Cryptocurrencies

[wachtwoord]

I think its important to note that payment systems have and continually evolve in ways that are typically underestimated. Further, there is definitely a moving risk of government overreach. All the evidence you need to see is right there with how swiftly, and desperately they've moved to kill Facebook's Libra project. They hate this because they cant control it. At this point it seems unstoppable.

 

The big question to me is "why Bitcoin" vs any other crypto, and is being the first mover a valid answer to "why Bitcoin". Really, who knows?

 

Great investment thesis, Greg. [And from here, please don't expect me to participate in this topic.]

 

Well Greg is wrong there but the feeling he's basing the decision on is real.

 

What he should do (if he really wants to put "who knows?" to rest) is do what he does when he decides to invest in a stock. He wrote on this board he looks at stocks and looks for a reason that makes it uninvestable so he can stop looking at it and move to the next company. That is easy to do here too (easier than with stocks, because the crap is so much more on the surface).

 

Just look for insurmountable problems. Examples:

 

• Problems with the initial distribution (pre-mining or the founders continue to assign part of the mining reward to themselves for "development").
  
• Problems with being centralized rather than distributed (what is the added value of a centralized crypto, either by organization or technically?)
  
• Is it even a cryptocurrency? Is there mining? Is it a token? is it a "stable coin" (aka unprotected, non-yielding loan to a not trustable 3rd party)
  
• Do the idea behind it, and the differences with Bitcoin make any sort of logical sense?
  

 

Just those 4 questions will eliminate nearly all of them. Of course no-one has to do this, but saying it's unknowable is like saying it's unknowable which stocks are investable and which are not. Simply untrue (unless you take the statement literally: you can rarely know anything ever with absolute certainty).

[SharperDingaan]

Do any kind of 'real' research on how blockchain works, and it's pretty obvious why Libra is meeting resistance.

It's also clear why almost all the other significant social media platforms are NOT pursing digital currency.

 

If you don't 'get' why the technology is so game changing, why it is materially more valuable to a China or Russia, and who the natural markets are for the various approaches; you need to make some decisions. Top of the list should be flying somewhere, and paying up for an advanced course in the subject.

 

You will be dead before this technology becomes 'everyday'.

All you can do is consider the potential application, and buy the strongest players in the sectors likely to benefit. Hope for a global meltdown, buy the dividend payers as cheaply as possible - and toss them in the sock draw for 10+years.

 

SD

 

 

[Gregmal]

I think its important to note that payment systems have and continually evolve in ways that are typically underestimated. Further, there is definitely a moving risk of government overreach. All the evidence you need to see is right there with how swiftly, and desperately they've moved to kill Facebook's Libra project. They hate this because they cant control it. At this point it seems unstoppable.

 

The big question to me is "why Bitcoin" vs any other crypto, and is being the first mover a valid answer to "why Bitcoin". Really, who knows?

 

Great investment thesis, Greg. [And from here, please don't expect me to participate in this topic.]

 

Well Greg is wrong there but the feeling he's basing the decision on is real.

 

What he should do (if he really wants to put "who knows?" to rest) is do what he does when he decides to invest in a stock. He wrote on this board he looks at stocks and looks for a reason that makes it uninvestable so he can stop looking at it and move to the next company. That is easy to do here too (easier than with stocks, because the crap is so much more on the surface).

 

Just look for insurmountable problems. Examples:

 

• Problems with the initial distribution (pre-mining or the founders continue to assign part of the mining reward to themselves for "development").
  
• Problems with being centralized rather than distributed (what is the added value of a centralized crypto, either by organization or technically?)
  
• Is it even a cryptocurrency? Is there mining? Is it a token? is it a "stable coin" (aka unprotected, non-yielding loan to a not trustable 3rd party)
  
• Do the idea behind it, and the differences with Bitcoin make any sort of logical sense?
  

 

Just those 4 questions will eliminate nearly all of them. Of course no-one has to do this, but saying it's unknowable is like saying it's unknowable which stocks are investable and which are not. Simply untrue (unless you take the statement literally: you can rarely know anything ever with absolute certainty).

 

This is all true, and useful, but it doesnt totally provide answers to the bigger picture. There are myriad "issues". But all this has been around and known to various degrees, forever; ie its in the market. And yet here we are. Its the same kind of structural setup, and ideological "you think you know, but it just aint so" as we saw with all the super duper smart guys and their Excel spreadsheet Tesla short's at $30 per share. And $50. And $100...and so on. I was briefly one of them until I had an awakening and decided to step to the sidelines, acknowledging I just didn't know anything useful regarding the investment and what I thought I knew, consistently seemed to put me on the wrong side of the trade. If something has now, for a multi year period(or longer) consistently outstripped "consensus" and expectation, at the least it is prudent to respect it. If you sit there and watch something go from $100 to $10,000, I dont know, I think its fair to ask oneself, why? And how wasn't I able to take advantage of it? One of the most hilarious things I think this bull market has revealed, is how little the big, smart, pompous Wall Street guys really know in the grand scheme of things. They derided, and sneered at, and shorted AMZN from inception, to like $1500 a share. And now, you know, as it starts to get "toppy" and is worth like $1T USD, all of a sudden they find it a consensus long and even a "value play" L-O-fuckin-L. So sometimes, it pays to realize where you are in this vicious cycle, see if where you've been has made sense(and money) and if necessary, adjust or step away. At least is seems, and has worked, for me. A lot of times, Ive found that your risk/reward skew is significantly better if you are able to get comfortable allowing there to be a few ?, rather than impulsively "needing" to know EVERYTHING.

[Spekulatius]

Yes, Libra seems an oxymoron since the main allure of a cryptocurrency is no supervision by any institution, least a central bank. Also ( and related to above) they are useful for money laundering( or what the government defines as such).

 

I think FB should have issued a token, not a currency or should have sold it as a token, even if it acts as a currency.

 

Just bad marketing all around.

[SharperDingaan]

The only folks who want no central bank supervision, are the money launderers and criminals.

Everybody else WANTS central bank crypto-currency involvement; and the ability to reliably, make/receive 'real time' and transparent global payments, in a high trust environment, at a cost of fractions of a cent.

 

Central bank guaranteed digital wallets, central bank guaranteed digital token, and transparent global settlement in seconds ....

or Libra token, in a materially more hackable facebook wallet, all guaranteed by just .... Mark?

... or anyone else's 'private' crypto-currency.

 

The only other, similarly, high security crypto-currency is hedgeable Bitcoin, in a Mt Gox wallet.

Simply because you will have a very short life should you ever feel inclined to execute a successful hack.

 

SD

 

 

 

 

 

[wachtwoord]

The only folks who want no central bank supervision, are the money launderers and criminals.

Everybody else WANTS central bank crypto-currency involvement; and the ability to reliably, make/receive 'real time' and transparent global payments, in a high trust environment, at a cost of fractions of a cent.

 

Central bank guaranteed digital wallets, central bank guaranteed digital token, and transparent global settlement in seconds ....

or Libra token, in a materially more hackable facebook wallet, all guaranteed by just .... Mark?

... or anyone else's 'private' crypto-currency.

 

The only other, similarly, high security crypto-currency is hedgeable Bitcoin, in a Mt Gox wallet.

Simply because you will have a very short life should you ever feel inclined to execute a successful hack.

 

SD

 

Excuse me but I'm not a money launderer and I don't want central banks to exist much less be involved in things. Central banks are anti free-market by definition.

[SharperDingaan]

The only folks who want no central bank supervision, are the money launderers and criminals.

Everybody else WANTS central bank crypto-currency involvement; and the ability to reliably, make/receive 'real time' and transparent global payments, in a high trust environment, at a cost of fractions of a cent.

 

Central bank guaranteed digital wallets, central bank guaranteed digital token, and transparent global settlement in seconds ....

or Libra token, in a materially more hackable facebook wallet, all guaranteed by just .... Mark?

... or anyone else's 'private' crypto-currency.

 

The only other, similarly, high security crypto-currency is hedgeable Bitcoin, in a Mt Gox wallet.

Simply because you will have a very short life should you ever feel inclined to execute a successful hack.

 

SD

 

Excuse me but I'm not a money launderer and I don't want central banks to exist much less be involved in things. Central banks are anti free-market by definition.

 

I'll make an exception for the handful of purely libertarians  :)

But I'm still only making/receiving payments over a central bank rail ... and Bitcoin, only when I wish to remain entirely private.

Ying/Yang remain alive and well!

 

SD

[rkbabang]

The only folks who want no central bank supervision, are the money launderers and criminals.

Everybody else WANTS central bank crypto-currency involvement; and the ability to reliably, make/receive 'real time' and transparent global payments, in a high trust environment, at a cost of fractions of a cent.

 

Central bank guaranteed digital wallets, central bank guaranteed digital token, and transparent global settlement in seconds ....

or Libra token, in a materially more hackable facebook wallet, all guaranteed by just .... Mark?

... or anyone else's 'private' crypto-currency.

 

The only other, similarly, high security crypto-currency is hedgeable Bitcoin, in a Mt Gox wallet.

Simply because you will have a very short life should you ever feel inclined to execute a successful hack.

 

SD

 

Central bank "involvement" means "control".  If central bankers can issue digital currency, what is the point?  I can already use ApplePay to easily and instantly transfer a central-bank inflated currency to buy stuff.  The other people who don't want central bank "involvement" are people who don't like letting politicians and bankers steal a portion of all the wealth in society every year through inflation.  The entire point of cryptocurrency is not letting that happen.  People who actually want central bank "involvement" are missing the entire point altogether.

 

 

[TwoCitiesCapital]

The only folks who want no central bank supervision, are the money launderers and criminals.

Everybody else WANTS central bank crypto-currency involvement; and the ability to reliably, make/receive 'real time' and transparent global payments, in a high trust environment, at a cost of fractions of a cent.

 

Central bank guaranteed digital wallets, central bank guaranteed digital token, and transparent global settlement in seconds ....

or Libra token, in a materially more hackable facebook wallet, all guaranteed by just .... Mark?

... or anyone else's 'private' crypto-currency.

 

The only other, similarly, high security crypto-currency is hedgeable Bitcoin, in a Mt Gox wallet.

Simply because you will have a very short life should you ever feel inclined to execute a successful hack.

 

SD

 

Central bank "involvement" means "control".  If central bankers can issue digital currency, what is the point?  I can already use ApplePay to easily and instantly transfer a central-bank inflated currency to buy stuff.  The other people who don't want central bank "involvement" are people who don't like letting politicians and bankers steal a portion of all the wealth in society every year through inflation.  The entire point of cryptocurrency is not letting that happen.  People who actually want central bank "involvement" are missing the entire point altogether.

 

As someone who leans libertarian, I certainly understand the argument, but still tend to agree with SD.

 

It's why I was skeptical of Bitcoin for years and never purchased - because it kept being sold to me as "digital gold" or a replacement of fiat. Both of which I never really saw how Bitcoin could adequately replace. I still don't.

 

But as a payment network that allows for near instantaneous transfers of cash globally...well there's value to that. Ask Visa/MasterCard/American Express.

 

If viewer solely as a payment transfer protocol, I think Bitcoin has immense value regardless of central bank intervention and will eventually reduce the enormous fees that can be charged by payment processing companies as Bitcoin is a direct displacement of their services.

 

But seeing as scalability is the $1,000,000 question when it comes to Bitcoin's mass adoption, we might still see a necessary place for those companies to operate on top of the Bitcoin network to provide trusted transactions so stores don't have to wait 30 minutes to be confident you've paid and so consumers can still spend more than they have.

[wachtwoord]

Bitcoin has a very crappy payment system, so if that's your thesis I'm sorry but you really have no idea what you're talking about (about this specifically of course, I really like your contributions on other topics).

 

It's an improved version of gold. It's optimized for decentralization, censorship resistance and immutability NOT for being an efficient or fast payment system (and it's a trade-off, you can't have both). Expect transaction fees to go in the hundreds and even thousands of USD equivalent is years to come (and that'a fine and a good development).

[rkbabang]

Bitcoin has a very crappy payment system, so if that's your thesis I'm sorry but you really have no idea what you're talking about (about this specifically of course, I really like your contributions on other topics).

 

It's an improved version of gold. It's optimized for decentralization, censorship resistance and immutability NOT for being an efficient or fast payment system (and it's a trade-off, you can't have both). Expect transaction fees to go in the hundreds and even thousands of USD equivalent is years to come (and that'a fine and a good development).

 

 

Exactly.  There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.  I can see BTC being used to close on houses, buy cars, or send money overseas, but not an iced tea and a candybar at 7-Eleven.  Other systems will certainly be built on top of Bitcoin, indeed they are already being built on top of Bitcoin, but if they are fast and easy, they won't be as safe.

 

[Fat Pitch]

Bitcoin has a very crappy payment system, so if that's your thesis I'm sorry but you really have no idea what you're talking about (about this specifically of course, I really like your contributions on other topics).

 

It's an improved version of gold. It's optimized for decentralization, censorship resistance and immutability NOT for being an efficient or fast payment system (and it's a trade-off, you can't have both). Expect transaction fees to go in the hundreds and even thousands of USD equivalent is years to come (and that'a fine and a good development).

 

 

Exactly.  There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.  I can see BTC being used to close on houses, buy cars, or send money overseas, but not an iced tea and a candybar at 7-Eleven.  Other systems will certainly be built on top of Bitcoin, indeed they are already being built on top of Bitcoin, but if they are fast and easy, they won't be as safe.

 

Once people realize Bitcoin is a sovereign digital bearer asset then all the utility value of the network will click in for them. I reckon by then it'll have 3 Trillion+ AUM.

 

At this point, nation states can settle global trade through BTC and bypass US SWIFT system which then adds more utility value to the system. Then it'll just become a black hole soaking up excess capital and potentially giving holders a ~3% real rate of return on purchasing power without counter party risks... at this point government bonds cannot hope to compete and more capital will flood into BTC. Are you seeing this viscous feed back loop developing?

 

The question is who will bootstrap this puppy to 1 Trillion+ to kick off the generational lollapalooza effect humanity has ever witnessed?

[Guest cherzeca]

"Then it'll just become a black hole soaking up excess capital and potentially giving holders a ~3% real rate of return on purchasing power without counter party risks"

 

how so?

[TwoCitiesCapital]

Bitcoin has a very crappy payment system, so if that's your thesis I'm sorry but you really have no idea what you're talking about (about this specifically of course, I really like your contributions on other topics).

 

It's an improved version of gold. It's optimized for decentralization, censorship resistance and immutability NOT for being an efficient or fast payment system (and it's a trade-off, you can't have both). Expect transaction fees to go in the hundreds and even thousands of USD equivalent is years to come (and that'a fine and a good development).

 

Sure. I don't think Bitcoin as it stands now makes sense for buying a candy bar. But then again, from a store's perspective, neither do credit cards because most of them are losing money on small purchases with their razor thin margins being lost to the processing fees.

 

Just because it doesn't work in 100% of applications doesn't mean it's not a superior system for some, or most, applications. All we're seeing today is the infancy - not the final product/solution.

 

I'm certainly no expert. It's taken me years of watching and reading to get over my initial skepticism to simply accept it as a payment protocol. But the main problems I see with Bitcoin are the transaction fees, which will need to drop, and validation taking minutes. Those don't seem like insurmountable problems - just ones that will take time, and creative solutions, to work through.

 

It's quite possible that Amex/Visa/MasterCard build services on top of Bitcoin to continue to deliver the credit aspect of their business model, to allow for trust in the transaction even before it officially clears, and to allow for block transactions being loaded to the chain instead of each transaction individually which could increase scalability.

 

Point is, that could still be a more advantageous system with lower fees than the 2.5% that is being collected now  and retailers wouldn't have to wait weeks for the card companies to remit cash payment to them.

 

Agreed larger transactions likely benefit first and that we're not in a place to supplant traditional payments yet. But I don't see it stopping there and by the time the system is developed, I'd imagine you won't be able to buy an ownership in the payment network (a la Bitcoin) for $9,000.

[SharperDingaan]

There are 2 types of crypto that post to the digital ledger. Public bitcoin protocol using miners, and private networks using agreed protocol. Central bank payment systems run on private networks, resulting in high-capacity, and high-speed processing, enabling everyday payments. Bitcoin protocol is for low capacity, high-security, slow processing.

 

Different markets and applications; and there’s a place for both.

But if you just want to buy a coffee, you are not using Bitcoin to do it - it just takes too long to process the payment!

 

SD

[wachtwoord]

@TwoCitiesCapital:

The payment system is not the innovation here. The trustless settlement system is the innovation.

 

The payment system is purposefully unscalable and relatively slow because security, immutability, censorship-resistance and distribution are the key value proposition of Bitcoin. This won't change, no matter how much you polish the payment system. It's the fundamental truth.

 

You also can't compare the fees to credit cards or the traditional banking system because those transactions are reversable. In fact users of those system see the reversability as a feature while in Bitcoin non-reversability is the feature. Very different systems that don't directly compete with each other.

 

@SD: the second "type of crypto" you mention is not a cryptocurrency at all and nothing new (but we me mostly seem to agree on this one)

[Fat Pitch]

"Then it'll just become a black hole soaking up excess capital and potentially giving holders a ~3% real rate of return on purchasing power without counter party risks"

 

how so?

 

Many ways: loss of private keys, low time preference changes in societies, Cantillon Effect, etc.

[rkbabang]

"Then it'll just become a black hole soaking up excess capital and potentially giving holders a ~3% real rate of return on purchasing power without counter party risks"

 

how so?

 

Many ways: loss of private keys, low time preference changes in societies, Cantillon Effect, etc.

 

There will certainly be some of that (there already has been).  Like a corporation burning shares.  The remaining ones become more valuable.  If you don't want that to happen to you, just keep your key safe and provide some way to let your heirs know where it is and then these effects will benefit you not harm you.

[SharperDingaan]

A brief mention re the 'immutable' record of a block-chain ... that will really wreck your day.

The block chain record is NOT real .....

 

Assume we've owned the same house; it has passed through multiple owners before us, and a full history of all improvements and transactional activity was recorded on the property block-chain as it occurred. The block-chain is deemed so complete, that it was even used to calculate our property taxes (Latvia), and the property trades at a slight premium to the market - because of it. The last transaction was for $1M.

 

The street floods, and the new owner discovers water damage in their basement. During the repair, traces of mold are found suggestive of former property use as a marijuana grow-op, as well as evidence of foundational damage from at least one or two former floods. The property is permanently impaired ... but there is not a mention of it anywhere on the block-chain! And once the repair is complete ... this new owner is not going to put an entry on the blockchain either - because to do so, will be to permanently impair the properties value.

 

The block-chain record is indeed immutable. It is just NOT complete!

..... I have friends in low places  ;)

 

SD

 

[rkbabang]

A brief mention re the 'immutable' record of a block-chain ... that will really wreck your day.

The block chain record IS NOT real .....

 

Assume we've owned the same house; it has passed through multiple owners before us, and a full history of all improvements and transactional activity was recorded on the properties block-chain as it occurred. The block-chain is deemed so complete, that it was even used to calculate our property taxes (Latvia), and the property trades at a slight premium to the market - because of it. The last transaction was for $1M.

 

The street floods, and the new owner discovers water damage in their basement. During the repair, traces of mold are found suggestive of former property use as a marijuana grow-op, as well as evidence of foundational damage from at least one or two former floods. The property is permanently impaired ... but there is not a mention of it anywhere on the block-chain! And once the repair is complete ... this new owner is not going to put an entry on the blockchain either - because to do so, will be to permanently impair the properties value.

 

The block-chain record is indeed immutable. It is just NOT complete!

..... I have friends in low places  ;)

 

SD

 

 

What does this have to do with what keys have spend access to which Bitcoins?

 

[SharperDingaan]

A brief mention re the 'immutable' record of a block-chain ... that will really wreck your day.

The block chain record IS NOT real .....

 

Assume we've owned the same house; it has passed through multiple owners before us, and a full history of all improvements and transactional activity was recorded on the properties block-chain as it occurred. The block-chain is deemed so complete, that it was even used to calculate our property taxes (Latvia), and the property trades at a slight premium to the market - because of it. The last transaction was for $1M.

 

The street floods, and the new owner discovers water damage in their basement. During the repair, traces of mold are found suggestive of former property use as a marijuana grow-op, as well as evidence of foundational damage from at least one or two former floods. The property is permanently impaired ... but there is not a mention of it anywhere on the block-chain! And once the repair is complete ... this new owner is not going to put an entry on the blockchain either - because to do so, will be to permanently impair the properties value.

 

The block-chain record is indeed immutable. It is just NOT complete!

..... I have friends in low places  ;)

 

SD

 

 

What does this have to do with what keys have spend access to which Bitcoins?

 

No impact on the proof of ownership. Big impact on the aggregate block-chain record.

The current record says there are 18M coin outstanding, and available for transacting. But of course if you lost your key ... they are outstanding, but not available for transacting - a permanent impairment against the Bitcoin design limit of 21M coin.

 

SD

[wachtwoord]

A brief mention re the 'immutable' record of a block-chain ... that will really wreck your day.

The block chain record IS NOT real .....

 

Assume we've owned the same house; it has passed through multiple owners before us, and a full history of all improvements and transactional activity was recorded on the properties block-chain as it occurred. The block-chain is deemed so complete, that it was even used to calculate our property taxes (Latvia), and the property trades at a slight premium to the market - because of it. The last transaction was for $1M.

 

The street floods, and the new owner discovers water damage in their basement. During the repair, traces of mold are found suggestive of former property use as a marijuana grow-op, as well as evidence of foundational damage from at least one or two former floods. The property is permanently impaired ... but there is not a mention of it anywhere on the block-chain! And once the repair is complete ... this new owner is not going to put an entry on the blockchain either - because to do so, will be to permanently impair the properties value.

 

The block-chain record is indeed immutable. It is just NOT complete!

..... I have friends in low places  ;)

 

SD

 

 

What does this have to do with what keys have spend access to which Bitcoins?

 

Indeed. Connecting blockchain data to physical assets is a silly notion anyway. Similarly, people that think their tokens are backed by some physical asset are going to wake up to some bad surprise at some point in the future.

 

What you can do is prove that certain data existed at a certain point in time. For example show that some document or contract was signed at some point in time, by putting the hash of the document in the blockchain (the Bitcoin one preferably if you desire strong evidence).

[rkbabang]

A brief mention re the 'immutable' record of a block-chain ... that will really wreck your day.

The block chain record IS NOT real .....

 

Assume we've owned the same house; it has passed through multiple owners before us, and a full history of all improvements and transactional activity was recorded on the properties block-chain as it occurred. The block-chain is deemed so complete, that it was even used to calculate our property taxes (Latvia), and the property trades at a slight premium to the market - because of it. The last transaction was for $1M.

 

The street floods, and the new owner discovers water damage in their basement. During the repair, traces of mold are found suggestive of former property use as a marijuana grow-op, as well as evidence of foundational damage from at least one or two former floods. The property is permanently impaired ... but there is not a mention of it anywhere on the block-chain! And once the repair is complete ... this new owner is not going to put an entry on the blockchain either - because to do so, will be to permanently impair the properties value.

 

The block-chain record is indeed immutable. It is just NOT complete!

..... I have friends in low places  ;)

 

SD

 

 

What does this have to do with what keys have spend access to which Bitcoins?

 

No impact on the proof of ownership. Big impact on the aggregate block-chain record.

The current record says there are 18M coin outstanding, and available for transacting. But of course if you lost your key ... they are outstanding, but not available for transacting - a permanent impairment against the Bitcoin design limit of 21M coin.

 

SD

 

Easily taken care of by supply and demand.  Bitcoins are currently divided into 8 decimal places.  It could be forked to add more.  There is no difference on any given day from me not selling my BTC because I am hodling and not selling them because I lost the key.  There is a supply available at any given time and a demand for them.  The price will fluctuate accordingly.

 

[wachtwoord]

A brief mention re the 'immutable' record of a block-chain ... that will really wreck your day.

The block chain record IS NOT real .....

 

Assume we've owned the same house; it has passed through multiple owners before us, and a full history of all improvements and transactional activity was recorded on the properties block-chain as it occurred. The block-chain is deemed so complete, that it was even used to calculate our property taxes (Latvia), and the property trades at a slight premium to the market - because of it. The last transaction was for $1M.

 

The street floods, and the new owner discovers water damage in their basement. During the repair, traces of mold are found suggestive of former property use as a marijuana grow-op, as well as evidence of foundational damage from at least one or two former floods. The property is permanently impaired ... but there is not a mention of it anywhere on the block-chain! And once the repair is complete ... this new owner is not going to put an entry on the blockchain either - because to do so, will be to permanently impair the properties value.

 

The block-chain record is indeed immutable. It is just NOT complete!

..... I have friends in low places  ;)

 

SD

 

 

What does this have to do with what keys have spend access to which Bitcoins?

 

No impact on the proof of ownership. Big impact on the aggregate block-chain record.

The current record says there are 18M coin outstanding, and available for transacting. But of course if you lost your key ... they are outstanding, but not available for transacting - a permanent impairment against the Bitcoin design limit of 21M coin.

 

SD

 

How is that an impairment? The total outstanding units is completely arbitrary. If some people lose their bearer shares to some company, how this impair anyone but the people lising the bearer shares?

[SharperDingaan]

Bitcoin stops creating new token at 21M.

When it gets to 21M there will be a lot less in circulation than the designers intended. Impairment.

 

SD