Cryptocurrencies

[Parsad]

13 hours ago, wachtwoord said:

 

You're wrong in your assessment that most use is short term in nature. 78% of the supply is illiquid right now:

 

And of course you can exclude exchanges. There's zero need to keep Bitcoin there. That's same as including the fact that you can burn bills in the stove as a threat to the security of fiat.

 

There is a natural increase in illiquid wallets as the price drops.  The large whales are holding onto their coins.  Here is a breakdown of BTC's liquid and illiquid markets...you can see that liquidity drops when the price of BTC collapses as it has.  Cheers!

 

[Parsad]

13 hours ago, wachtwoord said:

 

Steal the keys? How? That's physically impossible if you keep your keys of internet connected devices as you should. Anything is incredibly reckless behavior.

 

Explain the large hacks of wallets that occur all the time.  Cheers!

[Parsad]

13 hours ago, wachtwoord said:

 

Name something, anything, that's harder.

 

Real estate.  Cheers!

[wachtwoord]

2 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

Real estate.  Cheers!

 

Real estate can be taken by governments at any point in time. How's that 

2 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

There is a natural increase in illiquid wallets as the price drops.  The large whales are holding onto their coins.  Here is a breakdown of BTC's liquid and illiquid markets...you can see that liquidity drops when the price of BTC collapses as it has.  Cheers!

 

 

I'm not talking quite as short term as you. This is why you present a shorter timeliness as me and zoom on. Illiquid generally supply rises as the price increases. Regardless how do you explain the general increase in illiquid supply in the period since the cut off of your time period even with your short term focus?

 

The main point I was countering with the graph however was your point that most holdings in Bitcoin are short term in nature. It shows a rise in illiquid supply over the 2017-2023. Is that short term? Btw this relation also exists before this period but this is the one I could find most quickly and I didnt want to waste too much time in a discussion that seems to go nowhere (and seeing you come with an even shorter graph seems to imply you don't care for data prior to 2017 anyway).

[wachtwoord]

2 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

Explain the large hacks of wallets that occur all the time.  Cheers!

 

Incompetence by users. Few of these are hacks btw. Most are plain old theft by insiders. But even in the case of hacks plain old computer systems are hacked. Bitcoin has never been hacked and neither has main stream wallet software. 

 

Again: one needs to protect the keys to one's safe. How is this news to anyone?

[wachtwoord]

2 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

Real estate.  Cheers!

 

Real estate is, when compared to Bitcoin:

 

* Easier to unintentionally destroy outside of fault of your own

* Easier to take by government (eg disown for "common" good)

* Non fungable (vs more fungable Bitcoin)

* Harder to split

* Harder to move

* Easier to create more of (impossible to make more Bitcoin)

 

So much less hard than Bitcoin.

[Blugolds11]

Please help me understand because when I read this I think: 

 

 

 

Real estate is, when compared to Bitcoin:

 

* Easier to unintentionally destroy outside of fault of your own

 

That is why you have insurance...is there insurance for Bitcoin? Honest question, can you insure Bitcoin against left, or left of password/hacking? If my house/rental burned to the ground tomorrow, as long as everyone was safe, other than personal pictures or an heirloom, I wouldnt lose an ounce of sleep over it, its fully insured at todays FMV.

 

 

 

* Easier to take by government (eg disown for "common" good)

 

Gov can take whatever they want, whenever they want regardless of the item if they deem its use for illegal activity, terrorism etc. 

I get it, keep your password on external drive in a security deposit box that only you know about...like burying gold in the backyard, or using a treasure map. BUT eventually to USE bitcoin dont you have to go online? Eventually? and if you are hacked etc cant they just be there waiting for you to access it? Or how about using some kind of "vinmo" equivalent to facilitate the transaction, what happens if they are hacked. I dont know much about how all this works so maybe Im exposing my ignorance, but I honestly dont know. 

 

Through blockchain analysis and good old-fashioned police work, law enforcement and blockchain analytic experts was able to recover more than 50,000 bitcoin from Zhong. They even uncovered crypto stored on a computer submerged under blankets in a popcorn tin in a bathroom closet, according to the press release.

 

October 2022, Binance, the world’s largest crypto exchange by trading volume, suffered a $570 million hack. The company said a bug in a smart contract enabled hackers to exploit a cross-chain bridge

 

 

 

 

 

Also the other thing Id mention, although maybe the guys in the thread here dont believe that BTC will replace fiat currency...I would say the VAST majority of guys I know that own BTC think it will, thats their entire shtick..they start with "only so many can be mined" then "better get in now while prices are down" then how much it "could" be worth when the last BTC is mined...then "gonna replace Fiat". 

 

Its like there is a scripted pitch for crypto, yes shitecoins also but the majority of people are talking BTC cause thats the "real" one. 

 

 

I guess another thing getting back to security..pass code secure on your thumb drive locked away...eventually you will use it online, through some platform..I cant hand my neighbor a BTC right? I had an employer once that had their own network, locked down, heavy security, log-in password, changed regularly, posters to stop hackers everywhere in the hallways, emails sent regularly trying to get employees to trip up from the IT team to teach suspicion etc. They had one little program that was on the network that pulled data from the internet to use in calculations..that was the one little pinhole in the entire fortress...and thats all it took. I guess I just do not believe that eventually, if someone wants something bad enough, and you are online, they are able to find a weakness and exploit it. Not saying that cant happen with a wad full of cash either...but I just have a hard time believing that BTC has no vulnerabilities. 

 

Im open minded, these are just questions I have off the top of my head regarding the comparison and what I have seen/heard. 

[wachtwoord]

1 hour ago, Blugolds11 said:

Please help me understand because when I read this I think: 

 

 

 

Real estate is, when compared to Bitcoin:

 

* Easier to unintentionally destroy outside of fault of your own

 

That is why you have insurance...is there insurance for Bitcoin? Honest question, can you insure Bitcoin against left, or left of password/hacking? If my house/rental burned to the ground tomorrow, as long as everyone was safe, other than personal pictures or an heirloom, I wouldnt lose an ounce of sleep over it, its fully insured at todays FMV.

 

 

 

* Easier to take by government (eg disown for "common" good)

 

Gov can take whatever they want, whenever they want regardless of the item if they deem its use for illegal activity, terrorism etc. 

I get it, keep your password on external drive in a security deposit box that only you know about...like burying gold in the backyard, or using a treasure map. BUT eventually to USE bitcoin dont you have to go online? Eventually? and if you are hacked etc cant they just be there waiting for you to access it? Or how about using some kind of "vinmo" equivalent to facilitate the transaction, what happens if they are hacked. I dont know much about how all this works so maybe Im exposing my ignorance, but I honestly dont know. 

 

Through blockchain analysis and good old-fashioned police work, law enforcement and blockchain analytic experts was able to recover more than 50,000 bitcoin from Zhong. They even uncovered crypto stored on a computer submerged under blankets in a popcorn tin in a bathroom closet, according to the press release.

 

October 2022, Binance, the world’s largest crypto exchange by trading volume, suffered a $570 million hack. The company said a bug in a smart contract enabled hackers to exploit a cross-chain bridge

 

 

 

 

 

Also the other thing Id mention, although maybe the guys in the thread here dont believe that BTC will replace fiat currency...I would say the VAST majority of guys I know that own BTC think it will, thats their entire shtick..they start with "only so many can be mined" then "better get in now while prices are down" then how much it "could" be worth when the last BTC is mined...then "gonna replace Fiat". 

 

Its like there is a scripted pitch for crypto, yes shitecoins also but the majority of people are talking BTC cause thats the "real" one. 

 

 

I guess another thing getting back to security..pass code secure on your thumb drive locked away...eventually you will use it online, through some platform..I cant hand my neighbor a BTC right? I had an employer once that had their own network, locked down, heavy security, log-in password, changed regularly, posters to stop hackers everywhere in the hallways, emails sent regularly trying to get employees to trip up from the IT team to teach suspicion etc. They had one little program that was on the network that pulled data from the internet to use in calculations..that was the one little pinhole in the entire fortress...and thats all it took. I guess I just do not believe that eventually, if someone wants something bad enough, and you are online, they are able to find a weakness and exploit it. Not saying that cant happen with a wad full of cash either...but I just have a hard time believing that BTC has no vulnerabilities. 

 

Im open minded, these are just questions I have off the top of my head regarding the comparison and what I have seen/heard. 

 

I tried to reply to all your questions and statements. Let me know if I missed anything.

 

1. Insurance is a way to cope with a problem at a cost. The problem is lower with Bitcoin. Whether a third party way to change the nature of a downside (insurance changes a high variance, low probability cost to a low variance high probability cost) says nothing about the nature of the thing we are discussing. Insurance is theoretically possibly wrt every financial risk that is independent of the state.

 

2. Two reasons: 1. Real estate is one of the easiest to seize for all governments because they more often have an excuse. Eg if they want to build a new building or highway on the land they declare it for the common good and force you to sell. If someone can force you to sell, especially at a price determined by them, you don't really own it. 2. They can seize Real estate without your cooperation and Bitcoin only with your cooperation. This gives options eg waiting out the wannabe thieves or relocating to elsewhere. You can even theoretically promise some of these assets to people that would help you with dealing with w/e state is holding you hostage. None of hhese options exist at all with your assets already seized.

 

You mention hacking. You can literally not get hacked if your keys never touch the internet and are properly encrypted. No amount of solid police work can change that. All the recovered keys by law enforcement were badly secured or given "voluntary". I mean theoretically they can torture it out of you but in reality they probably promised lower sentences or threathened with other things the owners considered worse than losing their property. It's in no way perfect but vastly superior to real estate.

 

So your examples: computer under the floor board? obviously poorly encrypted (or voluntarily decrypted by suspect).

Binance? Nothing to do with Bitcoin (smart contract) but even so user error (error in smart contract).

 

Regarding replacing fiat: the vast majority that own it? Perhaps. If you weigh it by holding size? No way in hell.

It's not a surprise mom and pop investors have no idea what's going on (they are also unlikely to store it diligently). And regardless does it matter what people believe? It's the factual truth that matters in the long run.

[wachtwoord]

By the way I should probably stop posting again as it may now appear as if I'm trying to convince people to invest (this being an investment forum/topic and all). I'm not.

 

I'm not saying this is a good investment for anyone as I have no idea how long it will take until price moves value and whether there'll be (long) periods of extreme illiquidity. While that's true for any investment that's true even more for Bitcoin. (Partially) Effective bans, special taxation, subsidized "alternatives" etc etc are all sort of ways it can be artificially made to take longer as well. Combined with increased globalization (and therefore ease of passing authoritarian laws) means it could take a very long time. Any progress (adoption, price) thus far has been much faster than I ever imagined and could very easily not be indicative of future adoption/growth rate.

 

Please treat the discussion here as purely academic in nature.

[jfan]

On 1/12/2023 at 5:28 PM, Parsad said:

The truth is, crypto is essentially similar to art/collectibles etc, where the value is arbitrary and speculative.  The network and adoption is irrelevant.  It is too volatile and illiquid (in common daily use) to be used to replace dominant fiat currencies.  

 

5 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

There is a natural increase in illiquid wallets as the price drops.  The large whales are holding onto their coins.  Here is a breakdown of BTC's liquid and illiquid markets...you can see that liquidity drops when the price of BTC collapses as it has.  Cheers!

 

Just to add some more charts to continue fuel this debate. The following is 2 charts: 1) BTC's 1 year volatility relative to other asset classes https://charts.woobull.com/bitcoin-volatility-vs-other-assets/ 2) BTC's 60 day volatility relative to FOREX https://charts.woobull.com/bitcoin-volatility/. @Parsad is correct that at the current state volatility is very high relative to other choices which makes transacting in dollar terms somewhat impractical. That said, volatility of "money" does not necessarily, according to Hayek, equate to lack of value. Hayek discusses this on page  70- 72 in his book attached here:

https://nakamotoinstitute.org/static/docs/denationalisation.pdf . The biggest question is will a money over the long-term (probably measured in years to decades) be able to purchase a basket of commodities (stuff that fulfils the most basic of human needs) from point A to point B in time. 

    The BTC bulls would say that as adoption increases, and the remaining coins to be mined are gone, that this volatility will mitigate in the future. This is obviously still speculative. The volatility charts attach above have not shown definitive proof over its lifetime. I do think that it is premature to close this aspect of this debate due to present data. As in the FFH 2023 thread, @Viking quite intelligently points out that FFH's historical ROE is not a good reflection of its future ROE. 

   I have to run to work, will add more thoughts on illiquidity after.

 

 

[SharperDingaan]

23 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

What did I get wrong? 

 

Stability...look at the volatility in BTC over the last few years, months, weeks, days.  If I value my house at $400K, and the swing in one day of BTC values it at $360K after the deal closes...how is that going to work?!  If someone invoices a company $20K, and then suddenly the next day they get $18K...how does that work?!

 

Liquidity...look at all of the wallets that are inaccessible and driving businesses into the ground because they can't get at their BTC.

 

Portability...any more portable or efficient than current fiat networks?

 

Security...hacks up the ying-yang!  Trust in the system!

 

Cheers!

 

Stability/invoicing. Every international company bills in various foreign currencies and does not hedge its P&L exposure. It's a routine and accepted business risk, materially cheaper than hedging, and net FX exposures typically wash out over time. BTC is just another foreign currency.

 

Liquidity is a function of asset quality. I hold T-Bills 'cause I know I can sell them easily, and with minimal haircut -  even when there is almost no money in the monetary system. As I move down the quality scale, asset marketability declines and the haircut rises. You hold T-Bills, not BTC, if you want liquidity; if the liquidity wasn't there when you needed it, that was on you - you made a bad decision.

 

Fiat currency is only portable if/when your goldilocks nation drops capital controls. Capital controls are enforced in most places, and BTC enables their circumvention. Portability.

 

Security is on you; if one insists on being lax, or simply stupid; one deserves everything coming. Most would treat the inevitable hack publicity as buying opportunities. 

 

The reality is BTC enforces individual accountability, there are no regulations to protect you from your own stupidity; whether that be poor security choices, poor understandings, investment immaturity, or just plain laze. As most people just aren't comfortable with accountability, it creates opportunities.

 

SD 

Edited January 14, 2023 by SharperDingaan

[TwoCitiesCapital]

The general consensus seemed to be the low volatility of recent would spark a break-out/high volatility event. 

 

Though, most seemed to think to the downside with lows of 9-12k being thrown out all over the place. Now that we've bounced to 21k, a few questions. 

 

1) is BTC still going to be highly correlated with equities and we can expect this to be a leading indicator for positive stock returns in the near future? 

 

2) or has the available supply become sufficiently limited that BTC is now trading on its own supply/demand mismatch with little correlation to other risks assets

 

3) was 15.5k the low? Or do we get another drop in the event if a global recession? 

 

 

[Parsad]

13 hours ago, wachtwoord said:

 

Real estate is, when compared to Bitcoin:

 

* Easier to unintentionally destroy outside of fault of your own

* Easier to take by government (eg disown for "common" good)

* Non fungable (vs more fungable Bitcoin)

* Harder to split

* Harder to move

* Easier to create more of (impossible to make more Bitcoin)

 

So much less hard than Bitcoin.

 

Bluegold did a great job replying to the first two.  Let me handle a couple others...I will give you non-fungible and harder to split.

 

In terms of moving...you sell your property, move your cash.  Yes, not as liquid, but is movable. 

 

Easier to create...not true...there is only a limited amount of land.  For example, here in Vancouver, we are surrounded by three borders...two natural (coastline and mountains) and one man-made (the U.S. border).  Because of that, we have house prices comparable to San Francisco or New York.

 

I'll give you a few reasons not to own BTC where real estate has the advantage:

 

Cash flowing...generates income.  Only some BTC wallets pay interest.

 

Far less volatile...my house price may fluctuate, but not as crazy as BTC.

 

Tax deductions...self explanatory.

 

Provides low-risk leverage...can you imagine using any sort of leverage with BTC?  You would never know when you get a margin call.

 

Accessible...my house isn't going anywhere.  As long as I pay the mortgage and taxes, no one can defraud me out of my house...in other words, no hacks!

 

Cheers!

 

 

[Blugolds11]

14 hours ago, wachtwoord said:

 

I tried to reply to all your questions and statements. Let me know if I missed anything.

 

1. Insurance is a way to cope with a problem at a cost. The problem is lower with Bitcoin. Whether a third party way to change the nature of a downside (insurance changes a high variance, low probability cost to a low variance high probability cost) says nothing about the nature of the thing we are discussing. Insurance is theoretically possibly wrt every financial risk that is independent of the state.

 

So there is no insurance against loss of BTC you're saying. My point was with real estate, even though the insurance premium is a cost (that is covered by the renters monthly payment, essentially I am passing the cost on to them to insure the property that they are paying me rent to occupy, so it really doesnt cost ME anything) I am guarded against total loss of the asset. Hell I have owned properties before that actually would have benefited me to have burn down because the were insured for more than what I thought was FMV, the check from the insurance company would have been more than I could have sold the place for. I would obviously never commit fraud, but there is a reason that people do, or try. So the way I see it personally, there is no way I can have total loss with RE/insurance as an asset vs BTC, there are many ways to lose ie. hacking, loss of password, forgotten password, loss of thumb drive etc. 

 

There are tons of reports of people losing/forgetting their passwords and employing professionals to "crack" it. So this it a double edged sword. At the risk of weakening my point, if you forgot the password, it is not total loss, it is still recoverable...BUT then what does that say about stored crypto security? Its either one of the other, either it is the ultimate security and unhackable, uncrackable...and when you forget/lose it, its gone...and that is some pretty serious risk...or its not...and then the risk comes from the fact that rather than "good guys" helping you get it back for a percentage...the "bad guys" can get it too. 

 

 

 

 

 

14 hours ago, wachtwoord said:

 

2. Two reasons: 1. Real estate is one of the easiest to seize for all governments because they more often have an excuse. Eg if they want to build a new building or highway on the land they declare it for the common good and force you to sell. If someone can force you to sell, especially at a price determined by them, you don't really own it.

 

Eminent domain is a little different. I will agree on the force of sale, that sucks, but you also have the option of legal representation to argue for a better price if you think its grossly under FMV.

 

From state/legal website:

 

State law on eminent domain condemnations is very clear that property owners have the right to receive at least the fair market value for their property when they don’t have a choice to decline the sale.

 

Fortunately, you do not have to simply accept whatever the government offers; you have the right to make a counter-offer and negotiate for the full amount you deserve.

Just compensation is based on what your property would be valued at on the open market, considering the various uses for the land. The government will base its offer on an appraisal conducted by an appraiser of its choice. You can then have an independent appraiser analyze the value of your land and present its findings, arguing that your land is actually worth more than the government’s offer.

 

So IMO that addresses the (potential) forced sale issue via eminent domain. To me the real issue is the price you receive for the asset, because the forced sale to me is nothing. Unless it is the Dutton ranch, in the family for hundreds of years I would say that the majority of people, if given FMV and forced to sell might be apprehensive but if made whole via FMV, would just move on. To play the devils advocate, you could say that forced sale to the gov could actually save them the hassle of showing, listing, the property, to be fair, that is assuming that gov offered FMV is indeed FMV and they didnt have to retain an attorney to negotiate a higher value. 

 

But the real issue is the price determined by them right? But isnt that what is happening with BTC? Rather than the gov determining the price you can sell for, the market is? If the gov offered at or above FMV and forced me to sell...ok sounds good. I at least have the OPTION to negotiate a higher price, futile or not, there is no option for that in the market, if you want/have to sell for whatever reason..whatever the market is offering is what you get. 

 

RE:

Can force sale (no big deal to me if not been in family for 4 generations)

Buyer determined price (negotiable)

= You really dont own it

 

BTC:

Cant force sale (unless margin)

Market/volume determines price (non-negotiable)

= but THIS you "really" own?

 

I dont see much difference really

 

14 hours ago, wachtwoord said:

 

 

2. They can seize Real estate without your cooperation and Bitcoin only with your cooperation. This gives options eg waiting out the wannabe thieves or relocating to elsewhere. You can even theoretically promise some of these assets to people that would help you with dealing with w/e state is holding you hostage. None of hhese options exist at all with your assets already seized.

 

This is where we disagree. The gov has proven time and again that they can access/seize crypto. 

 

There are tons of articles about how the Gov can find crypto and then sieze it. NONE of these criminals cooperated with authorities in these instances...still seized. Clearly the gov does NOT need your cooperation to find/sieze crypto. It would make it easier for them, but their abilities are getting better also, if they want it, they will find/take it, by not cooperating, ultimately you are just slowing them down, but if they want it, the end result is the same. 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/08/politics/fbi-north-korea-hackers-30-million-axie-infinity/index.html#:~:text=The FBI and private investigators,claw back the stolen money.

 

The Treasury Department has tried to crack down on the North Korean hackers’ targeting of cryptocurrency by sanctioning some accounts that they use to move money, and a “mixer,” or service that the hackers have allegedly used to launder stolen cryptocurrency.

 

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-seizes-23-million-cryptocurrency-paid-ransomware-extortionists-darkside

 

by reviewing the Bitcoin public ledger, law enforcement was able to track multiple transfers of bitcoin and identify that approximately 63.7 bitcoins, representing the proceeds of the victim’s ransom payment, had been transferred to a specific address, for which the FBI has the “private key,” or the rough equivalent of a password needed to access assets accessible from the specific Bitcoin address. This bitcoin represents proceeds traceable to a computer intrusion and property involved in money laundering and may be seized pursuant to criminal and civil forfeiture statutes.

 

https://www.dlapiper.com/en/insights/publications/2022/02/us-department-of-justice-aided-by-cryptocurrency-exchanges

 

the DOJ used “clustering analysis” – essentially pattern recognition algorithms – to scan the blockchain for transaction patterns, thereby assisting investigators in untangling attempts to obfuscate the flow of funds. 

US Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui praised the method as “one of the most reliable bases for a search ever.”  Federal law enforcement agencies have signed multimillion-dollar contracts with multiple developers of such tools, highlighting law enforcement’s focus on the cryptocurrency space and the important role the crypto community can play in helping the government root out illicit activity.

 

 

 

 

14 hours ago, wachtwoord said:

You mention hacking. You can literally not get hacked if your keys never touch the internet and are properly encrypted. No amount of solid police work can change that. All the recovered keys by law enforcement were badly secured or given "voluntary". I mean theoretically they can torture it out of you but in reality they probably promised lower sentences or threathened with other things the owners considered worse than losing their property. It's in no way perfect but vastly superior to real estate.

 

 

 

This just isnt true. A couple of the articles I posted above showed that the keys/passwords were recovered even though encrypted! They were not badly secured! They were secured orders of magnitude better than the avg person with crypto, these were professionals that KNEW what they were doing and went to great lengths to hide/protect stolen crypto...still seized. 

 

You said "You can literally not get hacked if your keys never touch the internet" so I'll ask again...I can not hand my friend a BTC for payment correct? Im honestly asking because I dont know and you didnt mention it, that I saw. So how do you facilitate a transaction? Im assuming your thumb drive doesnt have bluetooth that you put close to your friends wallet and they recognize each other and transfer funds...assuming this has to be done via the internet? 

 

If that is the argument, BTC is only ultimately secure/safe when it is on an external drive, never touching the internet, and you remembering the password in your head, not writing it down anywhere, piece of paper in security deposit box (cause they look there with warrant too) or on a cloud drive somewhere...its only REALLY safe when you would have no ability to use it? Is this correct? So then what is the point of owning it if the argument is that it is safe from gov seizure (proven false) or hacking (proven false). 

 

I just dont see the case for it being much safer...sure safer if you have it and never use it, then its no different than any other thumb drive I own that I never use, its essentially worthless. If I have a Ferrari, but I dont want to get a ticket in it, and I dont want to lose it to the repo man, and I dont want to get in an accident, and I dont want someone to steal it, so  the only truly safe place for it is in a vault locked under a cave...what is the value of the Ferrari because I cant use it for what it is intended for...You cant make an argument that BTC is imperviable to seizure or theft ONLY when it is essentially then useless. 

 

I could be wrong, maybe you dont need to use a gatekeeper to facilitate a transaction on the internet? Let me know if there is a way that I can use my BTC to buy things or pay people without ever using the internet, because there must be something Im missing here. I honestly dont see how those are valid arguments for BTC and if Im not understanding something I would like to know, Im being genuine here. 

 

 

[Sweet]

I have a suspicion that Bitcoin and crypto was created by a government - possibly the US government.  
 

It tracks and retains information on prior transactions within the blockchain, the ledger is public, but for some reason some people think it’s more anonymous and less traceable than cash?

 

I’ll not be surprised if Satoshi Nakamoto turns out to be some computer programmer working for the CIA or FBI.

Edited January 15, 2023 by Sweet

[wachtwoord]

I'm going to stop responding because progress seems to be none and I'm kind of done. The above reactions all just prove that all my points are not understood or ignore and that your base knowledge here is too low to have a meaningful discussion.

 

I mean the guy not knowing that literally anyone with a below average computer can encrypt data in a way that no entity on Earth can decrypt it and subsequently not believing me because some news article "said so" is

 

Good luck with that is all I can say

(And this is not meant sarcastically  I really wish the discourse here, this topic specifically, wasn't at the level it's at).

[Blugolds11]

12 minutes ago, wachtwoord said:

I'm going to stop responding because progress seems to be none and I'm kind of done. The above reactions all just prove that all my points are not understood or ignore and that your base knowledge here is too low to have a meaningful discussion.

 

I mean the guy not knowing that literally anyone with a below average computer can encrypt data in a way that no entity on Earth can decrypt it and subsequently not believing me because some news article "said so" is

 

Good luck with that is all I can say

(And this is not meant sarcastically  I really wish the discourse here, this topic specifically, wasn't at the level it's at).

 

Was pretty clear that I had questions and was hoping you would answer, why post if not willing to explain and help people understand? Is that not the goal of this forum? Helping each other to understand? 

[wachtwoord]

1 hour ago, Blugolds11 said:

 

Was pretty clear that I had questions and was hoping you would answer, why post if not willing to explain and help people understand? Is that not the goal of this forum? Helping each other to understand? 

If people are trying to understand.

 

Eg you wrote "This just isnt true. " about a 100% objective truth. I don't feel any progress is being made here.

Further you start again with "So there is no insurance against loss of BTC" which is neither inherently true NOR relevant wrt the discussion with Bitcoin which I just spend effort trying to explain. It just seems you don't get it: RE has certain risk outside of your agency that you must insure or take on yourself while Bitcoin does not have that specific risk. This is an argument for Bitcoin not against. Not losing your Bitcoin lies within your own agency, and would be a different risk.

 

Perhaps go read SharperDingaan's post above as he formulates things very differently from me. Maybe you have more success getting him cause I can't explain this much easier (so I don't think complexiteit is why you're not getting it).

 

Regarding Parsad: 

"Bluegold did a great job replying to the first two."   , two points of which I already explained while they are wrong, after Bluegold's post and before Parsad's. Then he continues with saying he can sell something to move it

GL doing it when you actually need this feature (gov imposed capital controls or seizing of your property) and finishes with a myrad of non-intrinsic benefits of RE that could easily be true for Bitcoin too and starts on volatility again which we spend forever on explaining why that's not a relevant argument here ...

 

At this point I feel we could talk daily for a year and we wouldn't make any progress. If I'm succeeding in anything here it's pissing people off: no point in that. And the present discourse doesn't have any value for me personally either. 

 

I'll probably revisit this thread some time in the future again and see whether there's progress as I've done multiple times in the past.

 

If you want to ask specific questions to me feel free to PM me. Further I have no doubt the interaction will continue without me. Hopefully on a more amicale tone too (better for everyone ). No hard feeling from my side by the way guys. If you sense anything of that sort that's simply frustration for making zero progress

 

Wish you all the best!

Edited January 15, 2023 by wachtwoord

[SharperDingaan]

Sadly the string ends in the old adages of the bad drives out the good, and never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers. Congratulations; we're all the worse off for it.

 

Wachtwoord just expresses the libertarian view, and the ethos that goes all the way back to the creators of bitcoin protocol. To find out just how far out of touch you actually are, refer to the cypherpunk manifesto. 

"For privacy to be widespread it must be part of a social contract. People must come and together deploy these systems for the common good. Privacy only extends so far as the cooperation of one's fellows in society. We the Cypherpunks seek your questions and your concerns and hope we may engage you so that we do not deceive ourselves. We will not, however, be moved out of our course because some may disagree with our goals."  https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html

 

Like it or not, real estate can be expropriated at any time, and that is part of the risk. If I own real estate in the US, I just don't think it will ever happen; however, if I own real estate in the 2nd/3rd world it happens everyday. What does expropriation actually mean? your signature, or your brains on the title deed; at the price I gave you - don't really care which. Seizure without negotiation, is just much easier with real estate than it is with BTC. 

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/expropriated

 

Like it or not, capital markets has had the tools to put a accurate price on BTC for quite some time. It just isn't widely publicized, and is worth a great deal more the more restricted the distribution. Derive it yourself, or take your chances; your choice.

 

Like it or not, BTC and paper fiat currency co-exist as payment polar opposites, each serving different markets. Paper fiat currency is being progressively replaced with CBDC, and the USD as a reserve currency is being progressively replaced with the 3rd of the different types of CBDC. The US is not the center of the universe, and if you believe in privacy - you are very thankful that BTC exists as an alternative.

 

To the short-term trading community, BTC is just another trading sardine. To the long-term orientated community, BTC holds great promise but we're not exactly sure what that is yet - or how it works out. To the Muppet Show peanut gallery it's just entertainment ... until I steal all your money  In this thread we have members from all these communities.

 

We take the long term view, and we know how to put an accurate price on BTC; we also aren't the only ones. The real value is the underlying blockchain technology, ability to automate most business processes via the use of smart contracts, and ability to automatically settle via a payment system (BTC) designed for a zero-trust environment. Replacing BTC with CBDC just speeds up global acceptance and adoption, at the price of privacy - a 'reasonable' compromise for the vast bulk of everyday transactions.

 

To participate I either go the blockchain portfolio approach (ie: Overstock), the crypto as an asset class ETF (BTC, ETH, Stable Coin, NFT, etc.) approach, or both. If you didn't know that .... guess who the patsy is.

 

SD

 

 

Edited January 15, 2023 by SharperDingaan

[Sweet]

28 minutes ago, SharperDingaan said:

Sadly the string ends in the old adages of the bad drives out the good, and never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers. Congratulations; we're all the worse off for it.

 

Wachtwoord just expresses the libertarian view, and the ethos that goes all the way back to the creators of bitcoin protocol. To find out just how far out of touch you actually are, refer to the cypherpunk manifesto. 

"For privacy to be widespread it must be part of a social contract. People must come and together deploy these systems for the common good. Privacy only extends so far as the cooperation of one's fellows in society. We the Cypherpunks seek your questions and your concerns and hope we may engage you so that we do not deceive ourselves. We will not, however, be moved out of our course because some may disagree with our goals."  https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html

 

Like it or not, real estate can be expropriated at any time, and that is part of the risk. If I own real estate in the US, I just don't think it will ever happen; however, if I own real estate in the 2nd/3rd world it happens everyday. What does expropriation actually mean? your signature, or your brains on the contract; at the price I gave you - don't really care which. Seizure without negotiation, is just much easier with real estate than it is with BTC. 

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/expropriated

 

Like it or not, capital markets has had the tools to put a accurate price on BTC for quite some time. It just isn't widely publicized, and is worth a great deal more the more restricted the distribution. Derive it yourself, or take your chances; your choice.

 

Like it or not, BTC and paper fiat currency co-exist as payment polar opposites, each serving different markets. Paper fiat currency is being progressively replaced with CBDC, and the USD as a reserve currency is being progressively replaced with the 3rd of the different types of CBDC. The US is not the center of the universe, and if you believe in privacy - you are very thankful that BTC exists as an alternative.

 

To the short-term trading community, BTC is just another trading sardine. To the long-term orientated community, BTC holds great promise but we're not exactly sure what that is yet - or how it works out. To the Muppet Show peanut gallery it's just entertainment ... until I steal all your money  In this thread we have members from all these communities.

 

We take the long term view, and we know how to put an accurate price on BTC; we also aren't the only ones. The real value is the underlying blockchain technology, ability to automate most business process via the use of smart contracts, and ability to automatically settle via a payment system (BTC) designed for a zero-trust environment. Replacing BTC with CBDC just speeds up global acceptance and adoption, at the price of privacy - a 'reasonable' compromise for the vast bulk of everyday transactions.

 

To participate I either go the blockchain portfolio approach (ie: Overstock), the crypto as an asset class ETF (BTC, ETH, Stable Coin, NFT, etc.) approach, or both. If you didn't know that .... guess who the patsy is.

 

SD

 

 

 

What’s the accurate price, and how can you be sure it’s accurate?

[SharperDingaan]

57 minutes ago, Sweet said:

 

What’s the accurate price, and how can you be sure it’s accurate?

 

Sorry, but no, I am not going to hint at or publicize it.

Do your own DD and back-testing to arrive at the confidence level.

 

SD

[Sweet]

14 minutes ago, SharperDingaan said:

 

Sorry, but no, I am not going to hint at or publicize it.

Do your own DD and back-testing to arrive at the confidence level.

 

SD

To be honest, that’s what I expected.

[RichardGibbons]

16 hours ago, Sweet said:

I have a suspicion that Bitcoin and crypto was created by a government - possibly the US government.  

 

It could also not be able tracing currency transactions, but rather as a canary in the coal mine indicating when encryption is broken.

 

A huge amount of encryption relies on the fact that there is no known way to factor large numbers in polynomial time. But, nobody has proven that it's impossible to factor large numbers in polynomial time.

 

Bitcoin effectively makes it possible to quickly become rich if you come up with a polynomial time factoring algorithm, but using such an algorithm to become wealthy would likely leave clues on the blockchain. So, perhaps the CIA created the blockchain so that they'd be able to scan it for indications that encryption has been cracked.

 

(I doubt that it's actually the case that the CIA created blockchain for this reason, because when bitcoin was first created, it would have been unreasonably optimistic to believe it would become as popular as it has become (and using it as a "canary in the coal mine" requires it to become popular. ) Nevertheless, I like this theory because it's a very elegant solution to the question, "how can we tell when someone's cracked our encryption?")

[Dave86ch]

In the meantime

I hold many more BTC but still interesting

[wachtwoord]

8 hours ago, RichardGibbons said:

 

It could also not be able tracing currency transactions, but rather as a canary in the coal mine indicating when encryption is broken.

 

A huge amount of encryption relies on the fact that there is no known way to factor large numbers in polynomial time. But, nobody has proven that it's impossible to factor large numbers in polynomial time.

 

Bitcoin effectively makes it possible to quickly become rich if you come up with a polynomial time factoring algorithm, but using such an algorithm to become wealthy would likely leave clues on the blockchain. So, perhaps the CIA created the blockchain so that they'd be able to scan it for indications that encryption has been cracked.

 

(I doubt that it's actually the case that the CIA created blockchain for this reason, because when bitcoin was first created, it would have been unreasonably optimistic to believe it would become as popular as it has become (and using it as a "canary in the coal mine" requires it to become popular. ) Nevertheless, I like this theory because it's a very elegant solution to the question, "how can we tell when someone's cracked our encryption?")

 

LOL Reacting NOW because this actually IS an interesting discussion point different from what's been discussed before (and you have point).

 

Yes, in the current situation Bitcoin from any address can be taken when a quantum computer with sufficient qbits is developed Not with zero effort mind you! But then it becomes doable in polonial time to brute force private keys. The first one's to fall would be the old P2PK addresses (as these make the public key destination of the tx public) and addresses that do use P2PKH (or newer) but have at least one outgoing transaction are also easier to attack.

 

Note that these addresses being beatable in polynomial time is highly unlikely without a quantum computer (and hence why I only consider quantum attacks). Compare the situation to the question whether P=NP. It's almost certain not the case but proving it is very very difficult. Highly unlikely in this field should be interpreted as "impossible" in this field for practical applications.

 

Anyway before the time quantum computers have enough qbits to be a real threats people will see it coming because of the sublinear progress in this field. The code to make Bitcoin quantum resistant has already been written (but would require a hard fork).

 

By the way, even if you have access to a quantum computer today with sufficient qbits it's harder than you think to get money out of it by taking Bitcoins at will. If this is noticed by the market price would race to zero and how do you explain the origin of funds at whatever off ramp you're using? Only a limited amount of money can be extracted with this.

 

Finally while I do believe it's an effective canary for a sudden breakthrough in quantum computing power it's highly unlikely the CIA or anyone else planned this. Much more likely to be an emergent characteristic.