Is Crypto dying or just dropping for the moment?

[Gospel]

The difference though is that the stock market contains stocks of companies that are working. They are generating sales. Paying people. Paying vendors. Their value may be high (may be low) but they are generating concrete activity. They do not rely solely on appreciation. I have some stocks that don't appreciate much at all, only pay dividends. What backs up bitcoin?

What backs up the dollar?

• The US economy
• The US paying its bonds/debt

Again, currency can be susceptible to inflation, deflation, volatility. The US Dollar isn't impervious to these things. The difference is, in the last 50 years, the dollar's value has been relative stable. Bitcoin has only gone periods of less than six months of being "stable".

Crypto-Evangelist: Bitcoin rocks!
Person A: But it is very volatile.
Crypto-Evangelist: So can the US Dollar.
Person A: Well, yes, that is possible, but Bitcoin itself has been very volatile.
Crypto-Evangelist: So can the US Dollar.

Bitcoin has lost around 18% of its value in less than 5 days. If the US dollar did that... oh boy!

That you could make $150,000 in Bitcoin proves it is a failure as a currency. Do you know how much you'd need to invest in the US Dollar's ups and downs to turn that profit?

Wow, this is one reason why a brotha like me avoids the table full of white folks at the luncheon. I say one thing and a plethora of arguments I never made are brought up. I see what you're saying though. I suppose I was falsely under the impression that US Currency (and all currencies in general) is backed by the people's confidence in it to use for trade and not the economy itself. Just about anything can take its place. Hell If enough people trusted a rock it would replace the dollar and the economy would move along just the same. Oh, wait... They did trust a rock, didn't they?

 

[Gospel]

The difference though is that the stock market contains stocks of companies that are working. They are generating sales. Paying people. Paying vendors. Their value may be high (may be low) but they are generating concrete activity. They do not rely solely on appreciation. I have some stocks that don't appreciate much at all, only pay dividends. What backs up bitcoin?

What backs up the dollar?

Taxation.

Nobody's required to have bitcoin in order to pay their taxes. But hundreds of millions of people, and tens of thousands of corporate entities and other organisations, are absolutely required by law to at some point have US dollars to give to the IRS.

No matter what else happens, I can rely on the fact that someone, somewhere, will be legally required to have some US dollars, as long as the United States continues to raise taxes, and to require US dollars in payment of them.

Who is required by law to have bitcoin?

Yall are some wired-up people man. Do yall not know what currency is? Bitcoin is a currency. It not being as widely used as the dollar is (as yall like to put it) irrelevant.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Taxation.

Nobody's required to have bitcoin in order to pay their taxes. But hundreds of millions of people, and tens of thousands of corporate entities and other organisations, are absolutely required by law to at some point have US dollars to give to the IRS.

No matter what else happens, I can rely on the fact that someone, somewhere, will be legally required to have some US dollars, as long as the United States continues to raise taxes, and to require US dollars in payment of them.

Who is required by law to have bitcoin?

Yall are some wired-up people man. Do yall not know what currency is? Bitcoin is a currency. It not being as widely used as the dollar is (as yall like to put it) irrelevant.

It would be a failure of a currency. What person would spend Bitcoin if it could be worth 20% more in a week? It is useless as currency.

 

[Jarhyn]

Taxation.

Nobody's required to have bitcoin in order to pay their taxes. But hundreds of millions of people, and tens of thousands of corporate entities and other organisations, are absolutely required by law to at some point have US dollars to give to the IRS.

No matter what else happens, I can rely on the fact that someone, somewhere, will be legally required to have some US dollars, as long as the United States continues to raise taxes, and to require US dollars in payment of them.

Who is required by law to have bitcoin?

Yall are some wired-up people man. Do yall not know what currency is? Bitcoin is a currency. It not being as widely used as the dollar is (as yall like to put it) irrelevant.

It would be a failure of a currency. What person would spend Bitcoin if it could be worth 20% more in a week? It is useless as currency.

Dude, I've spent every Bitcoin I've ever acquired almost as fast as I acquired it. That was the point of acquiring it.

I spent it, I got what I bought for it. Seems pretty useful to me.

 

[Gospel]

Taxation.

Nobody's required to have bitcoin in order to pay their taxes. But hundreds of millions of people, and tens of thousands of corporate entities and other organisations, are absolutely required by law to at some point have US dollars to give to the IRS.

No matter what else happens, I can rely on the fact that someone, somewhere, will be legally required to have some US dollars, as long as the United States continues to raise taxes, and to require US dollars in payment of them.

Who is required by law to have bitcoin?

Yall are some wired-up people man. Do yall not know what currency is? Bitcoin is a currency. It not being as widely used as the dollar is (as yall like to put it) irrelevant.

It would be a failure of a currency. What person would spend Bitcoin if it could be worth 20% more in a week? It is useless as currency.

Quick tell Microsoft, AT&T, and a bunch of the other companies that accept it. They must hear from their savior!

 

[Jarhyn]

It would be a failure of a currency. What person would spend Bitcoin if it could be worth 20% more in a week? It is useless as currency.

Quick tell Microsoft, AT&T, and a bunch of the other companies that accept it. They must hear from their savior!

Honestly, I don't even really think about future valuation of my currency. Maybe it's just that I don't worship Mammon, and think "leveraging that which you have to have more" is not an ethical activity?

 

[Gospel]

It would be a failure of a currency. What person would spend Bitcoin if it could be worth 20% more in a week? It is useless as currency.

Quick tell Microsoft, AT&T, and a bunch of the other companies that accept it. They must hear from their savior!

Honestly, I don't even really think about future valuation of my currency. Maybe it's just that I don't worship Mammon, and think "leveraging that which you have to have more" is not an ethical activity?

That was a very pleasing sentence to read. There is something really poetic and noble about it that rings true. I'm being serious. Regrettably, I'm also being serious when I say I don't know what it is in response to.

 

[bilby]

Taxation.

Nobody's required to have bitcoin in order to pay their taxes. But hundreds of millions of people, and tens of thousands of corporate entities and other organisations, are absolutely required by law to at some point have US dollars to give to the IRS.

No matter what else happens, I can rely on the fact that someone, somewhere, will be legally required to have some US dollars, as long as the United States continues to raise taxes, and to require US dollars in payment of them.

Who is required by law to have bitcoin?

Yall are some wired-up people man. Do yall not know what currency is? Bitcoin is a currency. It not being as widely used as the dollar is (as yall like to put it) irrelevant.

Monopoly money is a currency. Nobody wants it though, except when they're playing Monopoly.

People want US dollars, ultimately because some people are known to be required to obtain US Dollars or face legal consequences.

People want bitcoin today. There's no particular reason to assume that they will tomorrow.

 

[Jarhyn]

Honestly, I don't even really think about future valuation of my currency. Maybe it's just that I don't worship Mammon, and think "leveraging that which you have to have more" is not an ethical activity?

That was a very pleasing sentence to read. There is something really poetic and noble about it that rings true. I'm being serious. Regrettably, I'm also being serious when I say I don't know what it is in response to.

To Jimmy, but directed towards you, as you are engaging but I don't foresee Jimmy engaging positively with it. He I am responding to, but you were the audience.

 

[Gospel]

Do yall not know what currency is?

Monopoly money is a currency.

But seriously, you can be correct about bitcoin not being used at some point in the future. You can be wrong as well. But you're definitely wrong about the argument I've actually made. Which is, if bitcoin is the cause of unwarranted energy consumption then it has a lot of catching up to do in comparison to the dollar. I think it's the strong desire to obtain something of value for trade with no regard to the environment. The dollar suffers the same, so why only point fingers at Bitcoin and not in your wallets?

 

[bilby]

Do yall not know what currency is?

Monopoly money is a currency.

View attachment 33636

But seriously, you can be correct about bitcoin not being used at some point in the future. You can be wrong as well. But you're definitely wrong about the argument I've actually made. Which is, if bitcoin is the cause of unwarranted energy consumption then it has a lot of catching up to do in comparison to the dollar. I think it's the strong desire to obtain something of value for trade with no regard to the environment. The dollar suffers the same, so why only point fingers at Bitcoin and not in your wallets?

As I have yet to even address that point, I really can't be wrong about it yet.

But here you go:

There is absolutely zero doubt that bitcoin is already vastly worse for the environment than the entire harm done by the dollar in its history.

That you continue to doubt it is only evidence that you haven't bothered to investigate, and are simply relying on your flawed assumptions, which feel truthy enough to you that you don't give serious credence to the possibility that they might be wrong.

 

[Jarhyn]

View attachment 33636

But seriously, you can be correct about bitcoin not being used at some point in the future. You can be wrong as well. But you're definitely wrong about the argument I've actually made. Which is, if bitcoin is the cause of unwarranted energy consumption then it has a lot of catching up to do in comparison to the dollar. I think it's the strong desire to obtain something of value for trade with no regard to the environment. The dollar suffers the same, so why only point fingers at Bitcoin and not in your wallets?

As I have yet to even address that point, I really can't be wrong about it yet.

But here you go:

There is absolutely zero doubt that bitcoin is already vastly worse for the environment than the entire harm done by the dollar in its history.

That you continue to doubt it is only evidence that you haven't bothered to investigate, and are simply relying on your flawed assumptions, which feel truthy enough to you that you don't give serious credence to the possibility that they might be wrong.

This is why in every post I've made here now in this thread except perhaps one, I have been careful to point out that my discussion is not about "Bitcoin", worst and first, it about the underlying systems that it incorporates (or, which it should incorporate), and a hypothetical "best currency" that may be built on such a foundation of shared ledger technologies.

 

[Swammerdami]

Honestly, I don't even really think about future valuation of my currency. Maybe it's just that I don't worship Mammon, and think "leveraging that which you have to have more" is not an ethical activity?

That was a very pleasing sentence to read. There is something really poetic and noble about it that rings true. I'm being serious. Regrettably, I'm also being serious when I say I don't know what it is in response to.

I agree. These posts by Jarhyn and Gospel are both beautiful and eloquent.

 

[Swammerdami]

But you're definitely wrong about the argument I've actually made. Which is, if bitcoin is the cause of unwarranted energy consumption then it has a lot of catching up to do in comparison to the dollar. I think it's the strong desire to obtain something of value for trade with no regard to the environment. The dollar suffers the same, so why only point fingers at Bitcoin and not in your wallets?

Again, this seems very confused. Yes, the economy uses a lot of energy and other resources, mostly not at all related to details of financial transactions.

Is economic potential wasted on the expensive "hyper-efficiencies" associated with modern Wall St. methods? Absolutely.
But:
(1) These useless billions are paid out in big bonuses to executives who buy yachts and private jets. The income returns to the U.S. economy (or to Asia and Europe). Contrast this with the electricity cost of Bitcoin everyone talks about. That is completely wasted, "useless." Large wind farms are wasted enabling huge computer farms that brainlessly churn out BitC hashings. The hashings are deliberately made computationally costly in order to "improve" security. ( Write improve in quotes since, whereas dollar manipulations are subject to Congressional hearings and FRB announcements, hackers who deny service and get 55% of total global mining -- for even 10-20 minutes IIUC? -- can take over the Bitcoin anonymously, writing a blockchain essentially of its own choice!
(2) The rents corruptly taken in a kleptocracy like U.S.A. may be lost whether Bitc replaces Dollar or not.
And finally,
(3) the dollar transaction costs Gospel refers to will be spent mostly on low-energy items, incl. (a) investments in technology, (b) useful durable goods, (c) charitable payments incl. special gifts to attractive young women. Contrast this with BitC's energy cost which, even if sourced by wind power in far northern reaches, will be only useless hashing and lost opportunity for producing hydrogen fuel or charged batteries with the raw wind power.

 

[Gospel]

View attachment 33636

But seriously, you can be correct about bitcoin not being used at some point in the future. You can be wrong as well. But you're definitely wrong about the argument I've actually made. Which is, if bitcoin is the cause of unwarranted energy consumption then it has a lot of catching up to do in comparison to the dollar. I think it's the strong desire to obtain something of value for trade with no regard to the environment. The dollar suffers the same, so why only point fingers at Bitcoin and not in your wallets?

As I have yet to even address that point, I really can't be wrong about it yet.

But here you go:

There is absolutely zero doubt that bitcoin is already vastly worse for the environment than the entire harm done by the dollar in its history.

That you continue to doubt it is only evidence that you haven't bothered to investigate, and are simply relying on your flawed assumptions, which feel truthy enough to you that you don't give serious credence to the possibility that they might be wrong.

That's strange because I swear I've already acknowledged the damage bitcoin mining does. You seem to have an issue with my pointing out that the dollar suffers the same. Do you think I'm using whataboutism to white knight for bitcoin? That's the only thing that makes sense.

 

[bilby]

View attachment 33636

But seriously, you can be correct about bitcoin not being used at some point in the future. You can be wrong as well. But you're definitely wrong about the argument I've actually made. Which is, if bitcoin is the cause of unwarranted energy consumption then it has a lot of catching up to do in comparison to the dollar. I think it's the strong desire to obtain something of value for trade with no regard to the environment. The dollar suffers the same, so why only point fingers at Bitcoin and not in your wallets?

As I have yet to even address that point, I really can't be wrong about it yet.

But here you go:

There is absolutely zero doubt that bitcoin is already vastly worse for the environment than the entire harm done by the dollar in its history.

That you continue to doubt it is only evidence that you haven't bothered to investigate, and are simply relying on your flawed assumptions, which feel truthy enough to you that you don't give serious credence to the possibility that they might be wrong.

That's strange because I swear I've already acknowledged the damage bitcoin mining does. You seem to have an issue with my pointing out that the dollar suffers the same. Do you think I'm using whataboutism to white knight for bitcoin? That's the only thing that makes sense.

I do, because you are.

The dollar, like other modern fiat currencies issued by nation states, has a minuscule environmental footprint. Saying it 'suffers the same' suggests strongly that you have zero clue just how unimaginably huge the difference is.

 

[TSwizzle]

Bitcoin mining only uses half the energy that the traditional banking system does, a new study claims.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...ning-environment-climate-crypto-b1849211.html

I doubt this study will be taken seriously.

 

[barbos]

Bitcoin mining only uses ALMOST half the energy that the traditional banking system does, a new study claims.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...ning-environment-climate-crypto-b1849211.html

I doubt this study will be taken seriously.

Fixed for you. It uses half the energy but does pretty much zero useful work.
And traditional banking does not mine at all, so energy use on that is zero. I suspect they counted all these people involved in the banking, their salaries, bank electric bills.

 

[TSwizzle]

Bitcoin mining only uses ALMOST half the energy that the traditional banking system does, a new study claims.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...ning-environment-climate-crypto-b1849211.html

I doubt this study will be taken seriously.

Fixed for you.

You didn’t fix anything for me.

It uses half the energy but does pretty much zero useful work.
And traditional banking does not mine at all, so energy use on that is zero. I suspect they counted all these people involved in the banking, their salaries, bank electric bills.

Why would any of that matter ? Whatever is being spent mining Bitcoins, as long as Bitcoin is hugely profitable (for want of a better word) it will remain in production. If it all goes tits up next week the computer farms and data centers will go dark the next day. It just seems a petty thing to pick up on.

 

[barbos]

It uses half the energy but does pretty much zero useful work.
And traditional banking does not mine at all, so energy use on that is zero. I suspect they counted all these people involved in the banking, their salaries, bank electric bills.

Why would any of that matter ? Whatever is being spent mining Bitcoins, as long as Bitcoin is hugely profitable (for want of a better word) it will remain in production. If it all goes tits up next week the computer farms and data centers will go dark the next day. It just seems a petty thing to pick up on.

It is profitable in the same way Ponzi/Pyramid/Tulip schemes are profitable. People directly exchange actual money for greenhouse gases, and they don't even claim these gases, they are simply released into the atmosphere.
I agree, government should simply outright ban this nonsense, 200% tax on all operation with cryptocurrencies