Cryptocurrencies

[james22]

Just now, 73 Reds said:

Growth is not the issue.  The issue is BTC and Amazon as assets to be owned. 

 

Growth is surely the issue.

 

And the gains to be had are before the adoption curve plateaus.

 

Just now, 73 Reds said:

BTC doesn't generate anything and you can't even use it to make purchases directly on AMZN.  In fact, you can't use it to buy much of anything.

 

Gold either.

 

Just now, 73 Reds said:

Even if I could, who wants a volatile currency?  Volatility is precisely the reason why people in unstable countries don't trust their own currencies.  Let's revisit the issue when BTC is accepted as payment for taxes, contractual obligations and trade.     

 

Bitcoin is better understood as a store of value than a currency.

 

And volatility comes with early adoption.

[73 Reds]

6 minutes ago, james22 said:

 

Growth is surely the issue.

 

And the gains to be had are before the adoption curve plateaus.

 

 

Gold either.

 

 

Bitcoin is better understood as a store of value than a currency.

 

And volatility comes with early adoption.

Adoption for what?  And why does growth and adaption translate into value when there are other alternatives that people other than Michael Saylor believe are perfectly acceptable?  BTW, I wouldn't own gold as a growth asset either for some of the same reasons as BTC.

Edited April 14, 2025 by 73 Reds
missed line

[73 Reds]

28 minutes ago, james22 said:

 

I agree - digitization is great.  So countries can digitize their currencies.  BTC doesn't own a monopoly on digitization.

[TwoCitiesCapital]

43 minutes ago, james22 said:

 

 

Question is - which gets abandoned first - gold or fiat? 

 

If fiat, gold will still go through the roof before beginning its own bleed to BTC. 

 

I keep thinking this is the risk to gold, that Bitcoin will bleed its monetary premium, but Gold is still doing exceptionally well this year in light of BTCs enormous inflows. It seems to me that perhaps fiat comes first and that it may still be safe to own gold awhile longer. 

[Milu]

14 minutes ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

 

Question is - which gets abandoned first - gold or fiat? 

 

If fiat, gold will still go through the roof before beginning its own bleed to BTC. 

 

I keep thinking this is the risk to gold, that Bitcoin will bleed its monetary premium, but Gold is still doing exceptionally well this year in light of BTCs enormous inflows. It seems to me that perhaps fiat comes first and that it may still be safe to own gold awhile longer. 

I think bitcoin and gold will continue to co-exist for many decades to come. The one benefit that gold will continue to have over bitcoin is its privacy. Even though the blockchain is anonymous there is a digital history of everything carried out on its not quite a private as storing a bar of gold in your basement for a few decades. I sold a the gold I had a couple years back and just decided to hold bitcoin but I think gold has plenty of merit as a store of value. Just hated paying the 2 or 3% spread for buying physical oz’s

[SharperDingaan]

BTC for everyone ....

 

Folks, we are looking out TEN YEARS. We're pretty sure the horse and buggy folks were also positive that everyone didn't need a motorcar when they first came out. Of course, today, one can still get around without a motorcar .... but for most, it is not by choice.

 

BTC doesn't need to be a means of payment for everyday transactions, just as gold doesn't need to be. There are all kinds of level 2 solutions that can make BTC backed  payments quicker and cheaper. If you live in other parts of the world where there is high inflation and/or routine FX devaluation, these solutions are an alternative to USD cash.

 

The trading thing is no different to people fixing up houses and attempting to fiip them for a gain. It's just a different mindset, and there is resistance to the approach being used outside of real estate. Different strokes.

 

SD

 

 

 

 

[73 Reds]

5 minutes ago, SharperDingaan said:

BTC for everyone ....

 

Folks, we are looking out TEN YEARS. We're pretty sure the horse and buggy folks were also positive that everyone didn't need a motorcar when they first came out. Of course, today, one can still get around without a motorcar .... but for most, it is not by choice.

 

BTC doesn't need to be a means of payment for everyday transactions, just as gold doesn't need to be. There are all kinds of level 2 solutions that can make BTC backed  payments quicker and cheaper. If you live in other parts of the world where there is high inflation and/or routine FX devaluation, these solutions are an alternative to USD cash.

 

The trading thing is no different to people fixing up houses and attempting to fiip them for a gain. It's just a different mindset, and there is resistance to the approach being used outside of real estate. Different strokes.

 

SD

 

 

 

 

Motorcar makers and income properties generate a return for their respective owners; results will vary.  But speculation doesn't change and the objects of speculation generate nothing for their owners and come and go like clockwork.

[james22]

1 hour ago, 73 Reds said:

Adoption for what? 

 

A better store of value than gold or fiat.

 

1 hour ago, 73 Reds said:

And why does growth and adaption translate into value when there are other alternatives that people other than Michael Saylor believe are perfectly acceptable? 

 

Name one recognized as an asset class.

 

1 hour ago, 73 Reds said:

BTW, I wouldn't own gold as a growth asset either for some of the same reasons as BTC.

 

Gold has plateaued, BTC has not. 

 

Though you'd have done really well investing in gold ETFs for the first seven years or so.

 

34 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

. . . objects of speculation generate nothing for their owners and come and go like clockwork.

 

How often does a new asset class come into existence?

 

Gold has has a 5,000 year run, fiat 50. 

 

We're just lucky enough to be around to see their replacement.

[gfp]

20 minutes ago, james22 said:

Gold has plateaued,

[james22]

[gfp]

Ah, I see - by your definition of "plateau" every asset has plateaued.

[TwoCitiesCapital]

2 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

Motorcar makers and income properties generate a return for their respective owners; results will vary.  But speculation doesn't change and the objects of speculation generate nothing for their owners and come and go like clockwork.

 

Speculation is $105 million vs $65k on a simple buy-and-hold. What other speculative bubble has that level of out performance over 13-years without popping? 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, gfp said:

 If you measure it in BTC ...

 

 

Edited April 15, 2025 by TwoCitiesCapital

[james22]

53 minutes ago, gfp said:

Ah, I see - by your definition of "plateau" every asset has plateaued.

 

No, full adoption = plateau.

 

Has gold has been fully adopted as a store of value? Yes.

 

BTC? No.

 

[james22]

Seriously, this has all been covered in this very thread many, many times before.

[SharperDingaan]

4 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

Motorcar makers and income properties generate a return for their respective owners; results will vary.  But speculation doesn't change and the objects of speculation generate nothing for their owners and come and go like clockwork.

 

One buys an income property for a net positive rental income, PLUS a gain on sale; the object of speculation (house) generating a net positive rental income until it is eventually sold at a gain. You can do exactly the same thing with a BTC-ETF that pays a monthly dividend.

 

SD

 

[Dave86ch]

10 hours ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

 

Question is - which gets abandoned first - gold or fiat? 

 

If fiat, gold will still go through the roof before beginning its own bleed to BTC. 

 

I keep thinking this is the risk to gold, that Bitcoin will bleed its monetary premium, but Gold is still doing exceptionally well this year in light of BTCs enormous inflows. It seems to me that perhaps fiat comes first and that it may still be safe to own gold awhile longer. 

 

Bitcoin isn't a rock; it's a protocol. Its growth depends on the growth of products built on top of it. Ardoino (Tether, the seventh-largest holder of US debt) states that Lightning is the only solution to scale stablecoins. Discussions tend to be circular until one starts digging into the technology itself and how its influence is growing. Bitcoin's underlying value lies in the growing technologies being built on it as a Layer 1.

 

This is where value, adoption, and products emerge.

 

It offers scarcity, transactions, timestamps, privacy (via Lightning channels), and portability (I can access a terminal on the other side of the world and access my wealth). It enables communication, leverages untapped energy sources, supports grid stabilization, and is not controlled by any single entity.

 

Edited April 15, 2025 by Dave86ch

[73 Reds]

4 hours ago, Dave86ch said:

 

Bitcoin isn't a rock; it's a protocol. Its growth depends on the growth of products built on top of it. Ardoino (Tether, the seventh-largest holder of US debt) states that Lightning is the only solution to scale stablecoins. Discussions tend to be circular until one starts digging into the technology itself and how its influence is growing. Bitcoin's underlying value lies in the growing technologies being built on it as a Layer 1.

 

This is where value, adoption, and products emerge.

 

It offers scarcity, transactions, timestamps, privacy (via Lightning channels), and portability (I can access a terminal on the other side of the world and access my wealth). It enables communication, leverages untapped energy sources, supports grid stabilization, and is not controlled by any single entity.

 

Every wide spread speculation in history has been accompanied by a great story.  That's the attraction.  Every speculation in history also plays out the same.   Folks make money while the story gains traction and those left holding the bag when the story proves false or highly exaggerated lose most or everything.  "This time is different"  doesn't bode well.

Edited April 15, 2025 by 73 Reds
words

[james22]

42 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Every wide spread technological adoption in history has been because of its functional advantages.  That's the attraction.  Every technological adoption in history also plays out the same.   Early Adopters make money while the technology gains traction and Laggards miss out.  "This time is different"  doesn't bode well.

 

Corrected.

[73 Reds]

9 minutes ago, james22 said:

 

Corrected.

The difference being, you don't buy or own the technology; you buy or own the companies that create them and generate products or services with a recurring income worthy of investment.  

[james22]

52 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

The difference being, you don't buy or own the technology; you buy or own the companies that create them and generate products or services with a recurring income worthy of investment.  

 

Companies that have risks that bitcoin doesn't: taxes, regulation, competition, obsolescence, succession, etc.

[73 Reds]

40 minutes ago, james22 said:

 

Companies that have risks that bitcoin doesn't: taxes, regulation, competition, obsolescence, succession, etc.

I'll take my chances with stocks and private businesses.   What you describe as "risks" are everyday costs of doing business.

Edited April 15, 2025 by 73 Reds
missed line

[james22]

Pomp: Do you have a personal goal for the number of Bitcoin that the United States could have? 

 

Bo Hines, Executive Director of the Crypto Council: I want as much as we can possibly accumulate.

 

 

 

[TwoCitiesCapital]

Question for the more technical oriented - 

 

Over time, I have moved BTC I've accumulated to a private hardware wallet in multiple transactions. For example sake, let's say I'm moving to the hardware wallet everytime I accumulate 0.25 BTC and accumulate 2 BTC. 

 

Each time, a different address was generated to send the BTC to; however, all is aggregated in the private address viewable on Ledger. 

 

So when people are looking at on-chain data, do they see a single wallet of 2 BTC? Or is it 8 separate wallets holding 0.25 BTC? 

 

Just trying to understand how my wallets roll up to the broader on-chain data when I see #s and %s of "wallets holding more than 1 BTC" and etc. 

Edited April 15, 2025 by TwoCitiesCapital

[SharperDingaan]

The 'public' sees 8 wallets. If you did all the transactions though the same wallet, only 1 wallet would be visible.

 

Helps with anonymity, but blows up the stats. Haircut the total number of wallets by around 40-50% to get an idea as to the 'true' number of accounts.

 

SD

[TwoCitiesCapital]

2 hours ago, SharperDingaan said:

The 'public' sees 8 wallets. If you did all the transactions though the same wallet, only 1 wallet would be visible.

 

Helps with anonymity, but blows up the stats. Haircut the total number of wallets by around 40-50% to get an idea as to the 'true' number of accounts.

 

SD

 

Thank you! 

 

That also means the number of "wallets"/individuals holding more than 1 Bitcoin is also probably quite a bit larger than reported too.