Merged Bitcoin - Part 3

[lomiller]

The problem with this point is there is no right to have any bank take you on as a customer and there are people for whom this is an issue. Some based on credit issue, and some because banks are paranoid in application of KYC laws.

If the OP can presume you already have a wallet or account with an exchange with botcoin in it then it's fair to presume people already have the requisite bank accounts.

Also worth noting is that banks have deposit insurance and other forms of protection, bitcoin does not. Something goes wrong with the bitcoin transfer and you are screwed, so anyone with a modicum of common sense is going to use a bank for any real work.

As for the "don't have to tell anyone" part, that was always false. If you get money from someplace you need to document where why and how you got it or risk facing tax evasion charges. If your transfer is legal having a paper trail is a good thing.

 

[psionl0]

Fail. That "counter argument" was debunked multiple times.

Wrong. It has never been debunked. Instead, opponents simply repeat the mantra "bitcoin is useless" as if the counter argument has never been made - let alone hundreds/thousands of times.

You are simply repeating the same mantra "Bitcojn can do X!!! It's amazing!!!" Ignoring the fact than being able to transfer money between countries is pretty ordinary, you still haven't explained what legal benefit there is to doing it with bitcoin.

Apart from the false dichotomy (it seems that bitcoin is either evil or "amazing"), one legal benefit is that the government can't raid your bitcoin wallet like it does your bank account.

 

[Solitaire]

Wrong. It has never been debunked. Instead, opponents simply repeat the
mantra "bitcoin is useless" as if the counter argument has never been made
- let alone hundreds/thousands of times.

I think we can all agree that you can exchange crypto tokens for goods and
services, temporarily. Eventually, the speculation will subside and the tokens
will loose all value.

I also think we can all agree that crypto tokens do not function as a currency
or an investment. In a way it resembles ownership in shares of a blue sky
corporation of a hundred years ago - an instrument of pure speculation
and a negative sum game.

Apart from the false dichotomy (it seems that bitcoin is either evil or "amazing"),
one legal benefit is that the government can't raid your bitcoin wallet like it does
your bank account.

Well, actually they can.

Justice Department Announces $3.6 Billion Crypto Seizure And Two Arrests

All told I think the United States government has seized about $5 billion so far.


They've also been in the business of making crypto safer.

Fed's First Cryptocurrency Insider Trading Case Snares Three

I know of the NFT auction house as the second case. More are coming.


It appears in some cases the government can recover your private key
and return your wallet if it gets stolen.

How Did Federal Agents Recover Bitcoin And Access A Crypto Wallet Tied To The Colonial Pipeline Cyberattack?

"What is being dismissed is the idea that the Fed somehow employed their own
hacking methods to obtain the private key." Still it'd be a neat trick, like pulling
a hat out of rabbit.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Well, actually they can.

Of course they can't. Sure, they can seize the access information, if they can find it. But government is not in any special position.
With fiat judge can simply order the bank to give up your money. That's not possible with crypto.

 

[psionl0]

I think we can all agree that you can exchange crypto tokens for goods and
services, temporarily. Eventually, the speculation will subside and the tokens
will loose all value.

I disagree. There is no reason to presume that cryptos will lose all value.

I also think we can all agree that crypto tokens do not function as a currency
or an investment. In a way it resembles ownership in shares of a blue sky
corporation of a hundred years ago - an instrument of pure speculation
and a negative sum game.

I disagree. Cryptos are just a digital asset. No special rules apply to them just because they are not "real".

 

[gabeygoat]

Of course they can't. Sure, they can seize the access information, if they can find it. But government is not in any special position.
With fiat judge can simply order the bank to give up your money. That's not possible with crypto.

So, it’s useful for breaking the law

 

[psionl0]

So, it’s useful for breaking the law

If the law permits the government to take money out of your bank account without any due process then bitcoin is useful for circumventing that.

 

[Dr.Sid]

So, it’s useful for breaking the law

You know, there are countries, where the governments themselves are breaking the law, or fiat currencies, which are less stable than bitcoin.

 

[Samson]

You know, there are countries, where the governments themselves are breaking the law, or fiat currencies, which are less stable than bitcoin.

Yes
Crypto is a way of allowing 3rd world enjoy 1st world facility.
That seems completely fair.
But find a way that Bitcoin does not guarantee bizarre and mutually assured destruction of planet.

 

[Dr. Keith]

You know, there are countries, where the governments themselves are breaking the law, or fiat currencies, which are less stable than bitcoin.

But that is largely a theoretical usage. Most crypto appears to be owned by those living in stable economies who can afford to speculate. Crypto is not being used to fund micro loans in developing countries, the way USD currently are. That would be a waste of speculative value.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I disagree. There is no reason to presume that cryptos will lose all value.

There was no reason to think that tulips would lose all value. And really, they didn’t. Tulips still cost a few bucks. But at least you get a pretty flower.

But I doubt that is the future you see for crypto.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You know, there are countries, where the governments themselves are breaking the law, or fiat currencies, which are less stable than bitcoin.

What currency has seen such large scale inflation and deflation in the past 10 years? Yes there are some hyperinflation examples that lose purchasing power almost as fast

 

[psionl0]

There was no reason to think that tulips would lose all value.

What does tulips have to do with bitcoin? Are you just trying to find a failed investment so you can say "ergo bitcoin" (the 1000th poster to try this)?

 

[lomiller]

You know, there are countries, where the governments themselves are breaking the law, or fiat currencies, which are less stable than bitcoin.

The deflationary nature of bitcoin still makes it a worse currency than any of these. I'd also question whether there are any fiat currencies that are less stable then bitcoin, even a hyper-inflating currency is more predictable then the erratic swings you are going to get with bitcoin.

 

[psionl0]

even a hyper-inflating currency is more predictable then the erratic swings you are going to get with bitcoin.

If you would rather invest in Zimbabwean currency than cryptos then that is your prerogative.

 

[lomiller]

If you would rather invest in Zimbabwean currency than cryptos then that is your prerogative.

hyperinflation is bad, bitcoin is worse

Predictable inflation is easier to deal with than the massive random swings associated with bitcoin. Lets not forget the massive destruction of wealth that occurs with deflationary spirals bitcoin is prone to. As a currency, bitcoin is so bad I don't think you could do worse if you deliberately tried.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If you would rather invest in Zimbabwean currency than cryptos then that is your prerogative.

There is your problem, you don't invest in a currency. Now if you were borrowing money, would you rather borrow in bitcoin or Zimbabwean currency?

 

[Dr. Keith]

What does tulips have to do with bitcoin? Are you just trying to find a failed investment so you can say "ergo bitcoin" (the 1000th poster to try this)?

I was pointing out the silliness of your claim. There are many reasons that tulips dropped in value. Many of those reasons were obvious to those on the outside, but invisible to those investing in them. So long as someone else thought they were valuable, they were valuable. The bigger sucker.

Except you can grow and propagate tulips without durning through massive amounts of electricity and hardware.

 

[psionl0]

I was pointing out the silliness of your claim. There are many reasons that tulips dropped in value. Many of those reasons were obvious to those on the outside, but invisible to those investing in them. So long as someone else thought they were valuable, they were valuable. The bigger sucker.

Even if your theory about the history of the tulip mania was the slightest bit accurate, it is not a predictor about bitcoin.

The tulip mania lasted less than 12 months and never got up again while bitcoin keeps going up and down repeatedly. For other differences see the thousands of other posts that have been made for more than a decade.

 

[Suddenly]

As a currency, bitcoin is so bad I don't think you could do worse if you deliberately tried.

So much of the internet is libertarians getting rich while the public slowly realizes that the modern regulatory state was an organic response to very big problems created by world growing in scale and complexity rather than just some mass conspiracy to impoverish the masses by limiting plutocratic wealth.