (and other currency). They can also alter/correct/change transactions. 

 

 

[crs223]

11 hours ago, Longnose said:

not worth my energy to convince anyone that doesn't want to

 

I agree.  Do you also “want to be convinced”?

[jfan]

19 hours ago, Dave86ch said:

The first thing to do here is understand the difference between a centralized entity and a decentralized protocol.

Although the BTC consensus protocol is decentralized, what is your opinion on the centralization of mining equipment manufacturers, mining pools, wallet manufacturers, and regulated crypto exchanges and wholesalers? Are these weak points in the ecosystem? Are they necessary to facilitate adoption? 

 

I have tried to put together a bitcoin node (unsuccessfully), so there are still friction points for non-programmers out there that necessitate "trusted" 3rd parties. I can imagine that running a rig is likely even more difficult. I wonder whether this limits adoption and keeps the protocol decentralized over the long-term.

 

A discussion about money's limitation and the proposed bitcoin solution.

https://www.lynalden.com/december-2022-newsletter/

 

 

 

[Dave86ch]

20 hours ago, Sweet said:

Is it your opinion that there are commentators in this thread who don’t understand that?

 

Seems a fairly basic level of knowledge, which I would imagine everyone has.

 

No, few of them, enough to ruin the dicussion imo.

It is a complex argument tho.

[Dave86ch]

3 hours ago, jfan said:

Although the BTC consensus protocol is decentralized, what is your opinion on the centralization of mining equipment manufacturers, mining pools, wallet manufacturers, and regulated crypto exchanges and wholesalers? Are these weak points in the ecosystem? Are they necessary to facilitate adoption? 

 

I have tried to put together a bitcoin node (unsuccessfully), so there are still friction points for non-programmers out there that necessitate "trusted" 3rd parties. I can imagine that running a rig is likely even more difficult. I wonder whether this limits adoption and keeps the protocol decentralized over the long-term.

 

A discussion about money's limitation and the proposed bitcoin solution.

https://www.lynalden.com/december-2022-newsletter/

 

 

 

I totally agree on this point and I'm scared too. I thought many hours on btc and this is one of the few point I didnt find a satisfactory answer too. It's a risk but I think is something solvable during the acquisition journey and the precis path is somewhat uncertain.

I saw many improvements in self custody pratices and devices, the beast is adapting and evolving.

Alyn Alden pieces are great and the quality of your question and sources you purpose give me some hope for an improvment in the discussion quality. 

Edited January 13, 2023 by Dave86ch

[Parsad]

5 hours ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

 

The lightning network literally does all of that? And is the middleman? Ledger entries have the potential to be corrected as nothing is formalized on the actual BTC blockchain until pairing is closed and the balances netted out. 

 

The lightning network is Visa. They're the middleman. They're processing BTC. Until transactions are finalized on the BTC Blockchain, there is a potential for them to be altered/corrected/changed pending the authorities at the lightning network. 

 

Visa is the middleman. They process bits/bytes that represent USD (and other currency). They can also alter/correct/change transactions. 

 

 

 

Lightning would only work if it is fully decentralized and off-chain.  Currently, the P2P transactions only occur with a security on-chain transaction if I understand correctly...I haven't actually conducted a transaction on Lightning, so correct me if I'm wrong.  

 

Also, what is stopping someone else from creating another competing layer 2 network that is superior and aligned with a different currency.   

 

Remember, I said I have no problem with crypto and especially blockchain networks.  I'm just saying investing in the current batch of crypto is like throwing darts.  It's not investing...it's speculation.  Cheers!

[wachtwoord]

10 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

I've been following blockchain and crypto probably longer than anyone on here, so I'm certainly not making uninformed comments.  

 

What makes you say this? I'd wager a lot this isn't true. 

Edited January 13, 2023 by wachtwoord

[wachtwoord]

10 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

Ok, you guys are the ones making the argument that BTC will replace fiat currencies.  Well, you don't need billions of trading happening, you need trillions each day!  You need price stability in the currency...you need transparency of ownership...you need regulation otherwise you will create behavior that perpetuates destructive correlated risk.  

 

In terms of daily transactions...the USD and other fiat currencies aren't moving 10% a day in value.  You need stability in any fiat currency.  The lightning network you speak of has nothing to do with the cryptocurrency and everything to do with blockchain technology...which I've been a proponent of for 10+ years!  Blockchain is in it's infancy, like the internet was or the combustion engine.  It is incredibly difficult to predict long-term winners within early days of new technology.  Trying to is speculation...not investing!

 

Cheers!

 

Lol what? Only people that don't understand Bitcoin even think it is a currency. Ofcourse it won't replace fiat currencies.

 

It's primarily a store of value (the greatest one by miles and miles).

 

Again: I'm surprised and disappointed an otherwise highly intelligent man speaks in such confidence about something which his statements show he hasn't understood much of. 

 

"It Ain’t What You Don’t Know That Gets You Into Trouble. It’s What You Know for Sure That Just Ain’t So" - Mark Twain

 

I hope when I check here in a few years more have understood what it is this topic is about.

[Sweet]

3 hours ago, wachtwoord said:

 

Lol what? Only people that don't understand Bitcoin even think it is a currency. Ofcourse it won't replace fiat currencies.

 

It's primarily a store of value (the greatest one by miles and miles).

 

Again: I'm surprised and disappointed an otherwise highly intelligent man speaks in such confidence about something which his statements show he hasn't understood much of. 

 

"It Ain’t What You Don’t Know That Gets You Into Trouble. It’s What You Know for Sure That Just Ain’t So" - Mark Twain

 

I hope when I check here in a few years more have understood what it is this topic is about.

Many advocates of Bitcoin in this very thread say it’s a currency.

 

The title of the thread is cryptocurrency.

 

Cryptocurrency has been used since its creation to define what Bitcoin is and explain one of its purpose.

 

The creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, created it as a payment method.

 

They all wrong?  Lol.

Edited January 13, 2023 by Sweet

[rkbabang]

13 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

II can tell you for a fact...not some nonsensical statement...that the support for BTC is based on speculative behavior.  Not driven by technology, utility, liquidity, etc, nor is it backed by any hard asset. 

 

Getting a little tired of rehashing the same things again and again here, but Bitcoin is a hard asset.

[jfan]

14 minutes ago, rkbabang said:

 

Getting a little tired of rehashing the same things again and again here, but Bitcoin is a hard asset.

what is the definition of a hard asset? 

physical? vs scarcity?

[rkbabang]

21 minutes ago, jfan said:

what is the definition of a hard asset? 

physical? vs scarcity?

 

asset (n) something useful or valuable.

[wachtwoord]

49 minutes ago, Sweet said:

Many advocates of Bitcoin in this very thread say it’s a currency.

 

The title of the thread is cryptocurrency.

 

Cryptocurrency has been used since its creation to define what Bitcoin is and explain one of its purpose.

 

The creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, created it as a payment method.

 

They all wrong?  Lol.

 

Everyone, pro or contra Bitcoin, who believes Bitcoin is primarily a currency, are wrong yes.

 

There is no currency centric innovation there. Therefore if you analyse it as a currency of course you're not impressed.

 

Also: Bitcoin's implicit payment system is purposefully simplistic in nature and will remain so. Again not the innovation. Other solutions can be used for payments, be it on another layer (lightning) or just an old fashioned payment method denoted in another nominal unit where you first swap your a Bitcoin into. Efficient payment is only a relevant feature for the liquid part of your wealth.

[Sweet]

1 minute ago, wachtwoord said:

 

Everyone, pro or contra Bitcoin, who believes Bitcoin is primarily a currency, are wrong yes.

 

There is no currency centric innovation there. Therefore if you analyse it as a currency of course you're not impressed.

 

Also: Bitcoin's implicit payment system is purposefully simplistic in nature and will remain so. Again not the innovation. Other solutions can be used for payments, be it on another layer (lightning) or just an old fashioned payment method denoted in another nominal unit where you first swap your a Bitcoin into. Efficient payment is only a relevant feature for the liquid part of your wealth.

OK, but the creator designed it as a peer-peer electronic payment method.

 

Funny thing is I partly agree with you, it’s a poor currency, and yet that is effectively what it was designed for.

[wachtwoord]

31 minutes ago, jfan said:

what is the definition of a hard asset? 

physical? vs scarcity?

 

Hard asset has utility value directly in and of itself (intrinsic value).

 

Fiat currency does not have this and cannot have this by definition. Bitcoin does have it as there's not another good in the world that you have as much (permissionless) control over and which is as hard to seize (factually not legally).

 

Gold has it too but much less good than Bitcoin: it's easier to seize, harder to authenticate,  easier to block, harder to store, slower and harder to move and harder to divide. Plus it's supply is much less sure.

[wachtwoord]

1 minute ago, Sweet said:

OK, but the creator designed it as a peer-peer electronic payment method.

 

Funny thing is I partly agree with you, it’s a poor currency, and yet that is effectively what it was designed for.

 

It think it is ironic yes but in the long run irrelevant.

 

Perhaps the inventor (I prefer that over creator as many people contributed to its creation) was incorrect on one metric and perhaps he used this as a clever trick to increase early adoption (easier to understand for people and more attractive to "greed") which was the most vital time in it's existence, bit does it really matter? I'm not a Satoshi worshipper, just like I don't worship any other inventor. I do highly respect the innovation he did create though.

[rkbabang]

Funny how an invention is just totally worthless if the inventor wasn't omniscient.

[Parsad]

4 hours ago, wachtwoord said:

 

What makes you say this? I'd wager a lot this isn't true. 

 

Because I've been following blockchain and crypto ever since Patrick Byrne started buying up blockchain companies and $10M worth of bitcoin through OSTK, which was the first major retailer to accept BTC.  I also tried to buy Netcoins over six years ago through PDH when it was still a private company.  Cheers!

[Parsad]

39 minutes ago, rkbabang said:

 

asset (n) something useful or valuable.

 

A can opener is useful...it's not a hard asset.  Cheers!

[Parsad]

29 minutes ago, wachtwoord said:

 

Hard asset has utility value directly in and of itself (intrinsic value).

 

Fiat currency does not have this and cannot have this by definition. Bitcoin does have it as there's not another good in the world that you have as much (permissionless) control over and which is as hard to seize (factually not legally).

 

Gold has it too but much less good than Bitcoin: it's easier to seize, harder to authenticate,  easier to block, harder to store, slower and harder to move and harder to divide. Plus it's supply is much less sure.

 

All you're doing here is stating the stupidity of owning gold.  Not actually suggesting why most current crypto currencies could actually replace fiat currencies.  

 

When you say that crypto is simply a payment system.  I agree with that.  When you say it could replace current fiat currencies as it is now...I completely disagree with that.  ITEX uses electronic barter as a payment system.  It isn't going to replace the USD.  

 

Cheers!

[rkbabang]

6 minutes ago, Parsad said:

 

A can opener is useful...it's not a hard asset.  Cheers!

Bitcoin is the most secure blockchain on earth, no individual, corporation, or even government can modify or destroy it.  It is the most secure commodity on earth today.  I'd say that is pretty hard.  

[rkbabang]

14 hours ago, Parsad said:

it ... consumes massive amounts of energy

 

There are some benefits to cryto mining.  Crypto mining coupled with increased nuclear power could justify an increased base load with the ability to modulate the mining power draw to help stabilize the grid in times of high demand and stress. Also it promotes renewables because you can justify building a much larger amount of renewable generation capability if you know that the excess can be sold to miners in times of low demand when it would otherwise go to waste.  Batteries are not a realistic option because the amount of rare earths that would be required to stabilize the entire grid run on renewables would be impactable to say the least.  Not to mention miners can generate electricity from off grid options like gas flaring and unused hydropower.  In the end protecting the worlds most secure blockchain will have a positive impact on our energy system, which will far exceed the negatives.

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/bitcoin-mining-as-a-grid-resource-its-complicated/617896/

 

"Along with providing demand flexibility, the crypto mining industry can help bolster the grid and develop clean energy in a variety of others ways, crypto miners say, often by taking advantage of crypto mining wherever there is cheap energy and internet access.

Crypto miners can consume energy that would otherwise be curtailed, said Bitfury’s Brooks, by locating near renewable generators and providing baseload consumption for solar and wind. They can also consume natural gas that would otherwise be flared at oil drilling operations “to turn that dead-weight loss into economic value,” he said. 

That same locational flexibility can help with transmission losses and distribution grid efficiency, he said.

“The mobility of Bitcoin mining allows the industry to construct data centers close to the power generation source, thus reducing these losses and turning the associated power into economic value while also reducing the need for additional investments in transmission and distribution infrastructure,” Brooks said.

Digital Power Optimization’s Webber said his company is also looking at how cryptocurrency mining can help revitalize the United States’ aging hydroelectric infrastructure.

“There’s a lot of defunct and underfunded hydroelectric assets around North America and elsewhere, frankly, that maybe haven’t had their maintenance ... kept up to date,” he said. “There’s a lot of opportunity there to repair some of America’s infrastructure.”

“Crypto mining can actually revitalize disused, underused, underfunded energy assets that are 100 years old,” he said. “And on top of that, whatever you’re not using for your Bitcoin mine, you can then sell into the grid.”"

https://www.nhbr.com/canadian-bitcoin-company-has-big-plans-for-berlin-manufacturing-facility/

 

"“Bitcoin Mining Rovers” at the Presby Steel site (the former Isaacson Steel fabrication plant) in Berlin and will ship out the decentralized bitcoin modular units to places where they can be fueled by the cheapest source of energy.

It is increasingly looking at off-grid locations, flares from oil and gas fields and landfills, to behind-the-meter hydro facilities and even nuclear power plants. The company sees itself working with the energy industry, being an “energy sink” – a guaranteed sale point for the industry, a way to convert energy to cash."

 

 

 

[wachtwoord]

10 minutes ago, Parsad said:

Because I've been following blockchain and crypto ever since Patrick Byrne started buying up blockchain companies and $10M worth of bitcoin through OSTK, which was the first major retailer to accept BTC.  I also tried to buy Netcoins over six years ago through PDH when it was still a private company.  Cheers!

 

And what makes you think that makes you the earliest of the  in this thread?