Ben "Bitcoin" Askren

My experience with crypto is I bought 100$ of Dogecoin because I like the dog and it was like .000025 each. I’m sitting pretty now waiting for it to hit 1$ a dog hahah
 
I have trouble seeing how Bitcoin won't be regulated or controlled by the US government or other governments? Can someone explain this please?
 
Grassshoppa said:
I have trouble seeing how Bitcoin won't be regulated or controlled by the US government or other governments? Can someone explain this please?
Click to expand...
Bitcoin was created as "Peer to Peer Electronic Cash System". The main idea was that 2 people could exchange money without permission (from a bank, government etc.). Will the U.S. Government try to regulate it or control it in some way? They already do and have ideas to try in the future. Will other governments try also? I'm sure they will.
 
SSgt Dickweed said:
It's like he's cheerleading everyone to adopt BTC.
Click to expand...
The current currency system is on it's way out. It's not a question of if it's just a question of when. Bitcoin can be part of the solution. I don't think it will be the solution but part of the solution. You might think that the government can keep handing out 2000 dollar stimulus every few months but the "Helicopter Money on Steroids" stuff only will work for so long until it doesn't.
 
Eric Silva 2.0 said:
better to listen to these guys? I would ask myself why are these "experts" wrong and are they cheerleading things that are in their best interest (stocks, paper currencies etc..)
Click to expand...


Mark Cuban was taken out of context here. He has spoken about crypto before, he likes the hyperledger aspect of it, not necessarily the store of value. He never said the BTC is not a good store of wealth, just he isn't is a fan of it as much as others.
 
SSgt Dickweed said:
Mark Cuban was taken out of context here. He has spoken about crypto before, he likes the hyperledger aspect of it, not necessarily the store of value. He never said the BTC is not a good store of wealth, just he isn't is a fan of it as much as others.
Click to expand...
He likes the blockchain technology but here is the interview. I think the context is fair. Of course some of these guys including Cuban have started coming around on bitcoin the last couple of years and especially this year. Buffett and his buddy Charlie Munger are still against it.
 
The thing I don't understand is what makes Bitcoin the best crypto.

What is its moat? Ie protection from competition.

There is value in being first but is there a patent or something to stop it being replaced?


MIKOM said:
Tracking what the $1200 stimulus check would be worth if used to buy bitcoin on April, 15th 2020.

Click to expand...


I'd say those things are somewhat related.
 
Eric Silva 2.0 said:
No it isn't, you don't understand the word "fiat" when it comes to money.
Click to expand...

It always stuns me how people are so smugly ignorant. You could have looked up the meaning of the concept in five minutes. Instead, you had to open your fat mouth for yet another proof of your lack of understanding.
 
Koloth said:
It always stuns me how people are so smugly ignorant. You could have looked up the meaning of the concept in five minutes. Instead, you had to open your fat mouth for yet another proof of your lack of understanding.
Click to expand...
You could read your own post and then do a 1 minute definition look up. Your name calling doesn't hide the fact you don't understand what fiat money is.
 
Eric Silva 2.0 said:
You could read your own post and then do a 1 minute definition look up. Your name calling doesn't hide the fact you don't understand what fiat money is.
Click to expand...

Listen, you lazy prick, I'll even save you the trouble of googling it yourself:

Fiat money has it's value by political agreement - or rather: by the agreement of a sufficient portion of a given population - to accept it in trade for goods. It has no significant inherent value to the holder except for its value in market trades. For example, paper money has almost no (but, as people using it to keep fires alive during the great depression for example prove, not zero) inherent value - which one will quickly realize by trying to pay with Deutscher Mark in todays Germany for example. In contrast, "primitive" or "commodity" money has inherent value. Think of cigarettes in jail, or of spices or tobacco as historical examples. These goods have inherent value independent of human agreement (but obviously not of tastes). They have not been created for the purpose of facilitating market transactions and are useful even if everybody suddenly stopped accepting them as a means of payment.

(An interesting in-between are of course gold, silver, etc. that started as "primitive" money (being sufficiently rare to be relatively safe from counterfeiting and having unique physical properties that allow the creation of weather- and wear-resistant seals/stamps/coins) but turned, I would argue, over time into something approximating fiat money - although an extremely stable one, as the agreement appears to be somewhat of an anthropological constant. (The aesthetic value of gold or silver as jewelry, is imho mostly, but not totally, derived from its market value: Gold adornments indicate the abundant riches of the holder.))

Cryptocurrency has value only as long as other parties accept them as means of payment, which you'll quickly find out trying to pay with them down at Grandpas corner store - and which everybody who invests into the wrong currency will find out in a few years. (Or may have already found out. I dont follow these trends, but I'd guess there's at least a few worthless cryptocurrencies by now.) It has no inherent value and is thus a clear example of fiat money.

I'm trying to imagine what stupid redefinition of the concepts outlined above some crypto-peddlers might come up with to get you to misunderstand the nature of bitcoin. All I can come up with, is the suspicion that they'd connect the meaning of the term 'fiat money' to a necessary condition of having a nation state as the controlling and issuing body. As explained above, that would be a misunderstanding of the terms. It would also be historically false (as plenty of issuers of fiat currency have not been nation states) and also etymologically misinformed, as 'fiat' does not contain any reference to an active "creating" subject.
 
Last edited:
Koloth said:
Listen, you lazy prick, I'll even save you the trouble of googling it yourself:

Fiat money has it's value by political agreement - or rather: by the agreement of a sufficient portion of a given population - to accept it in trade for goods. It has no significant inherent value to the holder except for its value in market trades. For example, paper money has almost no (but, as people using it to keep fires alive during the great depression for example prove, not zero) inherent value - which one will quickly realize by trying to pay with Deutscher Mark in todays Germany for example. In contrast, "primitive" or "commodity" money has inherent value. Think of cigarettes in jail, or of spices or tobacco as historical examples. These goods have inherent value independent of human agreement (but obviously not of tastes). They have not been created for the purpose of facilitating market transactions and are useful even if everybody suddenly stopped accepting them as a means of payment.

(An interesting in-between are of course gold, silver, etc. that started as "primitive" money (being sufficiently rare to be relatively safe from counterfeiting and having unique physical properties that allow the creation of weather- and wear-resistant seals/stamps/coins) but turned, I would argue, over time into something approximating fiat money - although an extremely stable one, as the agreement appears to be somewhat of an anthropological constant. (The aesthetic value of gold or silver as jewelry, is imho mostly, but not totally, derived from its market value: Gold adornments indicate the abundant riches of the holder.))

Cryptocurrency has value only as long as other parties accept them as means of payment, which you'll quickly find out trying to pay with them down at Grandpas corner store - and which everybody who invests into the wrong currency will find out in a few years. (Or may have already found out. I dont follow these trends, but I'd guess there's at least a few worthless cryptocurrencies by now.) It has no inherent value and is thus a clear example of fiat money.

I'm trying to imagine what stupid redefinition of the concepts outlined above some crypto-peddlers might come up with to get you to misunderstand the nature of bitcoin. All I can come up with, is the suspicion that they'd connect the meaning of the term 'fiat money' to a necessary condition of having a nation state as the controlling and issuing body. As explained above, that would be a misunderstanding of the terms. It would also be historically false (as plenty of issuers of fiat currency have not been nation states) and also etymologically misinformed, as 'fiat' does not contain any reference to an active "creating" subject.
Click to expand...
I appreciate you taking the time to explain your position so now I will respond with where the mistakes are without calling you names. "It has no inherent value and is thus a clear example of fiat money" Fiat money (actually fiat currency but forget the distinction for now) has no inherent value, but that is usually a characteristic of fiat money, not the definition. You also define it as money by political agreement which is closer. Fiat means let it be done in latin and is an official order by legal authority, not agreement (by decree). I agree there are worthless cryptocurrencies and that even bitcoin hasn't been established as a medium of exchange. It is in the process of being established as both a store of value (you use the term inherent value but for money the term store of value is better) and a medium of exchange. I would argue it's doing better as a store of value but it's in the early stages and is too volatile right now. Fiat currency is used as a medium of exchange, you are talking about agreement of people but for currency/money the term would be medium of exchange. Bitcoin isn't fiat as there is no legal agreement or order to accept it. You don't believe in it as a store of value and that part can be tricky. I believe in it but value is in the eye of the beholder and that still has to play out. I will sum up my points about money...
To be money...you need three main characteristics...
1.Store of value
2. Medium of exchange
3. Unit of Account
Dollars are currency, not money since they aren't a store of value (they've lost over 99% of value since 1900.
I consider gold money and bitcoin as a possibility of money (we are watching that process play out).
Fiat means "by decree" which means an offical order issued by a legal authority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money

Happy Holidays to you!
 
People please stop buying bitcoin. I will let you know when I stopped accumulating
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Fanu
Economy White House Says Gold Reserves May Be Used to Purchase Bitcoin
2
Replies
32
Views
774
wlu.29
wlu.29

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,266,417
Messages
57,400,389
Members
175,691
Latest member
Autonym

Share this page

Back
Top