Bitcoin Forum

I have commented on this in another thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5406050.msg60563597#new) but it seems to me that this deserves a dedicated thread specifically.

When there are market downturns, and in bear markets like this one, the community repeats the mantra that 1BTC is 1BTC as a consolation.

And I understand that it has its logic for someone who acquires Bitcoin and will HODL it for a long time, but not if we conceive it as a currency, as a P2P cash as Satoshi conceived it, because if it is a currency we are going to use it frequently, in the day to day to acquire goods and services. If it is a currency, the purchasing power has been reduced by 70% or more.


If you acquire Bitcoin as an investment, and you are going to HODL it for a long time, I understand that you repeat the mantra that 1BTC is 1BTC.

Tautologies are apparently evident true statements, but if we stop to analyze them, they have many nuances.

For example: Poker Player is Poker Player. Do we agree with that? Surely we do. But is Poker Player when he was 7 years old the same as Poker Player when he is 70 years old? No way.

Not necessarily! Because this statement is not practical!

Bitcoin has not yet reached to such a stage where we can consider it as an independent currency. To be honest, bitcoin is a great investment but not a good currency to transact on a daily basis for number of reasons. If bitcoin was really a great currency, it would have become a dominant payment method by now which certainly didn't happen. But it has become a great investment because of its upside potential. It has become a great trading currency because of its volatility and that's pretty much it!

I had the same thought, without a supporting currency bitcoin can't be used as a currency. It is good as an investment, but it requires lot of support to be used as a currency. Even if bitcoin is valued in terms of Satoshi, every Satoshi will be valued in USD which is how it hold its value.

Bitcoin can be used as a currency on daily basis if each and everything is priced in terms of bitcoin. This is tedious, because for a product that we pay with bitcoin might cost 0.01BTC, and the same when paid in USD will be lower or higher depending on bitcoin's price fluctuation. Here people wish to pay through which they can enjoy the lowest price for the particular product.

t is also interesting that such a mantra is repeated only by those who more or less believe in bitcoin, and probably have some investment in it. To maintain the sequence of their correct actions, as people tend to evaluate themselves better. But at a time when the market is falling, I see nasty statements from my acquaintances that this is not so. An even more popular solution is that bitcoin is simply obliged to grow and regularly make a profit, and when something does not work, panic and sales begin, as many expect quick profits and are not ready to wait.

What is a currency? Anything that has value that is spent by people, but the value is not what that makes it a currency, it is the physical form it has. A dollar note is a currency but if changed to new type, the old note becomes useless.

What is money? The intrinsic value of anything that people spend often makes it money.

Is bitcoin a currency? Bitcoin is money, not having a physical form but a digital form that we heard about and that we use to know that it is of value, even if not called a currency, it can still be referred to as a cryptocurrency.

Types of currency: if it can be physical and digital currency, bitcoin being a currency will lead to another debate.

You age does not change that you are a man. The amount of food you can buy with dollar or any fiat in the last ten years, you can not use the same amount of dollar or fiat to buy it this year, fiat value also decline.

Indeed, this 1BTC = 1BTC is pretty much similar to "unrealized loss is not loss" (unless you sell).


The universe is not the same in (any) 2 different moments. So unless in some very strict mathematical (abstract) setup I would not be surprised if none of those tautologies stand.


Now related to the title... this is much more complicated imho. It's not only the fluctuations in Bitcoin price that matters, it's also the country. Because 69k loaves in your country may have been 280k loaves in another country. However, I do get your point and I also feel that this wild fluctuations in the price, while they do bring Bitcoin into the news (especially in the bull runs), they are a barrier in getting it used globally as a currency and also as a store of value.
Many (or maybe all) institutional investors advocating buying Bitcoin, the investors that should drive global acceptance are in trouble now and pretty much silent, since even if it's unrealized loss, it still looks bad on the papers.
So while I do tell that 1BTC=1BTC, indeed, the context matters, hence you're right.

This point is a quasi-philosophical discussion that I'm not going to get into.

What I wanted to emphasize with this thread is that if you use Bitcoin to buy things, you are affected by the considerable drop in purchasing power that has occurred these months, because you buy less than half as much stuff.

1BTC=1BTC can comfort you if you don't spend the Bitcoin you have to buy goods and services, but HODL it.

Hahaha. This will surely raise a tons of debate like chicken and egg scenario.

There will be no exact answer here to satisfy most of the user here because we have different beliefs and self interest on Bitcoin. For some Bitcoin is a currency and satisfied some condition for being but for others, It’s only an investment instrument because of its design and volatility.

For me, I threat Bitcoin both currency and investment base on my purposed of buying it. I sometimes purchased Bitcoin for digital payment purposes and sometimes buying it for holding in long term. I think it’s all about our perspective.

You should say both that 1 BTC = 1 BTC is similar to either

• Unrealized profit is not profit
• Unrealized loss is not loss

If anyone says buying Bitcoin only because of fun, it can be true if it is a trial purchase with very small amount.
If the purchase is big enough, it is not for fun, but for profit. So if it relates to profit motivation, the buyer will have plan to take profit. Just when.

Loss is a loss and even you don't sell your Bitcoin, you still have a loss temporarily. Fortunately, in history, Bitcoin always makes new all time high with each halving and a new bull run.

• Bitcoin profitable days (https://www.lookintobitcoin.com/charts/bitcoin-profitable-days/)
• HODL camp (https://hodl.camp/)
• From these charts, 87%+ of holding days are profitable and you won't get loss if you hold Bitcoin more than 4 years, 6 months and 21 days.

I noticed that on this forum that some people will say 1 BTC is 1 BTC, it is right but I too see it as a wrong statement to be used during bear market, but in cases like when a newbie is confused, thinking that the value of his bitcoin can be altered when investing, the newbies can be corrected that no alteration because 1 BTC is 1 BTC. I have noticed that because of the volatility, some newbies are confused.

Bitcoin is a speculative asset in this regard, it is not suitable to be used as a currency. But let us see it in another way too, I still do not have option than to convert my bitcoin to fiat whenever I want to spend, what if I can just spend it directly, that does not differ. But some people do not know how bitcoin price may fluctuate, these are the type of people that should be discouraged from using it as a currency because they may not know when to convert from unstable coin to stable coin and from stable coin back to unstable coin.

You are not wrong.

To me this statement isn't just a reference to unrealized loss, but rather reflecting that the fundamentals of Bitcoin remain the same. Ie at $69K 1 BTC = 1 BTC, and the same is true at $20K. So the considerable decline in price isn't related to Bitcoin's fundamentals, but merely market movements or cycles. Though of course I agree without selling at a loss, 1 BTC can easily return to ATH.

The irony being that there is more of an argument for Bitcoin's lack of fungibility these days, with some people arguing 1 BTC ≠ 1BTC due to various centralized exchanges/services blacklisting UTXOs (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5401468.0). But at the same time, this was also the case when Bitcoin was at $69K, as well as years prior, so doesn't appear relevant to price changes. Also to note the network treats each Bitcoin as equal, regardless of centralized providers suggesting otherwise. There will also be one company or product that can claim Bitcoins aren't equal, but this doesn't mean that they aren't...

the first problem is not the end of the sentence. but the first part. and also this part


by this i mean. you are assuming and taking judgement of the value of bitcoin to have been worth/valued and in your eyes that it should have stayed at $70k where by the change to $20k was the unexpected, death nail.
with words like reduced, downturn, crash, drop. decline

what you need to understand is that the $70k price point was not where value was, it was not meant to sustain. it was not meant to be the purchasing power.
the $70k was the premium, the temporary bubble event . a price that exceeded expectations and was the exception

bitcoin is now back at good value rate. back in the realm of good pricing.

..
once you can flip your mindset into the notion that low=value and high=premium.
then you see that different mindset at play. where by getting 17,000 loaves of bread was the minimum wage. and the 69,000 was the lucky special christmas bonus. rather than the other way round

its not the case of 69,000 loaves was the minimum wage everyone expects to get and then the 20,000 loaves is the below poverty killer income that causes people to starve and die

I wonder if it is only the drop that led you to this conclusion (not both rise and falls) and whether you would have said the same if price had kept going up (increased purchase power).
Because if it's just because of sudden big drops, then a lot of other currencies in the world are not currencies considering they too dump a lot. For example a couple of years ago the Venezuela's bolívar kept dumping every day, you could wake up every morning to see your purchase power has decreased or euro which got dumped hard recently. People using those currencies lost their purchase power even though they still call these things "currency".

I will comment strictly based on your title.  You say that one Bitcoin worth 69 thousand loaves is not equal to one Bitcoin worth 20 thousand loaves.  I think it is pretty clear even from your own title that one Bitcoin is still one Bitcoin, but what differs is the quantity of stuff you get from it.

But on the other hand, while you can now get say 3 times less loaves with 1 Bitcoin, you can for example get a ton more Shitcoins using it than you could when Bitcoin was 69k.  And while for you loaves may be more important, maybe for me Shitcoins are.  In that case, you are in disadvantage while I am not.

Then think about it.  While there are things you can now buy in less quantity and other things you can buy in higher quantity due to changing purchasing power, there are some things that are still priced the same they used to be years, maybe even decades ago.  For example, the cost of Bitcointalk VIP membership.

So if we are talking about purchasing power, we will enter a long debate that, at least on my end, finishes the same way:  one Bitcoin is still one Bitcoin and just because what it was worth yesterday is different from what it is worth today does not make two Bitcoins different.

Think Dollar.  You have $100 in your wallet.  Yesterday you saw a t-shirt that was up for sale at $100 and today it was reduced by a discount of 50%.  Yesterday you could get the t-shirt for 100% of your money and have 0% left in your wallet while today you can get the t-shirt for 50% of your money and still have 50% in your wallet to buy other stuff with or just hold on to.  Does that make your $100 from today different to the $100 from yesterday?

Does inflation change your $1 bill that you are still holding from a decade ago?  Besides purchasing power in some cases, there is no difference that I see.  $1 is still $1.

Anyway.  The discussion about 1 Bitcoin still being 1 Bitcoin no matter what has pretty much started from the debate whether Bitcoin is or is not fungible.  Some people say my Bitcoin is different from yours because they have a different history.  Some people say they are the same, because 'tainted history' is a made-up term that appeared only after Bitcoin was created and a decade ago there was no such thing.  I tend to agree with both sides.  I also agree with what Loyce or o_e_l_e_o once said here.  The most successful attack over Bitcoin is that they introduced this term, 'taint', which made us believe Bitcoin is not fungible at all.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

I don't know what would have happened if what happened had not happened. Getting into thinking about that is quasi-philosophizing too, but surely it was the drop and the debate with you that led me to the conclusion, and, leaving aside what would have happened if what has happened hadn't happened, I think the argument would be equally valid if Bitcoin today was worth $0.4M as some theory predicted last year. The thing is that we could say that 1BTC ≠ 1BTC in a more positive way, because the purchasing power would have multiplied by almost 7 in less than a year.


What happens is that if we leave aside fiat shitcoins like Venezuela's, major currencies like the USD or the Euro lose purchasing power much more slowly. Like the British pound sterling, which was worth a pound of sterling silver in its origins and today is worth almost nothing in comparison but hundreds of years have passed.

What a coincidence! I've been just writing up a presentation on laws of logic and issues with them, and one of them is the law of identity, which is true only with certain limitations that we're talking about something in the same respect and of the same time. When 1 BTC = 1 BTC is presented, it's a simple identity of logic, A=A. However, it is only true when we're talking about 1 BTC in the same respect (in this case, purely as one unit of the Bitcoin currency) and at the same time (which also helps to fix the issue with the price, as the price changes over time). Each time I see it, I also tend to write that this is incorrect because of the purchasing power of Bitcoin that changes over time, and the disregard of this purchasing power is unforgivable if we're considering Bitcoin as a currency. So good job, op, I agree with your point.

taint was not introduced about fungibility.. taint was about the tracing of a coins audit back to its origin coinbase reward that validated that the coin was created by the rules

it later become re-branded as a blacklist of treating different coins differently due to the purpose of who previously handled the coins and why


but here is the thing. fiat has [new definition of]taint too
when you receive fiat.
you have to fill in a taint report.. AKA a tax form where you have to inform the IRS where your income came from
where each form of income comes with different tax % levels.
yep a $100 received from a pension is treated differently than a $100 from an employer. vs different than a $100 gift from a relative
and yes the police treat a $100 from a drug dealer differently than $100 you got from your family.

a retailer may refuse to accept a single bank note of $100 or refuse to accept 1000 dimes. retailers would prefer to accept 10x $10 or 20x$5

currencies "fungibility" is not what people think it is. a $100 is not treated like another $100

back when we were around the 45k price range, i wanted to buy a graphics card for around 450 bucks (around 0.009btc at the time on newegg), but i didn't pull the trigger, i was so naive, i expected this btc price to hold and i thought i'd wait a little longer for gpu prices to go lower ... now the same graphics card costs around $350 but 0.0177 btc 🤡, so yeah, this bear market fcked me

i've come to the conclusion that this mantra some ppl use when there's a major downtrend is one of many coping mechanisms, these people only see btc as an investment (some even as a get rich but-not-so-quick scheme) and nothing more, "hodl hodl until 250k next year" and never spend, they prolly never read the btc whitepaper and don't knowt btc was supposed to be used for

you had to used one of the most extreme scenarios in the world right now (a country with triple digits inflation) to try to prove your point about purchasing power, hmm... what about the dollar or the yen? you know, fiat currencies in countries that have had economic stability over the past few years

Yes, because that is the closest we can get to another currency that lost its value hard and fast otherwise if you want to see weakening purchase power you can use any other currency you like like "dollar or yen"  but in most other cases this loss has a slow pace which can be seen as inflation rate and if you want to know the real value of currencies you have to look at price of groceries, utility bills, rent, etc. which is obviously rising against all fiat currencies at all times, sometimes slower and sometimes faster.

It was the basic defense mechanism, you know. You lap on something to make you feel good and justify your shortcoming or missed chance. If anyone here got another chance to sell their BTC back when it was at ATH which was over $60k, I think everyone would take it in a heartbeat. Who knows, maybe a few more years when BTC price at $100k or goes as low as $5k. People wish they were buying or didn't sell at $20k.

Basically, we're human and build around that unreasonable gloating to overcome our mistakes or miss a good chance to do something, cope as you said. If anyone here thinks I was shiting on them for that, please don't. I think it's completely normal behavior to pull ourselves forward and make our lives easier, and less negative. If not then it will be full of depression and can lead to suicide which you guys must saw it occasionally on the news: "Man kills himself because lost his money in crypto". It's just sad.

Personally what I understand through the phrase "1 BTC = 1 BTC" is that Bitcoin is a scarce asset whose value should not be viewed through the lens of a fiat currency. Again the issue of value vs price.
Let's be honest, Bitcoin won't become a full-fledged currency until we can pay with it in the store at the street corner. Until then BTC is pretty much an asset, not a currency. Yes, you can use it to transfer money around the world with insignificant transaction fees and decently quick processing time, but there are still some steps to climb before I'd consider it a mainstream currency.

I think that this is the Bitcoin ascension path - first acting as a good store-of-value asset than slowly becoming the currency of our world. Makes sense to me.

I think the problem lies in the equation presented.

1 BTC is indeed equal to 1 BTC.  so there is no problem with this representation of 1 BTC = 1 BTC
Since this equation is presented without a time valuation element which makes the equation correct.

But OP wanted to emphasize on the valuation of BTC at a different time like 1 BTC value in 2010 is not equal to the 1 BTC value of 2022 but this can't be represented by this equation 1BTC ≠ 1 BTC because this equation is missing a variable which is the time element of valuation.  If OP wanted to put an argument then he should use the proper presentation of the equation simply by adding x and y variables where x and y represents different time of BTC valuation. So I think OP should use 1xBTC ≠ 1yBTC where x and y is the time of BTC valuation .

So in what case is this a solid argument really?  Almost anything in this world has value and you could use this 'time valuation element' for about anything.  So?  What does it prove?  1 Bitcoin is still 1 Bitcoin, even if valued differently.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

Are you just repeating what I said?

Without time valuation  element  1 BTC = 1 BTC

But with the Time valuation element e.g price of BTC in consideration, the price of BTC last 2010 is not the same as the price of BTC this year but as I said it can't be represented as 1BTC ≠ 1BTC because in the mathematical equation we need to represent the different time valuation element (x, y) so better presentation would be 1xBTC ≠ 1yBTC

I don't know how you cherrypick lines in my post just to do your argument when all you do is just repeat what I said. Besides I am just giving my thought on how to present OP's idea in the right equation.

So I think you need to reread my whole post

---

In my opinion presentation in a correct mathematical equation is far more solid than any other argument. It is like proof of a fact.

I don't know if it's consolation or how everyone is doing their finances or an advice not to sell but I've got used to it, wonder why haven't you already too.

Bear season
1BTC =1 BTC =1 BTC not matter what!
Buli seasons:
1 BTC = 1 phone 7 years ago now it's 1 BTC = 1 Bmw

If 1 BTC = 1 BTC and that's all why is anyone caring about what the price is in the first place?


And at this point we would have the argument that they never gained value so fast, so we're ending again in a debate about value and inflation, at which point some will say Bitcoin has gained 1000000x since its inception but obviously only a few bought at that time and far more did between 1k and 60k, and we will never hear the end of it.

But out of pure curiosity
Does 0.5BTC+0.5BTC=1BTC ?
Since it cost you more to use two inputs than one input?  ;D


Do post this a few more times on this forum and you're going to get pitchforked, infidel  ;D

No, 1btc will only equal 1btc if the person don't value btc from the fiat perspective, no matter how hard you try to console yourself with this mantra it doesn't change the fact that the usd value of btc has dropped by some percentage. You don't necessary needs to hodl if you have this believe of 1btc=1btc, the fiat value does not matter, all that matters is your satoshi which you are willing to spend at whatever price btc is trading.
If you value btc in usd, 1btc = 1btc won't comfort you, all you see is how much in usd your portfolio has dropped. 

He hasn't made that precisely because he did value Bitcoin in goods (loaves of bread precisely) and not in USD or any fiat currency. And I think in all countries of the world what he is saying is true, you won't be able to buy anything, goods or services, at the same price in BTC as 6 months ago. The best way to avoid this loss of value IMO, is to use your fiat currencies instead of your bitcoins during bear markets, but unfortunately nobody knows if we are still in a bear market or if the current level of price will stay like that for a long time.

Yes, but as I said before, what I want to emphasize is how the loss of purchasing power affects you if you use it, if you spend it to buy goods and services. I part HODL and part spend. So, I notice the loss of purchasing power when it comes to spending.

If you only HODL it is truer that 1BTC=1BTC.


Good point. It may seem silly but 1BTC≠1BTC if you have one Bitcoin with one input and the other Bitcoin with 784.

Only hardcore believers believe that 1 BTC is just 1 BTC. This logic applies to FIAT followers too. They all fall under the minority of the population while the majority including me focus on the current value for various reasons.

BTC's volatility is a double edged sword since it helps draw in more and more investors due to the numerous financial opportunities, but it cannot be used as a stable payment method in the long-term.

This is why I hope it finds some sort of optimal balance between the two at some point in the future.

An interesting example to express your own point of view. I also quite agree with this. We cannot say that the problems that take place in the past, present, and future will always be the same; in essence, the expansion of many problems around itself is always changing in the directions we see. be over time. So it's not wrong to see 1 BTC = 1BTC when we look at it again for a certain problem. Well, it's still what it is and external changes are included, and it's reasonable to argue who is right and who is wrong :) , so just relax and don't complicate matters from a simple point of view simple.

I see with the outstanding features of bitcoin, it would be wonderful if it could become an independent currency, but it is true that it cannot and can never become a independent currency. I've always been skeptical about it, governments won't let that happen.

Given the existence of government and legislation, bitcoin as an investment would be preferable as a payment method. With volatility and limited supply, bitcoin is a great asset and investment, if held for a long time, there will be no investment that will yield as large a return as bitcoin brings.

I personally take that differently.  Call it consolidation or whatever but if I bought something for $100 back when Bitcoin was $60,000, what I see is that in today's value it means I actually paid around $33 for it.  So what I can do now is take $33 out of my pockets, put it back into Bitcoin and if it gets to $60,000 I will literally be able to say I paid $33 for that thing.  There is of course no guarantee this works, just a small market adaption strategy I often use.

It obviously works the other way around too, so now I get your point.  If you put a thousand last ATH in BTC then you have to pay three times more now for what you could have bought back then.  But on the other hand, Bitcoin is three times cheaper.  We never had such a volatile asset used as currency before (except worst Fiat disasters in history), have we?  So I guess we just need to adapt to its market conditions and understand there is probably going to be at least one more large drop in Bitcoin's price after the next bull run and be ready for it.  I think we all signed up for this when we started investing in and using Bitcoin.  Due to its scarcity, we have to have a different behavior compared to Fiat.

But you have been probably using Bitcoin for years long.  A $10 transaction you received in your wallet when Bitcoin was $1k would now be worth $200.  Sure, it was worth $600 at ATH, but you would still be on a profit.  This is my personal take.  I earn enough from yearly BTC growth to not care as much about and be affected by a sudden drop from ATH.  And unless I am spending EVERYTHING I earn, I am likely still spending from my early investments since with time they grew dozens of times.  Makes sense?

I do not see it as a debate honestly, because we have a historical graph to back up a fact with.  Even if far more people bought between 1k and 60k, every time Bitcoin grew it did actually exceed inflation rates and appreciated more in value than Fiat did.  Which still pretty much makes the 'never gained value so fast' argument valid.  We are 2,000% up from 1k, which was not too long ago, so there is that.  The inflation rate has fortunately not surpassed these gains yet.

I mean, we did lose a lot of purchasing power from ATH but BTC was what, under $5k only about an year ago.  So yes, having to pay 3 times more than ATH value sucks but even fairly new investors are still, even after this drop, under advantage.  So is pretty much any other investor except purchases made in the past few months.

I do not know, for the reasons I gave above I think it is quite unfair to complain about BTC's drop but anyone is of course free to feel different.  I feel like more often than not, BTC investments are providing gains and when they are not, it is just a temporary paper loss that always recovered by itself in just a matter of time.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

Specifically: 1BTC = 1BTC (before adjusting for inflation).

The truth is that Bitcoin is very different from traditional currencies in this respect that whereas central banks inflate their currency's values all the time and deflations are extraordinarily rare, Bitcoin's value swings btween inflationary and deflationary depending on the current market conditions.

Why? Because the central bank is decentralized: We are collectively the central bank.

Its decisions are made independently by each user, and when the users unconciously make the same decision all at once, this dictates the market conditions (hence why the market went down).
To manage inflation, central banks can do i) increase interest rates, ii) decrease them. For each user, the corresponding options are i) buy, ii) sell. Selling is done when the price is in a bubble, buying is done when there is a dip.

There has never been a decentralized central bank in history. So people do not understand the mechanics of cryptocurrency and simply associate its inflation rate with its price. But the price is very independent from the interest rate, just as the exchange rates to foreign currencies are independent from the central bank's interest rates.

You're not trading BTC for other currencies, at the end you're supposed to be buying and selling goods with it. So 1BTC really is equal to 1BTC, purchasing power aside. And it is really in our interest for Bitcoin to converge at some price; to stabilize, so that the purchasing power remains the same, and out of the control of the government inflationeers.