If increased Bitcoin adoption results in higher Bitcoin prices then why didn't gold prices plummet when we decided to stop using gold as a currency (i.e. gold adoption fell)?
Essentially because we didn't !! We didn't stop considering gold as a monetary asset. People still CONSIDER gold very valuable, and that is why it IS very valuable. At no point in history, gold has lost its monetary value completely. People still consider it as a store of value, and that is what makes it a store of value. Something is money if enough people think it is money, and for gold, enough people have always considered it as being money. Not money to buy a loaf of bread with (but gold was rarely used for small transactions). But money as store of value. This. It's held 'value' since the beginning of time all the way back to the ancient egyptians. Perhaps because of its beautiful luster and allure...whatever the reason, it's always been held in high esteem in virtually every society since the beginning of civilization. As to how it'll be regarded decades/centuries from now is yet to be determined, but if you're betting on the long horse, gold would probably be the one least likely to completely sh*t the bed because it's got a lengthy resume. |
|
|
|
|
I agree. Oil is bound to go up. It's tried and true and will always see its dips and rises. It may not reach the levels you speculate, but should be good for solid profit in the not too distant future.
|
|
|
|
Forum IP addresses.
What?  1. The IRS does not have access to any forum, let alone would they know which user is using what forum (there are thousands) and what nickname 2. Even if they had full access to all forums and their logged user IP addresses, how the hell is that related to any of my bitcoins? : Jesus, are you this dense? It was a joke and sarcasm, 2 things which appear to be completely off your radar. In all fairness it's hard to convey sarcasm over the internet, especially since just about anyone can be serious about just about anything. By all means, please believe my sarcastic statement that the IRS is going to ip trace and track down those in this thread that implied they're pro-tax evasion. Srs bsns. |
|
|
|
Forum IP addresses.
What? 1. The IRS does not have access to any forum, let alone would they know which user is using what forum (there are thousands) and what nickname 2. Even if they had full access to all forums and their logged user IP addresses, how the hell is that related to any of my bitcoins? : Jesus, are you this dense? It was a joke and sarcasm, 2 things which appear to be completely off your radar. |
|
|
|
You must be extremely young.
Almost every company/technology listed held a domineering lead in their respective fields for a good amount of time.
Google? LOL. If your frame of reference is that short sighted, then I'll just assume you're 12 years old and think Apple were the pioneers of the cellular world lol.
Altavista, Lycos, and Geocities were all front runners in the internet search engine biz in the mid to late 90's, long before Google stormed onto the scene.
And you know why the only 2 examples you gave are still around and going strong? Because they constantly evolve with the people and create new technologies to appease ever changing user needs. Bitcoin doesn't do that. It's protocol has evolved very little if any over the course of it's life. It does not grow with the population...it just hopes that the population adapts to it.
The bitcoin protocol is the first. And thus the most primitive of it's kind. It offers no real-world advantages compared to its successors with exception to the fact that companies are investing in it strictly because of this premise. But that is far from a guarantee of sustenance...since things move extremely quickly in the technological world, and what is here one day can just as easily be gone tomorrow and replaced by something 'better.'
After all, the same argument bitcoiners make about its benefits vs. fiat, are the same arguments that could be made for altcoin2.0 vs bitcoin.
TCP/IP is still around. basically, all i am saying is-show me a real contender-and you might be proven right. Right now bitcoin is supported by ~300PH of computing power. Nothing else comes close. The technology is still very young, relatively speaking. And basically every altcoin has many more real world advantages over bitcoin. So while bitcoin currently holds the 'popularity' crown this early in the race, I wouldn't quite hold so much confidence in that notion. The technological segment can be cruel and unforgiving. I don't actually think that more than 80% of the people who know about bitcoin know as deep tehcnical knowledge about it to worry about an altcoin being better. The only reason for decline is people selling in fear of losing more money due to price falling further. Oh trust me, they will. The only reason why it doesn't matter much now is because a great portion of transactions are done online via business purchases and exchanges and not p2p or in person. When a person is sending emergency money to a relative 3,000 miles away or wants to snipe an auction item last second, and it takes 10-15 minutes for the payment to be confirmed and credited/usable...then people will start to realize how dated the protocol really is. The only reason why it's acceptable right now is because it's not being used by the 'common consumer' but rather bitcoin believers and grassroots supporters that represent a mere microfragment of the market segment. |
|
|
|
ITT: the IRS perfoming IP address cross checks and sending out audit notices.
What IP address? There are no IP addresses involved with Bitcoin. Forum IP addresses. |
|
|
|
|
ITT: the IRS perfoming IP address cross checks and sending out audit notices.
|
|
|
|
You must be extremely young.
Almost every company/technology listed held a domineering lead in their respective fields for a good amount of time.
Google? LOL. If your frame of reference is that short sighted, then I'll just assume you're 12 years old and think Apple were the pioneers of the cellular world lol.
Altavista, Lycos, and Geocities were all front runners in the internet search engine biz in the mid to late 90's, long before Google stormed onto the scene.
And you know why the only 2 examples you gave are still around and going strong? Because they constantly evolve with the people and create new technologies to appease ever changing user needs. Bitcoin doesn't do that. It's protocol has evolved very little if any over the course of it's life. It does not grow with the population...it just hopes that the population adapts to it.
The bitcoin protocol is the first. And thus the most primitive of it's kind. It offers no real-world advantages compared to its successors with exception to the fact that companies are investing in it strictly because of this premise. But that is far from a guarantee of sustenance...since things move extremely quickly in the technological world, and what is here one day can just as easily be gone tomorrow and replaced by something 'better.'
After all, the same argument bitcoiners make about its benefits vs. fiat, are the same arguments that could be made for altcoin2.0 vs bitcoin.
TCP/IP is still around. basically, all i am saying is-show me a real contender-and you might be proven right. Right now bitcoin is supported by ~300PH of computing power. Nothing else comes close. The technology is still very young, relatively speaking. And basically every altcoin has many more real world advantages over bitcoin. So while bitcoin currently holds the 'popularity' crown this early in the race, I wouldn't quite hold so much confidence in that notion. The technological segment can be cruel and unforgiving. |
|
|
|
|
You can thank JPMorgan. They bought and continue to buy majority of the world's gold reserves. Without them, the market would crumble. But with them, the market is controlled and suppressed at the push of a button. Fun stuff.
|
|
|
|
As negative yields stretch further and further out no one knows what will happen. It's unchartered territory.
If SHTF in traditional main st asset classes it could dwarf 08 because there's more debt, more tbtf and no more bullets in the chamber. I have to think in this situation, gold, btc, no debt and hard assets are winners.
yes, when something is unprecedented, we don't know where it is going. For example: if 5 year bonds have negative yield, then short term bonds are likely to have negative yields as well. if short term bonds or notes have negative yield, then money market have to be either subsidized (it could be costly) or also have negative yield. if money market has negative yield, people will take money out as cash as zero (the proverbial mattress) is a better return. I say that if FED is smart, they will try to reignite animal spirits by concentrating on one asset class. Stocks look tired, so the options are gold plus other PM and bitcoin. Bitcoin can be made much more liquid then gold due to it's properties, so my hope would be that they will decide to move bitcoin. However, they might just take no action and be frozen in the headlights of the incoming deflation train. Newsflash: The feds (aka jp morgan) already owns 60% of the world's gold derivatives. It's the modern day hunt brothers scenario, but with much bigger and greedier hands. It's not like they're just suddenly looking to invest. They control the market...and you best believe if shtf the first thing to see an astronomical rise are good ol' tried and tested precious metals. There's a reason why they abandoned the gold standard. Because at the end of the day when all the dust clears, they want to be the only ones holding the loot and having the population on their knees. Bitcoin now and never will be in their sights. If they were really interested in the bitcoin protocol, they'll just create their own coin lol. They have no need for the outdated original bitcoin system. To many people get stuck into the old-world mentality that just because bitcoin was the first and most lucrative of its kind, that it will automatically be the only one standing in x amount of years. But when you really look at it, that couldn't be further from the truth. There are a ton of other alts that are far more superior both in terms of security/anonymity/and transfer times than the original dated protocol. Here's a small golden list of a few other companies/inventions that used to hold the crown early into groundbreaking technologies: Cyrix, AOL, Netscape, Atari, Palm Pilots, Altavista, Lycos, Geocities, Motorola...etc etcWell, AAPL and MSFT are both standing pretty good after ~40 years at ~1tril in market cap between them. Try to dislodge GOOG with a new search engine-it's very unlikely. Your examples do not really hold water as none of these mentioned had managed to hold on to a dominant market share for a long time. Bitcoin has >90% market share for more than 5 years already. Show me something that suddenly gains >50% market share and I might agree with you You must be extremely young. Almost every company/technology listed held a domineering lead in their respective fields for a good amount of time. Google? LOL. If your frame of reference is that short sighted, then I'll just assume you're 12 years old and think Apple were the pioneers of the cellular world lol. Altavista, Lycos, and Geocities were all front runners in the internet search engine biz in the mid to late 90's, long before Google stormed onto the scene. And you know why the only 2 examples you gave are still around and going strong? Because they constantly evolve with the people and create new technologies to appease ever changing user needs. Bitcoin doesn't do that. It's protocol has evolved very little if any over the course of it's life. It does not grow with the population...it just hopes that the population adapts to it. The bitcoin protocol is the first. And thus the most primitive of it's kind. It offers no real-world advantages compared to its successors with exception to the fact that companies are investing in it strictly because of this premise. But that is far from a guarantee of sustenance...since things move extremely quickly in the technological world, and what is here one day can just as easily be gone tomorrow and replaced by something 'better.' After all, the same argument bitcoiners make about its benefits vs. fiat, are the same arguments that could be made for altcoin2.0 vs bitcoin. |
|
|
|
alt coins are priced based on btc. say a doge is worth 60 satoshi, if btc goes really low are you saying 1 doge = 1 btc? that would be impossible because only 21 mil btc.
Ah, some sense! Now...since btc is based on the dollar, what happens in the bitcoiner's wet dream scenario where the dollar completely crumbles. Considering there's only 20 million bitcoin and several billion people in the world. You are thinking in your bitcoin box that's why you will be taken by surprise  Nothing stops $$$ from going into alts with the use of btc or with direct fiat exchange. So the number of BTC or its marketcap is irrelevant in this. Man, soon i'll charge you for my posts. Bitcoin is an antique coin with bad fundamentals. It really can't compete with the alts after the broken promises. The lid will be blown off. Even Litecoin has more utility and is more advanced than BTC. To see clear all you need to do is shrug off the Bitcoin-hype. I think you need to charge yourself. In no way did you refute my inquiry, and somehow you get this egregious notion that I'm a bitcoin die-hard. You must be new. |
|
|
|
alt coins are priced based on btc. say a doge is worth 60 satoshi, if btc goes really low are you saying 1 doge = 1 btc? that would be impossible because only 21 mil btc.
Ah, some sense! Now...since btc is based on the dollar, what happens in the bitcoiner's wet dream scenario where the dollar completely crumbles. Considering there's only 20 million bitcoin and several billion people in the world. |
|
|
|
As negative yields stretch further and further out no one knows what will happen. It's unchartered territory.
If SHTF in traditional main st asset classes it could dwarf 08 because there's more debt, more tbtf and no more bullets in the chamber. I have to think in this situation, gold, btc, no debt and hard assets are winners.
yes, when something is unprecedented, we don't know where it is going. For example: if 5 year bonds have negative yield, then short term bonds are likely to have negative yields as well. if short term bonds or notes have negative yield, then money market have to be either subsidized (it could be costly) or also have negative yield. if money market has negative yield, people will take money out as cash as zero (the proverbial mattress) is a better return. I say that if FED is smart, they will try to reignite animal spirits by concentrating on one asset class. Stocks look tired, so the options are gold plus other PM and bitcoin. Bitcoin can be made much more liquid then gold due to it's properties, so my hope would be that they will decide to move bitcoin. However, they might just take no action and be frozen in the headlights of the incoming deflation train. Newsflash: The feds (aka jp morgan) already owns 60% of the world's gold derivatives. It's the modern day hunt brothers scenario, but with much bigger and greedier hands. It's not like they're just suddenly looking to invest. They control the market...and you best believe if shtf the first thing to see an astronomical rise are good ol' tried and tested precious metals. There's a reason why they abandoned the gold standard. Because at the end of the day when all the dust clears, they want to be the only ones holding the loot and having the population on their knees. Bitcoin now and never will be in their sights. If they were really interested in the bitcoin protocol, they'll just create their own coin lol. They have no need for the outdated original bitcoin system. To many people get stuck into the old-world mentality that just because bitcoin was the first and most lucrative of its kind, that it will automatically be the only one standing in x amount of years. But when you really look at it, that couldn't be further from the truth. There are a ton of other alts that are far more superior both in terms of security/anonymity/and transfer times than the original dated protocol. Here's a small golden list of a few other companies/inventions that used to hold the crown early into groundbreaking technologies: Cyrix, AOL, Netscape, Atari, Palm Pilots, Altavista, Lycos, Geocities, Motorola...etc etc |
|
|
|
I find it easier to think of trust backing a currency. Trust of the receiver that the next person will accept the currency for the same value.
If that trust is gone, so is the currency.
Other elements (government, armies) are just derivatives of this main principle.
For 5 years existence, I think 'trust' in Bitcoin is remarkable. No government, no army but it still goes. Time to re-evaluate old dogmas, I would say.
Wise words. However, if we're dealing in a situation where the dollar collapses, it is a completely different ballgame and unchartered territory. Bitcoin having its value directly tied to the dollar right now presents a faster medium for companies to convert over to fiat. They are not holding. Now eliminate fiat from the equation completely. How much 'faith' would these companies have in actually holding/having to deal with other companies to buy/sell/trade goods using this technology themselves? My guess is nowhere close to the same amount. Unless some kind of insurance system is implemented, it's basically the wild wild west for traders and everyday transactions outside of friends and family. Many companies/businesses are holding back some coin. Probably more than you think. Especially at these prices after such a large pull back in price. They are rightly anticipating a turn around. If Bitcoin lacks the confidence and backing you claim it does, why isn't it languishing at a price less than dollar parity, ie, <$1.00? All other worthless fiat currencies are in this range, why not bitcoin? Overstock 10%. Also http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2oypbo/bitpay_employee_here_around_50_of_our_merchants/You made my point. Bitcoin is different than other fiat currencies which is why it's had such superior price performance in such a short time. All about context. 10 percent of 0.1 percent is a basically negligible amount for them, which is why they're doing it. If it goes to 0, it's a tax writeoff. If it takes off to the moon, then their negligible risk pays off fairly handsomely and they can give some high rank employees a christmas bonus. But I'd be happy to hear of more than one example, and for something that's actually substantial. I'm not convinced any company out there is really sticking their tails out and hoarding this stuff long term. Unless they absolutely love playing russian roulette with a loaded gun. |
|
|
|
I find it easier to think of trust backing a currency. Trust of the receiver that the next person will accept the currency for the same value.
If that trust is gone, so is the currency.
Other elements (government, armies) are just derivatives of this main principle.
For 5 years existence, I think 'trust' in Bitcoin is remarkable. No government, no army but it still goes. Time to re-evaluate old dogmas, I would say.
Wise words. However, if we're dealing in a situation where the dollar collapses, it is a completely different ballgame and unchartered territory. Bitcoin having its value directly tied to the dollar right now presents a faster medium for companies to convert over to fiat. They are not holding. Now eliminate fiat from the equation completely. How much 'faith' would these companies have in actually holding/having to deal with other companies to buy/sell/trade goods using this technology themselves? My guess is nowhere close to the same amount. Unless some kind of insurance system is implemented, it's basically the wild wild west for traders and everyday transactions outside of friends and family. Many companies/businesses are holding back some coin. Probably more than you think. Especially at these prices after such a large pull back in price. They are rightly anticipating a turn around. If Bitcoin lacks the confidence and backing you claim it does, why isn't it languishing at a price less than dollar parity, ie, <$1.00? All other worthless fiat currencies are in this range, why not bitcoin? Care to cite some sources on which companies are holding back bitcoin and at what percentages? I'm not talking about individual large scale personal investors, I'm talking about companies. Sorry, you kind of lost me on the last point. You can't seriously be comparing the mintage of bitcoin to that of other national currencies, are you? They are nowhere in the same realm, though certainly a day where the btc market falls under the 20 million dollar market cap is not entirely out of the range of possibility. It was only around 3 years ago when this was the case. |
|
|
|
I find it easier to think of trust backing a currency. Trust of the receiver that the next person will accept the currency for the same value.
If that trust is gone, so is the currency.
Other elements (government, armies) are just derivatives of this main principle.
For 5 years existence, I think 'trust' in Bitcoin is remarkable. No government, no army but it still goes. Time to re-evaluate old dogmas, I would say.
Wise words. However, if we're dealing in a situation where the dollar collapses, it is a completely different ballgame and unchartered territory. Bitcoin having its value directly tied to the dollar right now presents a faster medium for companies to convert over to fiat. They are not holding. Now eliminate fiat from the equation completely. How much 'faith' would these companies have in actually holding/having to deal with other companies to buy/sell/trade goods using this technology themselves? My guess is nowhere close to the same amount. Unless some kind of insurance system is implemented, it's basically the wild wild west for traders and everyday transactions outside of friends and family. |
|
|
|
We shall have to agree to disagree. If you think people will put their blind faith into a system that presents just as much chaos and corruption/if not more than the current fiat system (and thus a haven for hackers and scammers galore)...then I hope it pans out for you. It is pretty much the furthest thing from a safe haven in my eyes. Matter of fact it's pretty much antonymous.
 I do hope someone pays you to post here and you do not actually believe the things you write I'm a trollbear single handedly responsible for creating a bear market and spreading FUD/also the 3rd cousin of Ben Bernanke...why on earth WOULDN'T I be paid to write things? Now how much are they paying you to wear that foil cap? |
|
|
|
How has the 'trust' factor worked out for bitcoin so far?......... Very well I must say. In little over 5 years Bitcoin has managed to grow a market cap of over 1B$. Not so bad for a concept that is quite unlike anything this world has seen. You "transparency" assertion is quite subjective and mostly disingenuous. I will not entertain an argument where one would propose the current financial system is more transparent than the world's biggest open source ledger. Now please spare us the rest of your depressingly unoriginal idiocy and go back to the troll corner where you came from.  Thanks for playing. I'll just take that as a 'I have no valid counterpoints or factual statements' white flag post. inb4 zomg u trollbear zomg fud zomg 2damooooooonnnnnnnnnnn |
|
|
|
weaker currencies --> perceived stronger currencies (U.S. Dollar) --> bitcoin
I don't see metals as useful a currency as bitcoin but they will, of course, appreciate against a collapsing dollar - just not as much as bitcoin in my opinion. Bitcoin could be the safety valve that preserves some semblance of a global economy and a somewhat civilized society since it will allow the continued trade across distance (metals not so much).
You're complicating what should be a simple issue. Resources are exchanged to benefit both transacting parties. You're assuming people find Bitcoin valuable as opposed to food, shelter, visa cards, beanie babies, whatever. Metals are more useful than Bitcoins in some circumstances. Not so in others. Same applies to credit cards, and so on. Under what realistic circumstances would Bitcoin "preserve some semblance of a global economy"? Bitcoin will likely be the final (or only) medium of exchange left that will enable people to trade for the food, shelter, etc. It will enable the global trade across distance to continue because it will be the only trusted currency that is not subject to the risk of being "backed" by the "full faith and credit" of bankrupt governments. It will allow the market economy to continue while preventing the total collapse into a barter economy. In short, it will save many from a lot of pain and suffering. And what exactly is bitcoin 'backed' by? Coins and fiat are backed by physical governments and militia. People can protest and throw rocks at politicians when shtf. You can't throw rocks online at miners maintaining the blockchains, or rogue exchange owners known only by internet screennames. Are you assuming the masses will just put all their 'faith' into a non-reversible, non transparent system backed by anonymous neckbeards should the world crumble? Sounds legit. You make the same mistake I did before I learned economics. Bitcoin is not backed by anything - just like gold isn't. They are each valued for their individual characteristics and utility. Humans impute value - there is no such thing as "intrinsic" or "inherent" value. Perhaps bad wording on my part, as 'intrinsic value' has such a broad range of interpretation. I'll say 'utilitarian value.' Even if gold's market value crashes to 0, it still won't be completely useless, as it can still be utilized in industrial/economic/decorative situations. Now what usefulness would bitcoin present if its market value goes to nil? But that is not the argument you brought forth. Your original proposition is that money must be backed by something when in fact money valued for its characteristics and properties as store-of-value, currency and unit of account. Gold's "industrial" value is irrelevant to this discussion. We shall have to agree to disagree. If you think people will put their blind faith into a system that presents just as much chaos and corruption/if not more than the current fiat system (and thus a sesspool for hackers and scammers galore)...then I hope it pans out for you. It is pretty much the furthest thing from a safe haven in my eyes. Matter of fact it's basically antonymous. |
|
|
|
weaker currencies --> perceived stronger currencies (U.S. Dollar) --> bitcoin
I don't see metals as useful a currency as bitcoin but they will, of course, appreciate against a collapsing dollar - just not as much as bitcoin in my opinion. Bitcoin could be the safety valve that preserves some semblance of a global economy and a somewhat civilized society since it will allow the continued trade across distance (metals not so much).
You're complicating what should be a simple issue. Resources are exchanged to benefit both transacting parties. You're assuming people find Bitcoin valuable as opposed to food, shelter, visa cards, beanie babies, whatever. Metals are more useful than Bitcoins in some circumstances. Not so in others. Same applies to credit cards, and so on. Under what realistic circumstances would Bitcoin "preserve some semblance of a global economy"? Bitcoin will likely be the final (or only) medium of exchange left that will enable people to trade for the food, shelter, etc. It will enable the global trade across distance to continue because it will be the only trusted currency that is not subject to the risk of being "backed" by the "full faith and credit" of bankrupt governments. It will allow the market economy to continue while preventing the total collapse into a barter economy. In short, it will save many from a lot of pain and suffering. And what exactly is bitcoin 'backed' by? Coins and fiat are backed by physical governments and militia. People can protest and throw rocks at politicians when shtf. You can't throw rocks online at miners maintaining the blockchains, or rogue exchange owners known only by internet screennames. Are you assuming the masses will just put all their 'faith' into a non-reversible, non transparent system backed by anonymous neckbeards should the world crumble? Sounds legit. You make the same mistake I did before I learned economics. Bitcoin is not backed by anything - just like gold isn't. They are each valued for their individual characteristics and utility. Humans impute value - there is no such thing as "intrinsic" or "inherent" value. Perhaps bad wording on my part, as 'intrinsic value' has such a broad range of interpretation. I'll say 'utilitarian value.' Even if gold's market value crashes to 0, it still won't be completely useless, as it can still be utilized in industrial/economic/decorative situations. Now what usefulness would bitcoin present if its market value goes to nil? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
