Merged Bitcoin - Part 3

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, of course it's not the ONLY driver. One can still use Bitcoin to buy stuff that the credit card companies wouldn't even touch with YOUR dick. Ranging from cheats for online games, to child pron on the dark web. So it's not COMPLETELY useless, I guess.

Dunno how someone came up with the idea that a system where all transactions are in a public ledger is a good idea to use for illegal stuff, starting from when it started with the silk road. It's not anonymous, it's pseudonymous. If the feds get your ID in some online sting, or confiscate your computer for such an investigation, then for each purveyor of such illegal goods they've busted, they can match exactly when and how often you've purchased from them. Or conversely, for every buyer busted and who confessed and gave his ID, they can get the ID of the supplier, which again can help nail other buyers.

And I mean, it's not just the feds. Someone figured out exactly who the guy behind the Cryptoland scam was that way.

 

[psionl0]

Cryptos and the Celebration of Unfettered Hegemonic Masculinity

What a surprise! You found somebody on the internet posting what you want to read.

 

[psionl0]

One can still use Bitcoin to buy stuff that the credit card companies wouldn't even touch with YOUR dick. Ranging from cheats for online games, to child pron on the dark web. So it's not COMPLETELY useless, I guess.

Of course. The only reason why anybody would object to government oversight of their financial transactions is that they have nefarious intent.

It's not anonymous, it's pseudonymous.

This is the only thing you have posted that makes sense.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I've never said anything about government oversight. So I'm not sure who you're answering to there, but you've accidentally quoted my message

Nor did your previous posts on the topic have anything to do with that.

 

[psionl0]

I've never said anything about government oversight. So I'm not sure who you're answering to there, but you've accidentally quoted my message

Nor did your previous posts on the topic have anything to do with that.

Government, credit card companies, other third parties. What's the difference?

You are claiming that the only reason (other than speculation) for owning crypto is to make nefarious purchases that might otherwise be blocked (or even prosecuted) by a third party. This claim has been regurgitated endlessly over the past 15 years and nobody has ever proved it. (At best, some anecdotal evidence might be given).

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I think you'll find there's a fundamental difference between government and third parties. Even my example of cheats in online games should illustrate that: it's not the government that's forbidding you from cheating. If a game didn't have that in the TOS, the government couldn't give a flip about it.

 

[jeremyp]

Bitcoin can be future traded as well. Is that remarkable?


That is correct. Bitcoin gets most of its value from speculation (a lot of assets do).

BTC gets all of its value from speculation.

But it still has to have some use other than speculation for it to attract speculators and to keep speculators interested.

No it doesn't. Most of the speculators are attracted to it because it looks like they will be able to sell it to somebody else later for more money. That's why most people bought BTC.

To be fair, that is why most people buy any financial instrument. For example, nobody is buying Tesla shares or SpaceX shares for the dividends. They are buying them because they think the price will go up.

The difference is in the reason why people think the price will go up. People think SpaceX shares will go up because the company will be hugely successful and own the AI space. They buy Tesla shares because they think Tesla will be hugely successful and own the AI space. What reason is there to believe BTC will go up? Other than "it always has done in the past"?

 

[jeremyp]

Whatever. It depends on your meaning of the word "product". It is something that is produced (but not by human hands) and can be bought or sold.

I am absolutely NOT saying either of these two things.


That doesn't mean that you can predict that bitcoin will fail just because something else failed. You can just as easily compare bitcoin with something that hasn't failed.

For example, the ONLY reason that I buy gold or silver is in the hope that its price will rise (at least enough to cover inflation). Neither has failed investors for centuries.

Although the Australian government is now cracking down on it, "negative gearing" has been popular in Australia for decades. People would buy houses to rent them out. The problem was that the rent didn't cover costs. You were actually losing money while you had the property (although you could mitigate the loss somewhat by claiming it on your tax return).

So why would people negative gear (buy houses that simply cost them money)? Hint: the only reason is the same reason that people would buy bitcoin. This is a major reason why houses are priced well above their "intrinsic value" today.

Nobody needs to predict that bitcoin will fail, because it has failed. In the last year it has lost nearly half of its value. That's a bubble bursting if ever I saw one.

Even if you look at its original purpose: "a peer-to-peer electronic cash system" it has clearly failed. Who's using it for that?

 

[dirtywick]

so far as i can tell who’s using it, drug dealers and pedophiles, or to pay iran to safely move a tanker through the strait of hormuz. i’d say to pay the president for a pardon but he only accepts his own stablecoins

 

[steenkh]

You are claiming that the only reason (other than speculation) for owning crypto is to make nefarious purchases that might otherwise be blocked (or even prosecuted) by a third party. This claim has been regurgitated endlessly over the past 15 years and nobody has ever proved it. (At best, some anecdotal evidence might be given).

so far as i can tell who’s using it, drug dealers and pedophiles, or to pay iran to safely move a tanker through the strait of hormuz. i’d say to pay the president for a pardon but he only accepts his own stablecoins

Is there any "normal" use, such as buying stuff in (online) shops, apart from speculation, of course?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

so far as i can tell who’s using it, drug dealers and pedophiles, or to pay iran to safely move a tanker through the strait of hormuz. i’d say to pay the president for a pardon but he only accepts his own stablecoins

"Stable" only in the sense of being horse manure

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

A tulip is not nothing. It's a bulb that produces flowers and also more tulips. We think of tulips as being ubiquitous now, but back when the tulip bubble happened, the tulip was rare in Europe and considered quite exotic. Some of the more extreme prices only applied to particularly rare varieties or plants infected by the tulip mosaic virus (whose symptoms were tulips with non uniform colouring).

Also, a lot of the trading was not in actual tulips, but contracts to buy tulips. Tulip bulbs can only be dug up and shipped during certain months of the year. During the rest of the year people made forward contracts to buy them.

I agree BTC is not like tulips because BTC has no intrinsic value at all. Tulips can be used to make a garden look nice.

Plus, if carefully prepared, tulip bulbs can be a source of food and has been prepared as a delicacy. Petals can be readily eaten.

 

[dirtywick]

Is there any "normal" use, such as buying stuff in (online) shops, apart from speculation, of course?

probably, but i can’t think of anything. there’s online gambling or forex trading or other services like that which are restricted by sanctions

you can def order drugs too. i know someone who had mushrooms mailed to them and paid in crypto through cash app

 

[dirtywick]

Is there any "normal" use, such as buying stuff in (online) shops, apart from speculation, of course?

it should also be noted that most not illegal things you can shop with that accept dirty fiat prefer to deal in it because it’s way more secure, and most things you’d want to use crypto to buy are illegal to protect the consumer. for example, your bank won’t let you send money to a forex because they’re shady and unregulated, or an online crypto casino is going to steal your money, not because they hate freedom.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

The Free Republic of Liberland

Meet the crypto billionaires building a world where money buys you a vote

Meet the crypto billionaires building a world where money buys you a vote

They think democracy has run its course - so they're setting up their own nations instead.

www.bbc.co.uk

Have they not read Atlas Shrugged 2?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

That's a wild assumption out of nowhere on your part. I mean, that they can even read an actual book

 

[psionl0]

BTC gets all of its value from speculation.

No it doesn't. Most of the speculators are attracted to it because it looks like they will be able to sell it to somebody else later for more money. That's why most people bought BTC.

Asserted without evidence.

Nobody needs to predict that bitcoin will fail, because it has failed. In the last year it has lost nearly half of its value. That's a bubble bursting if ever I saw one.

I have lost count of the number of times somebody said on this thread that bitcoin has "failed" because its price dropped - only for the price to ultimately rise to a new high. There is no guarantee whatsoever on the price of bitcoin so price volatility is a given.

 

[psionl0]

Is there any "normal" use, such as buying stuff in (online) shops, apart from speculation, of course?

Probably but most "normal" purchases would be paid for with "normal" currencies.

I just object to the use of "only" as a keyword regarding crypto payments. If somebody claims that crypto is not being used legitimately in any way (other than speculation or legal gambling sites) then they have to prove it.

 

[steenkh]

Probably but most "normal" purchases would be paid for with "normal" currencies.

I just object to the use of "only" as a keyword regarding crypto payments. If somebody claims that crypto is not being used legitimately in any way (other than speculation or legal gambling sites) then they have to prove it.

I don't see any shops anywhere saying you can pay in bitcoins, or advertising the price in bitcoins. I would also think that the volatility of bitcoins would make normal use difficult, because prices would have to be adjusted all the time. So what remains are the shady businesses where the anonymity of bitcoins is more important than stability. Obviously, it is impossible to prove that nowhere in the wide world it is possible to pay for normal services with bitcoins, but I think it is fairly safe to say that by far, bitcoins are only used for speculation, crime, and tax evasion.

 

[psionl0]

I don't see any shops anywhere saying you can pay in bitcoins, or advertising the price in bitcoins.

I already pointed out that most "normal" purchases are paid for with "normal" currencies so I don't know what you think you are refuting.

Obviously, it is impossible to prove that nowhere in the wide world it is possible to pay for normal services with bitcoins, but I think it is fairly safe to say that by far, bitcoins are only used for speculation, crime, and tax evasion.

Spoken like somebody who lives in a (relatively) free world where the authorities don't monitor/control every penny you spend. One of the arguments against central bank digital currencies is that it would give the government the power to do just that.