Merged Bitcoin - Part 3

[Opcode]

This is typical of all the stuff you have made up in your posts.

You could just say it is insightful. Perhaps you could even admit the differences between the introduction of the dollar and the introduction of cryptocurrency.

 

[psionl0]

You could just say it is insightful. Perhaps you could even admit the differences between the introduction of the dollar and the introduction of cryptocurrency.

No, it's just ignorance.

Nobody knows how money came about. Some believe that it arose in a barter economy when people started looking for something that could serve as a medium of exchange and thus avoid the need for a double coincidence of wants. Others maintain that it arose from the methods that community leaders used to assess how to distribute goods and services among their subjects. It is probably different for different communities but most evolved to use money in some form or other. All we know is that many media have served as money in the past (including gold and silver). The "dollar" is just one of the names given to currency. It wasn't invented so that workers could be paid.

 

[steenkh]

It is probably different for different communities but most evolved to use money in some form or other.

In Denmark during the Middle Ages, gold was used as the currency, where pieces were cut off and weighed. Coins existed, but it was under king Svend Estridsen that merchants were forced to use the king's coins in the marketplaces. The king of course collected duties of goods in the marketplaces, but another source of income was to regularly issue new coins, and exchanging the old coins at a worse rate.

 

[Opcode]

Nobody knows how money came about.

Whoa, you are diving too deep! I said "dollars," not money. We know how the US dollar came about; Congress established it with the Coinage Act of 1792. The motivation behind the creation of the dollar was to replace the hodgepodge of mediums of exchange then in use (including the all-but worthless "Continental" paper currency that had financed the Revolutionary War) with a single unified currency with a predictable, consistent value pegged to stable, physical assets (i.e., gold and silver).

All we know is that many media have served as money in the past (including gold and silver). The "dollar" is just one of the names given to currency. It wasn't invented so that workers could be paid.

Of course, I'm using "workers" as short-hand for everybody else who performed useful service. The dollar was created so that the creators of wealth could be compensated in fair trade. I realize this concept is mystifying to people who think of money more in magical terms, which is how quite a lot of speculators and cryptocurrency advocates think. You think that money is just a psychological phenomena, that value is whatever people think it is, that it's all marketing and perception. However, money has a logical and mathematical basis that is tied to the creation of wealth, regardless of people's perceptions. Besides, the law says that dollars are guaranteed to be accepted as payment for all debts, public and private. Cryptocurrency doesn't have that backing.

 

[psionl0]

We know how the US dollar came about; Congress established it with the Coinage Act of 1792.

There is hardly anything special about that. Almost every nation in the world has laws that establish a currency (usually one they create) as legal tender. It has nothing to do with whether you can buy, sell or barter with crypto or anything else - except that if you sell something on credit then you are legally obliged to accept legal tender to settle the debt if it is offered.

Your assertion that only legal tender can enable the creation of wealth is unfounded.

 

[Opcode]

There is hardly anything special about that. Almost every nation in the world has laws that establish a currency (usually one they create) as legal tender. It has nothing to do with whether you can buy, sell or barter with crypto or anything else - except that if you sell something on credit then you are legally obliged to accept legal tender to settle the debt if it is offered.

Your assertion that only legal tender can enable the creation of wealth is unfounded.

I didn't say that only legal tender can enable the creation of wealth. I said that cryptocurrency is unhooked from wealth creation. All the money in cryptocurrency comes from people buying it. This is in contrast to most currencies, which have value independently of what people are willing to pay in exchange for it. When the first dollar rolled off the printing press, Congress didn't have to wait to see what people were willing to pay for it. They set the price relative to gold and silver. The purpose of these dollars was to compensate people for the exchange of wealth, particularly wealth that was created by individuals and businesses. In contrast, the value of Bitcoin has always been whatever people would pay for it and nobody has to create wealth outside of creating new coins and transferring them to get it.

 

[psionl0]

I didn't say that only legal tender can enable the creation of wealth. I said that cryptocurrency is unhooked from wealth creation.

That is also an unfounded assertion.

It may be that legal tender is the most convenient medium of exchange for the production and exchange of goods and services but any medium of exchange (including crypto) could fulfill that role. It is the actual production of these goods and services that creates wealth and not the money involved (contrary to what many believe).

 

[jeremyp]

That is also an unfounded assertion.

It may be that legal tender is the most convenient medium of exchange for the production and exchange of goods and services but any medium of exchange (including crypto) could fulfill that role. It is the actual production of these goods and services that creates wealth and not the money involved (contrary to what many believe).

You realise your second paragraph contradicts the first sentence?

Opcode asserts that crypto currency is unhooked from wealth creation. You claim the assertion is unfounded. You then go on to claim (correctly IMO) that all currencies are unhooked from wealth creation.

You need to think a bit more deeply about your replies before posting them.

 

[dirtywick]

idk why it even matters. crypto has the ability to be exchanged for other things, same as any other object, real or imagined, that could exist. precious metals did a pretty good job for a long time, things changed.

ultimately though crypto isn’t a very good choice, same as many other objects we don’t use. fiat, legal tender, whatever you want to call it, is the most convenient. it’s not may be, it is. just as it supplanted what came before it. they tried to do better with bitcoin, and it failed. for quite a few reasons.

 

[dirtywick]

Metaplanet Initiates 13% Share Buyback Program With $500M Credit Facility

The Tokyo-listed firm started a repurchase program for 13% of its stock to enhance shareholder value and optimize capital efficiency.

ca.finance.yahoo.com

bitcoin treasury metaplanet borrows $500m against bitcoin holdings to buy back their diluted stock and add more bitcoin

but luckily there are always new investors and the price always goes up so that can’t backfire. buy bitcoin and then ? is a good business model

 

[Opcode]

You realise your second paragraph contradicts the first sentence?

Opcode asserts that crypto currency is unhooked from wealth creation. You claim the assertion is unfounded. You then go on to claim (correctly IMO) that all currencies are unhooked from wealth creation.

You need to think a bit more deeply about your replies before posting them.

I used to attend very conservative, traditional Baptist churches. No, this is not a post about religion. Rather, one of the favorite themes among the people is the value of work and the value of money. On a few occasions, a preacher would stand in the pulpit and hold up a dollar bill and say, "This is a piece of somebody's life." The idea is that money doesn't just appear or grow on trees. We have to work to earn it. We exchange our lives for it. The preacher is hoping that by pointing this out, we might be careful how we spend our money and appreciate the value of work.

The only way that I can earn a living is by working. 99.99% of all the dollars I've owned has been in payment for goods or services that I have provided. I provide something of value to somebody else, particularly by turning chaos into ordered products, creating wealth and, in exchange, somebody pays me. Yes, they could pay me in Bitcoin, but they don't, nor do they have to. In fact, there is no real reason for them to do so. Dollars work just fine and are the legal currency of my country. It is certain that failing any other payment method, I would be paid in dollars. This is true nationwide, for some 300 billion man-hours of labor. The dollar, like most national currencies, is very much tied to wealth creation, as it is the overwhelming majority way that anybody gets them. This is in sharp contrast to Bitcoin, in which no part of the life cycle generated wealth. The overwhelming majority means of getting Bitcoin is through buying it with money or printing it.

 

[psionl0]

You realise your second paragraph contradicts the first sentence?

Opcode asserts that crypto currency is unhooked from wealth creation. You claim the assertion is unfounded. You then go on to claim (correctly IMO) that all currencies are unhooked from wealth creation.

You need to think a bit more deeply about your replies before posting them.

If ALL currencies are "unhooked" from wealth creation then there is no reason to say specifically that crypto is unhooked from wealth creation (as if it were an exception).

I don't know how you got that from my second paragraph anyway. Wealth creation would be very limited if you didn't have a medium of exchange. Barter is not very effective when you have to deal with different people with different needs and you only have one product. Maybe "unhooked" has a meaning that I am unaware of.

 

[jeremyp]

If ALL currencies are "unhooked" from wealth creation then there is no reason to say specifically that crypto is unhooked from wealth creation (as if it were an exception).

No. I agree. Except that I wouldn't describe Bitcoin as a currency.

I don't know how you got that from my second paragraph anyway.

You said

It is the actual production of these goods and services that creates wealth and not the money involved (contrary to what many believe).

 

[dirtywick]

Fact Sheet: We Must Regulate Crypto As It Exists Today | Better Markets

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Benjamin Schiffrin, Director of Securities Policy for Better Markets, issued the following statement in connection with Better Markets’ new Fact Sheet, “We Must Regulate Crypto As It Exists Today”: “Tomorrow marks the 17th anniversary of Satoshi Nakamoto’s white paper...

bettermarkets.org

“Tomorrow marks the 17th anniversary of Satoshi Nakamoto’s white paper introducing the world to Bitcoin. Since the white paper’s release, proponents have touted cryptocurrencies as the future of money. Yet crypto today bears almost no resemblance to Nakamoto’s vision.

“Nakamoto wanted a way for people to make payments without going through a financial institution. Although it is possible for Bitcoin to be used in this manner, this is not how Bitcoin is primarily used today, except for its use by criminals. Instead, Bitcoin’s main legitimate use is as a speculative investment. Other cryptocurrencies are almost exclusively used as a speculative investment. Perhaps most revealing, financial institutions pervade the crypto ecosystem. Crypto, in today’s world, is not a revolutionary form of payment but just another volatile asset that is part of the traditional financial system.

Almost nobody uses crypto as a method of payment. A recent Fed survey found that only two percent of adults used crypto to buy something or make a payment in 2024.
Outside of criminal activity, crypto appears to be used almost purely for speculation.
Crypto is now intertwined with traditional financial institutions, as exemplified by the recent “strategic partnership” between JPMorganChase and Coinbase.
“Regardless of how Nakamoto envisioned Bitcoin, we must regulate crypto as it exists today—as an investment that should be subject to the same rules as other financial assets.”

statement from benjamin schiffrin from better markets on crypto regulations

Benjamin Schiffrin | Better Markets

Benjamin Schiffrin is Director of Securities Policy for Better Markets, where he leads our work regarding securities across the policymaking process, focusing on the Securities and Exchange Commission. Mr. Schiffrin’s work includes commenting on proposed rules, formulating policy...

bettermarkets.org

 

[Opcode]

Fact Sheet: We Must Regulate Crypto As It Exists Today | Better Markets

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Benjamin Schiffrin, Director of Securities Policy for Better Markets, issued the following statement in connection with Better Markets’ new Fact Sheet, “We Must Regulate Crypto As It Exists Today”: “Tomorrow marks the 17th anniversary of Satoshi Nakamoto’s white paper...

bettermarkets.org

Almost nobody uses crypto as a method of payment. A recent Fed survey found that only two percent of adults used crypto to buy something or make a payment in 2024. Outside of criminal activity, crypto appears to be used almost purely for speculation.

I keep saying this. I keep pointing out that virtually all the interest anybody has in cryptocurrency is online gambling, buying an unregulated lottery ticket in hopes of making a big payout without having to do anything to earn it.

 

[psionl0]

I keep saying this. I keep pointing out that virtually all the interest anybody has in cryptocurrency is online gambling, buying an unregulated lottery ticket in hopes of making a big payout without having to do anything to earn it.

Yep. Speculation and non government approved expenditure is nearly all that bitcoin is used for.

Who cares? This is not something that has to be repeated ad-nauseam for 15 years by every Johnny come lately who thinks they have some blinding new insight to add to this thread.

 

[Opcode]

Yep. Speculation and non government approved expenditure is nearly all that bitcoin is used for.

Who cares? This is not something that has to be repeated ad-nauseam for 15 years by every Johnny come lately who thinks they have some blinding new insight to add to this thread.

It has several implications, particularly how the government should respond to it. The issue becomes more urgent as more money is tied up in it. At some point, it could disrupt the economy. Perhaps government should regulate cryptocurrency as online gambling, as that's all it is in most cases?

 

[psionl0]

It has several implications, particularly how the government should respond to it. The issue becomes more urgent as more money is tied up in it. At some point, it could disrupt the economy. Perhaps government should regulate cryptocurrency as online gambling, as that's all it is in most cases?

Superstitious nonsense. The global trade in financial derivatives by far dwarfs any trade in bitcoin.

Even if the government could control cryptos, do you think they would do anything other than try to game them for their rich backers?

 

[Opcode]

Superstitious nonsense. The global trade in financial derivatives by far dwarfs any trade in bitcoin.

A trillion dollars can make a dent in any economy.

Even if the government could control cryptos, do you think they would do anything other than try to game them for their rich backers?

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what corporations and government officials are trying to do now. They have the resources to control the value of Bitcoin by themselves.

 

[psionl0]

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what corporations and government officials are trying to do now. They have the resources to control the value of Bitcoin by themselves.

The "whales" have the ability to manipulate the price of bitcoin but I'm not convinced that they are mainly corporations and government officials.