Banner Ad

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dennys btc questions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Dennys btc questions

    HJ/OPR/Tar/anyone else that follows crypto

    What is the general view in the cypto world and it's role in the future. Is the consensus view that it's a non-fiat asset that's part of everyone's portfolio, or is it that it will be the actual main currency?

    A currency that doesn't suffer inflation sounds great for the individual holder, but it would be impossible and devastating as a general economic principle. How would business expansion work with a deflationary currency? Gov stimulus mitigated some of the pain of covid; if we were on a gold standard, or if bitcoin was the main currency, the economic damage would have been significantly deeper and longer. How does the crypto world deal with those kinds of questions? And what about the risk of large government interference. Could China destabilise the crypto world by mining with their supercomputers?

    Just trying to get my head around the whole thing




    - So, there's a lot to unpack here.

    Your questions are jumping the gun by a couple of decades, as Raoul mentioned bitcoin is still a relatively tiny entity. Its market cap is less than Apple's cash reserves. It's very difficult to predict the future, and you're asking questions about a world that could only exist in a very long time when lots of things had changed enormously. If any of the things you mentioned happen, a lot would already be different. Many of the assumptions you hold to be true would be almost by definition incorrect.

    The typical (but not uniform) view on bitcoin now, is that it's a super inflation hedge and a gold-like store of value, so yes a non-fiat asset that should be in everyone's portfolio. Also, for the more sophisticated, it's possible to hold and get a yield from it. It's also seen as an asymmetric bet, where the downside is limited, but the upside is not. Given the massive money printing going on in the fiat world, you can see why so much money is flowing into inflation hedges, like gold or bitcoin. Bitcoin is thought to have a higher potential though, for a number of reasons, so a lot of people believe that the next 3 to 5 years bitcoin takes a percentage of golds share in the world. Once you go past this point there is no consensus view, it's too hard to predict.

    There are bitcoin idealists that think bitcoin will transform the world into a utopia, but I would imagine every new technology has a class of uber fanboys. I don't think it's worth paying too much attention to them.

    "A currency that doesn't suffer inflation sounds great for the individual holder, but it would be impossible and devastating as a general economic principle."

    This is not necessarily true. The argument against this is that deflation has typically come along unannounced, and wreaked havoc in a system with participants unused to and unready for it. If it's a known feature of a system participants can plan accordingly. In any case, it's a pretty academic point. It's a bridge that may or may not be crossed in many years. If bitcoin was about to become the worlds reserve asset and the only feature that was stopping it was the lack of inflation, well there a lot of other cryptocurrencies out there.

    "How does the crypto world deal with those kinds of questions? "

    Like in everything else, most people in crypto are concerned with short term, small problems, and gradually scaling that to something bigger.

    "Will bitcoin be the main currency of the world?"

    It seems pretty unlikely, given the number of possible suitors.

    "And what about the risk of large government interference. Could China destabilise the crypto world by mining with their supercomputers?"

    It's a very difficult system to attack. If China decided to start mining all they would do is wreck a few mining businesses. What they could do is ban mining in China, that would definitely hurt btc in the short term, but it would just encourage mining outside of China.

    Generally, though I don't think these questions are the right questions to be asking. When Mark Zuckerburg was building Facebook, he wasn't thinking about Russian bots or spreading conspiracy theories, or anyone of the myriad of long term affects no-one could have foreseen; and I don't think he would have had any particular insight into them either. He was trying to solve the problem in front of him. Asking people what they think will happen in an incredibly complicated system in twenty years where many of the variables will have changed, some in which we don't even realise are possible to change is unlikely to get you any useful information.

    One thing that will definitely come from all this is a healthy competition between currencies, you can already see that now with the Central banks rushing to release their own digital currencies. The IMF had a day's worth of seminars on this that are worth listening to.

    There's a pretty good video here which will give you the shorthand market-friendly consensus view on bitcoin (which is obv pretty biased towards btc)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNnk3jHu-as


    If you want more detail the CEO of MicroStrategy gave a long account of why he chose to buy BTC as a reserve asset for his company:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg10yYZjK94&t=5365s

    It's a pretty interesting interview, the interviewer can hardly get a word in edgeways.


    Bitcoin gets all the press, but most of the technological advances are happening on Etherium. Right now there is basically a functioning de-centralised financial system operating on the Etherium blockchain, that operates without banks. There's crowdsourced liquidity, and decentralised exchanges, amongst other stuff. There is a very good primer here:

    cryptotesters.com/blog/what-is-decentralized-finance

    I've been using this system for six months and it truly is amazing. It's super new and janky, but the concepts are pretty incredible. I've no doubt a lot of the projects around now will end up failing, but the ideas behind it are very powerful. The whole scene is a hotbed of innovation.

    Right now you can take bitcoin, wrap it so it becomes a token that can exist on Etherium network, and then provide liquidity to a decentralised exchange in return for a pretty high yield. Super risky at present, but in years to come when it will hopefully mature into a safe and user-friendly space. There are services that will take your assets and move them around looking for the best yield, all done using open-source protocols and in a permissionless and non-custodial fashion with super low fees. Compare this to Irish banking!


    Lastly, I'm more of an enthusiast than an expert, there are better place to get information than from me.
    Last edited by Hectorjelly; 19-11-20, 11:36.

    #2
    Thanks I'll go look that stuff

    Given the massive money printing going on in the fiat world, you can see why so much money is flowing into inflation hedges, like gold or bitcoin. Bitcoin is thought to have a higher potential though
    Gold is a hedge because it has real value. It's used for things. Bitcoin in a way is just another form of fiat, it's worth something because people believe it is. There's no intrinsic value backing it.

    It's a very difficult system to attack. If China decided to start mining all they would do is wreck a few mining businesses. What they could do is ban mining in China, that would definitely hurt btc in the short term, but it would just encourage mining outside of China.
    Even if they did a 51+% attack?

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Denny Crane View Post
      Thanks I'll go look that stuff



      Gold is a hedge because it has real value. It's used for things. Bitcoin in a way is just another form of fiat, it's worth something because people believe it is. There's no intrinsic value backing it.
      I dislike the way you talk about the subject in statements of fact like this, I think it's not very conducive to actually discovering anything new. You could just as easily say that gold is not a hedge because there is a potentially unlimited supply.


      Originally posted by Denny Crane View Post
      Even if they did a 51+% attack?
      Here's a short answer to that: https://twitter.com/Xentagz/status/9...745193473?s=20

      Basically, it's only a concern for smaller cryptocurrencies. And it is a definite threat for small coins.

      Comment


        #4
        Is it not a fact? I'm open to my mind being changed.

        It's like talking about a new facebook, but the new facebook doesn't connect people. Long before you get talking about Russian bots you have to talk about the fundamental reason of why something works. Gold has worked for thousands of years as a store of value because it has intrinsic value. How can bitcoin be superior when it lacks the fundamental attribute that underpins golds success.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Denny Crane View Post
          Gold has worked for thousands of years as a store of value because it has intrinsic value. How can bitcoin be superior when it lacks the fundamental attribute that underpins golds success.
          Gold is only somewhat attached to its intrinsic value. If gold suddenly lost its use as a store of wealth (i.e. people stopped believing in it) and was only useful as a rare metal, the price would drop dramatically. I don't know what it would go to but it would be a fraction of what it is now. The same holds for btc, but it would go for zero. So yes, that is an advantage for gold. But on the other side, gold cannot increase in price exponentially.

          Comment


            #6
            We can debate the intrinsic value of gold, but it has one and it has real uses. I think it's a pretty fundamental part of what a store of wealth is. History is filled with currencies and assets that have gone to zero. Gold has been unmatched in human history because of its qualities and uses. Lots of things can go to zero or increase in price exponentially but that doesn't make them a store of wealth.

            it's like bitcoin attempts to be a medium of exchange and a store of value, but it's worse at both than the current tools we have.
            Last edited by Denny Crane; 19-11-20, 15:16.

            Comment


              #7
              The technology and distributed ledger system that bitcoin sits on / is often conflated with is a really good strategy for removal of the requirement of "a trusted source" for transactions of anything. A permanent record which is continuously updated and must be majority accepted in order for updates to be approved is a very good way of handling the problem of trust without a 'central power'.

              Currently this requirement is provided for by Central Banks, who licence and regulate Financial institutions to act on their behalf in order to guarantee transactions, that the paper that you receive is will be deemed worthy, that the digital transactions that you partake will result in an increase/decrease in your account - i.e that the transaction will indeed take place. They also act as gatekeeper for these transactions, allowing palpable errors to be reversed, affording access to accounts in case of death / illness etc.

              Those Central Banks in turn receive their mandates and the authority to act on the behalf of a group of people by their government. The Government's control and ownership (though now normally at arm's length in an effort to prevent monetarism and Zimbabwes) affords a duty of responsibility to ultimately serve the people's wishes, and so be enabled if required to bend/break/adjust/create rules to enable it to do so without destroying credibility in the currency to which it is also a stakeholder in.

              There has been a suggestion that removing utterly these intermediaries will benefit universally. I think it's plain to see that this is wrong. The only way you can get to the stage of believing that crypto-assets are genuinely useful as currency and should indeed be used as currency is to start from a position of ultimate dis-trust in Governance / potentially wholly libertarian thinking, and 'force through' and 'fix forward' later, ignoring (intentionally!) the issues that a truly de-centralised system create.

              Comment


                #8
                " I think it's plain to see that this is wrong. "

                The whole crux of your argument comes down to this line, which doesn't seem that structurally sound. Removing rent-seekers from an economy has enormous immediate benefits that are clear to see. A lot of the potential benefits of crypto are not about removing the government from the equation, it's removing the banking system from the equation. A system where people can lend, borrow and perform cross border transfers at much better rates than they can now is good for everyone but banks

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Denny Crane View Post

                  it's like bitcoin attempts to be a medium of exchange and a store of value, but it's worse at both than the current tools we have.
                  I started the thread in order to shed what light I could on your queries, sentences like this make me wonder why I bothered.

                  If you are genuinely interested then buy a small amount and experiment with using it and read the bitcoin bible: https://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Bit...s=books&sr=1-3

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Do tell me how any decentralised system undoes my Granny's fat finger error which sends 15000 instead of 15 'currencies' to someone?

                    The reluctance / refusal to deal with the fact that decentralisation is not utopian is bizarre. There are serious pitfalls that are intrinsic to such a system. How do we look to counter them?

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Emmet View Post
                      Do tell me how any decentralised system undoes my Granny's fat finger error which sends 15000 instead of 15 'currencies' to someone?
                      You can't. I don't think this is quite the gotcha you think it is. Interestingly the opposite has been quite controversial in the crypto recently, with some smaller chains doing dubious things in order to rectify user error. In any case, no system is perfect and safe from all user error. You can eat fiat cash and you might get unwell. You can't eat bitcoin.


                      Originally posted by Emmet View Post
                      The reluctance / refusal to deal with the fact that decentralisation is not utopian is bizarre. There are serious pitfalls that are intrinsic to such a system. How do we look to counter them?
                      I don't understand the premise or basis of this question. Of course, there are downsides and upsides to all systems. Centralised systems are common now for a reason. Does that mean that other systems shouldn't be explored or experimented with? It's not either-or. When an individual or company buys cryptocurrency now they don't have to dispose of all their other assets. The pitfalls are being explored in real-time right now.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Which P is higher, P (Fat finger) or P (Eat Cash)? What do you reckon the order of magnitude difference is there?

                        How does a de-centralised system handle a user's death? In the awful event of a loved one's passing, we can facilitate the transfer of their funds to their children etc - even without the presence of a will. In a decentralised system, that money dissipates into the ether (ironically).

                        Why should / would a country look to remove the 'Tiller Hand' of a central bank to replace its currency? What benefits accrue to 'the group' in this scenario?

                        The premise or basis of the question is straightforward, suggesting "another option" without recognising, discussing, even pretending to attempt to acknowledge the very real and in-built and intractable flaws of the suggestion is pretty dubious stuff. If when people present real obvious problems which are addressed by "pooh-pooh" instead of any effort to answer / improve upon, I think it's safe to say that their level of engagement is a bit strange. Whataboutism as an answer is not a great look here. As above, decentralisation is absolutely not the utopia that it has been cast upon.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Hectorjelly View Post

                          I started the thread in order to shed what light I could on your queries, sentences like this make me wonder why I bothered.

                          If you are genuinely interested then buy a small amount and experiment with using it and read the bitcoin bible: https://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Bit...s=books&sr=1-3
                          It just find it strange every time I asked people are supporters of bitcoin about it they can't really answer fundamental questions about it. "it's a store of wealth better than gold" even though it's nothing like gold as a store of wealth.

                          Cool it's new tech, but it comes across like trying to fill a problem that doesn't exist or that is better survived by other tools.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Emmet View Post
                            Which P is higher, P (Fat finger) or P (Eat Cash)? What do you reckon the order of magnitude difference is there?

                            How does a de-centralised system handle a user's death? In the awful event of a loved one's passing, we can facilitate the transfer of their funds to their children etc - even without the presence of a will. In a decentralised system, that money dissipates into the ether (ironically).

                            Why should / would a country look to remove the 'Tiller Hand' of a central bank to replace its currency? What benefits accrue to 'the group' in this scenario?

                            The premise or basis of the question is straightforward, suggesting "another option" without recognising, discussing, even pretending to attempt to acknowledge the very real and in-built and intractable flaws of the suggestion is pretty dubious stuff. If when people present real obvious problems which are addressed by "pooh-pooh" instead of any effort to answer / improve upon, I think it's safe to say that their level of engagement is a bit strange. Whataboutism as an answer is not a great look here. As above, decentralisation is absolutely not the utopia that it has been cast upon.
                            I'm not really that interested in debating this with you, it seems like a waste of time. I don't understand how you can read my first post and think that I want to discuss 'Tiller Hands' of central banks. For the more practical questions there are easy to find answers to your questions if you do some googling.
                            Last edited by Hectorjelly; 19-11-20, 18:23.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Denny Crane View Post

                              It just find it strange every time I asked people are supporters of bitcoin about it they can't really answer fundamental questions about it. "it's a store of wealth better than gold" even though it's nothing like gold as a store of wealth.

                              Cool it's new tech, but it comes across like trying to fill a problem that doesn't exist or that is better survived by other tools.
                              I don't find it particularly strange that if you are rude to people they will end up not wanting to talk to you. It seems like the whole endeavour is in bad faith.

                              Comment


                                #16
                                Originally posted by Hectorjelly View Post

                                I'm not really that interested in debating this with you, it seems like a waste of time. I don't understand how you can read my first post and think that I want to discuss 'Tiller Hands' of central banks. For the more practical questions there are easy to find answers to your questions if you do some googling.
                                I believe this is a you thing. I actually have quite a strong grasp of the concepts, issues and technology.

                                The LMGFTY sarky answer, followed by "whole endeavour is in bad faith" is actually gas.

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  Originally posted by Emmet View Post

                                  I believe this is a you thing. I actually have quite a strong grasp of the concepts, issues and technology.
                                  Yes, you're correct. If you bothered to read my first post you would see that I don't want to debate these topics, with anyone. It's a waste of time.

                                  I think you need to do a lot more research before you can claim a strong grasp of the concepts, give your lack of knowledge of the relative merits of proof of work and proof of state, unless you were trolling.

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    proof of work and proof of stake have zero impact on any of the issues raised above.

                                    They concern the transaction validation, the mechanism by which miners 'complete the puzzle' to solve the block in order to maintain and enable the development of the transaction record.

                                    Whether a proof of stake or proof of work methodology is used, nothing allows for any 'mulligans' or 'safe passage' of funds that were otherwise lost.

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      The last time btc came up in bbv you asked about the merits between the two.

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        It was a bluff catch, and you folded.

                                        https://www.irishpokerboards.com/for...15#post1673015
                                        Last edited by Emmet; 19-11-20, 19:51.

                                        Comment


                                          #21
                                          Originally posted by Hectorjelly View Post

                                          I don't find it particularly strange that if you are rude to people they will end up not wanting to talk to you. It seems like the whole endeavour is in bad faith.
                                          Wut? I've asked questions and looked for clarification. How on earth is that bad faith? Is this is meant to be the future it should be able to stand up to some questions about how it works. All that keeps happening is I ask questions about you tell me I'm wrong without explanation and complain that I'm talking about facts as facts
                                          Last edited by Denny Crane; 20-11-20, 10:57.

                                          Comment


                                            #22
                                            I provided a large amount of information which you couldn't have gotten through before responding, all of which answers any questions you have better than I can. There's a two-hour
                                            in-depth interview with the CEO of a company that recently invested 425 million dollars into bitcoin as a reserve asset. I think he is going to be a better source of information than I am.

                                            There's also a lengthy explainer on some of the benefits of de-fi. Do you want me to regurgitate it point by point? It's pretty rude to ignore the hassle I went through to provide the information.

                                            Comment


                                              #23
                                              CNBC this morning, talking about this exact topic.

                                              Comment


                                                #24
                                                Hectorjelly one question if I may, given the amount of research you’ve done on this and your clear conviction on it, what was the tipping point for you? At what point did you “get it” so to speak. I don’t know half enough about it it debate with anyone, I’m agnostic at the moment but genuinely curious as to what people really see as the attraction. There is so much written about it and so many people writing positively I wonder what I’m missing.

                                                a few suggestions, is it that it’s going to be the currency of the future so it’s a chance to get in early and make money? Is it the currency of the future so get in now to avoid wealth destruction in others? Is it the anticipated influx of capital flows from institutional or other investors so it’s a good trade idea but not a LT currency? Or something completely different? Thanks

                                                Comment


                                                  #25
                                                  Originally posted by Goodluck2me View Post
                                                  Hectorjelly one question if I may, given the amount of research you’ve done on this and your clear conviction on it, what was the tipping point for you? At what point did you “get it” so to speak. I don’t know half enough about it it debate with anyone, I’m agnostic at the moment but genuinely curious as to what people really see as the attraction. There is so much written about it and so many people writing positively I wonder what I’m missing.

                                                  a few suggestions, is it that it’s going to be the currency of the future so it’s a chance to get in early and make money? Is it the currency of the future so get in now to avoid wealth destruction in others? Is it the anticipated influx of capital flows from institutional or other investors so it’s a good trade idea but not a LT currency? Or something completely different? Thanks
                                                  That's a good question. Having been very sceptical in 2017 I got interested last year after doing some cryptography problems in Python, a friend recommended I read https://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Bit...s=books&sr=1-3

                                                  I read the whole thing cover to cover and was very impressed with the elegance of how it works. I've spent the last year messing around with how it all works (the entire space, not just bitcoin). If you use it you can't help but be impressed. Crypto already works much better for cross border payments than traditional finance, and the whole scene is a hotbed of weird and wonderful innovation.

                                                  For instance, right now I am waiting for a SEPA bank transfer that I sent on Friday. That is just insane to me. Also, I've been paying musicians from around the world, and it would be much handier if I could pay everyone with crypto. I paid a Chinese artist to make some artwork, PayPal closed his account and now there seems to be no easy way for me to pay him.

                                                  I'm a big believer in the technology, but that's as far as it goes. I think that it could make the world a slightly fairer place with everyone paying less banking fees, but I don't think it's going to usher in a utopia. As with any new technology, there will be benefits and drawbacks, winners and losers. Even if crypto never sees widespread adoption it will spur improvements in traditional finance.

                                                  As for the currency of the future, I think to answer that you really need to define what you mean by currency. The Brazilian Real is a currency now, but I wouldn't suggest investing in it! I think there is a small but not zero chance that we all use crypto in the future, but it's not necessarily anything that is around now.

                                                  I think it's possible to have a reasonable opinion on what will happen over the next year or two, but after that, there are too many unknowns.

                                                  That's a very good point about wealth destruction, I think that will spur a lot of the money going into bitcoin now. What's a LT currency?




                                                  Comment


                                                    #26
                                                    long term
                                                    "The most difficult thing is the decision to act, the rest is merely tenacity."

                                                    Comment


                                                      #27
                                                      Originally posted by Hectorjelly View Post

                                                      Crypto already works much better for cross border payments than traditional finance, and the whole scene is a hotbed of weird and wonderful innovation.

                                                      I think that it could make the world a slightly fairer place with everyone paying less banking fees, but I don't think it's going to usher in a utopia.

                                                      As for the currency of the future, I think to answer that you really need to define what you mean by currency. The Brazilian Real is a currency now, but I wouldn't suggest investing in it! I think there is a small but not zero chance that we all use crypto in the future, but it's not necessarily anything that is around now.

                                                      That's a very good point about wealth destruction, I think that will spur a lot of the money going into bitcoin now. What's a LT currency?
                                                      That’s very interesting thanks, just getting time to reply now.

                                                      So essentially, it’s a useful vehicle for payment, especially internationally as it’s removed the fluctuations and complications of international transfers. This in turn helps reduce the friction costs of payment as you’re avoiding some unnecessary fees for doing so, and that it becomes one part of your overall wallet.

                                                      Its a really interesting way of looking at it, and differs from what I had perceived most supporters had thought I.e. that this was the new currency of the future and that central banks would be redundant and everyone would transact in bitcoin. Clearly that’s a more revolutionary mindset and I think that’s what non-believers seems to think is suggested, but in reality it could simply be an extra tool for transactions alongside a multitude of others that will various forms of appeal.

                                                      On the wealth destruction side, the angle for me would be the idea of buying something seen as a safe haven for the future. At the moment it’s clear that major CBs around the world are printing money at a rapid rate, for good reason I’d add, and that because everyone is doing it concurrently no one country or region is seeing the benefit or downside of avoiding it. No country wants a massive revaluation upwards of their currency as to do so would make them uncompetitive, so this is where bitcoin comes in.

                                                      If you feel that your CB is likely to outprint your neighbors then tying some wealth to another store of value is attractive but if all the major regions are doing it, then the options are few. Bitcoin avoids the need deflationary impact on your currency. The problem is that until such time as Btc prices are stable enough to provide that store of wealth, the risk trade off seems too high for me today to do it in scale, so I think any large institutional money in it will be doing so with a view to investing like a stock, not as a store of wealth. The latter is much more transformational and it’s what gives the US such international soft power. Think of it as a return on capital vs. return of capital, if you get to the latter then BTC will be worth multiples of today, seems unlikely anytime soon however. Can it become “more useful” enough to sustain growth is the key question I’d have though and that’s the big unknown.

                                                      Comment


                                                        #28
                                                        Originally posted by Goodluck2me View Post

                                                        That’s very interesting thanks, just getting time to reply now.

                                                        So essentially, it’s a useful vehicle for payment, especially internationally as it’s removed the fluctuations and complications of international transfers. This in turn helps reduce the friction costs of payment as you’re avoiding some unnecessary fees for doing so, and that it becomes one part of your overall wallet.
                                                        Yes, that's the big advantage now. The other advantage is smart contracts or programmable money. That's further away from the public consciousness now though.

                                                        Originally posted by Goodluck2me View Post

                                                        Its a really interesting way of looking at it, and differs from what I had perceived most supporters had thought I.e. that this was the new currency of the future and that central banks would be redundant and everyone would transact in bitcoin. Clearly that’s a more revolutionary mindset and I think that’s what non-believers seems to think is suggested, but in reality it could simply be an extra tool for transactions alongside a multitude of others that will various forms of appeal.
                                                        Yes, exactly. There are loads of wild claims and speculation. I think some of it is interesting, but it's silly to put too much stock into it. I think sometimes in the arguments people have had with me recently, they are really arguing with something they read that makes wild claims than anything I'm saying or the facts as they are now.

                                                        Originally posted by Goodluck2me View Post
                                                        On the wealth destruction side, the angle for me would be the idea of buying something seen as a safe haven for the future. At the moment it’s clear that major CBs around the world are printing money at a rapid rate, for good reason I’d add, and that because everyone is doing it concurrently no one country or region is seeing the benefit or downside of avoiding it. No country wants a massive revaluation upwards of their currency as to do so would make them uncompetitive, so this is where bitcoin comes in.

                                                        If you feel that your CB is likely to outprint your neighbors then tying some wealth to another store of value is attractive but if all the major regions are doing it, then the options are few. Bitcoin avoids the need deflationary impact on your currency. The problem is that until such time as Btc prices are stable enough to provide that store of wealth, the risk trade off seems too high for me today to do it in scale, so I think any large institutional money in it will be doing so with a view to investing like a stock, not as a store of wealth. The latter is much more transformational and it’s what gives the US such international soft power. Think of it as a return on capital vs. return of capital, if you get to the latter then BTC will be worth multiples of today, seems unlikely anytime soon however. Can it become “more useful” enough to sustain growth is the key question I’d have though and that’s the big unknown.
                                                        Yes, I think this is very astute, I'd generally agree with it, although I would add I think the price will become a lot less volatile in time, as more money coming in means single actors/events can move the price by a smaller %. For instance, recently China arrested one of the founders and key holders of one of the biggest exchanges in China. In the past, this would have meant a huge dip in the price, but the market just shrugged it off.

                                                        Comment

                                                        Working...
                                                        X