|
Bitcoin and gold have different properties, and Bitcoin has weaknesses that won't allow it to fully replace gold.
- Bitcoin relies on cryptography and code and hardware. Those things are not 100% secure.
- Bitcoin needs internet connection, which might be taken down
- Imagine if China will restrict all computers that are being sold on their market to only be compatible with their own OS that won't allow running Bitcoin. We take free Internet and software for granted, but what if it will change in the future? At least in some parts of the world?
- Bitcoin is still considered an experiment. This is not my words, it's the words of Bitcoin devs. It is very succesful, but it's still not 100% set in stone. While gold has been a store of value for thousands of years.
|
|
|
|
NFTs have various use cases, one of which is gaming and it has added a lot of value to this industry because players wanted to earn while playing games and this gave them an opportunity.
Gamers don't want to earn money from games, they want to play them and have fun, and they are ready to pay big money for that. The only ones who want to earn are people from third world countries who are ready to jump at any opportunity. NFTs made enough money to a set of poor and middle class people and has the ability to grow more.
Most of the people who profited from NFT were already rich, either it's the famous artists or rich investors/speculators. These rich guys have not yet looked into NFT markets, else you may also see them manipulating this market for their own monetary benefits.
That's exactly what's happening, rich people make fake buys of NFTs, hoping that another rich sucker will buy it at an inflated price. |
|
|
|
|
IMO NFT is way worse than art market, because art actually can have a legitimate value and it's always an item that you actually own, but with NFT you only own a digital token and someone said it represents something, but in most cases there's actually no way to enforce your ownership. Like how Dorsey sold the first tweet as NFT - where's guarantee that he will not delete or edit it? Without government's legal recognition of NFT they are nothing more than pinky promises.
|
|
|
|
|
No it won't, crypto operates on a principle of a single global network, and you just can't keep it in sync without faster-than-light communications, which as we know now are impossible. In the future distant places will have local payment systems that will be at certain interval matched synchronized with some sort of central database on Earth, for example. So a payment from Mars to Earth would take quite some time, but payment on Mars will be as fast as it's currently on Earth.
|
|
|
|
However, you are missing a point, top countries are different and most of them are Western countries that are totally different than China. In China, government controls all, there is no separations of power like in Wester countries. In Western countries, governments will face with serious demonstrations from their citizens that might lead to uncertainty in society that they don't want to face with.
Serious demonstrations? I very much doubt that, only a few percent of people use Bitcoin, and for any sort of protest to have a chance of success, it must be supported by at least 20-30% of the population. The thing that can more effectively stop such ban is political lobbying done by business that is interested in crypto, like exchanges, ETFs, companies. This is why the ongoing institutional adoption is a positive thing. |
|
|
|
|
People have no reasons to look at Bitcoin, because they are generally satisfied with banks. Even if they have a problem with their current bank, they will just choose from a dozen of alternatives rather than consider crypto. And the problems that bitcoin enthusiasts often mention - like frozen bank accounts, long transactions times, all that stuff - it only affects a tiny portion of users, so really most people just don't see the benefits of using Bitcoin as a currency. This is why hodling/investing is the biggest use case of Bitcoin right now.
|
|
|
|
Since when "real" money is not being traded for all short of game items? Why is this different from, for example, paying a large sum for a "Black Lotus" in the game Magic, or buying Warhammer figurines? The fact that transactions take place in crypto and that the items out there are digital should not confused with scams. This comment should really be revised as it puts all crypto on the same sack.
Because some of these blockchain games are akin to ICO scams - the devs are selling tokens that should be representing items in a finished game, but then the game is never released, or is released in a very raw state and a lot of the promised features are missing. Steam didn't just ban games that feature crypto payments, they banned games based around tokens, because these games are primarily used for speculative investing. |
|
|
|
|
HODL only applies to Bitcoin, because Bitcoin is a solid technology with strong fundamentals. It has a good reason to be worth more in the future than it is today, because it actually has users and adoption is going on, and more people - from small retail investors to billionaires and top economists, start to acknowledge it as a store of value. But nothing like that happens to shitcoins, their value is based on the hype and bigger fool theory - they grow because the buyers believe they will sell it to someone for a much higher price, that's the only purpose of shitcoins like DOGE. Sooner or later they will reverse their direction and crash very hard and won't rise again, because this hype can't go on forever.
|
|
|
|
This might be a bit niche as a topic, but it might be of interest to some. In short the head of money laundering bureau in Estonia has gone to media with the suggestion to either revoke or review all crypto licenses issued in the country. For context Estonia houses about 400 companies that own crypto license.
Does this one man alone has the power to do this? Or does he need support from the government or parliament? It's so common in crypto journalism to have a title that talks about a country, but when you open the article it says literally one official stated their own opinion. But I wonder what made them consider such move? Is Estonia becoming a hub for international money laundering via crypto, or is it a purely domestic thing? |
|
|
|
|
If a ban on mining can effectively reduce hashrate of a country to zero, then this is an argument against the statement that Bitcoin can't be shut down by government. If all those top countries decided to ban Bitcoin, where would the miners move? To countries with a fraction of electricity producing capabilities? That would mean Bitcoin's network would take a large hashrate hit, which means reduced security. So while Bitcoin can't be literally shut down, it can be very seriously harmed by governments, if they decided to act against it together.
|
|
|
|
It would be nice to think that this was Steam taking a stand to protect their users and there is an element of that taking place, but let's face it - Steam is doing this because it moves transactions outside of their ability to charge a commission and that will be the primary motivation for stopping such activity. They do get to claim it is about a security issue however and there is a valid concern that many cryptocurrencies are being abused to target people who may not understand the underlying system. I find what you said about games introducing real money a bit unusual, because so many games on the steam platform allow this sort of activity (e.g. Team Fortress 2 with all it's paid weapons).
If a game bypasses Steam's payments, then why should Steam even host it? Steam is not a charity, they have full right to kick game developers who try to avoid paying for their use of the platform. As for real money, it's somewhat tolerable when it only happens with cosmetics, but these blockchain games tend to bring real money into gameplay items too, which significantly reduces player's experience and leads to frustration. |
|
|
|
That's because no single person or group of persons is or are in control of Cryptos, it's called Blockchain technology
It's a decentralised system meaning money sent or received from or to an account can be seen or monitored by everyone or anyone who wishes to
Unlike your normal bank that has CEO who decides how he wants to run his business, he can collaborate with the president to Syphon millions of dollars and no one will know about it
Governments would never store their budgets in crypto. Crypto wallets can be hacked and after that there's zero chance to return your money. Have you ever heard about hackers stealing a country's budget? That never happened, because these centralized systems have lots of transaction validation done by humans when an amount is large enough. So if a corrupt political will want to steal money with crypto, he will just say "oops, hackers stole a few million, you guys know how it is, no one is safe from crypto hackers". Also a lot of embezzlement happens through various schemes that simultaneously launder money, like ordering something for higher than market prices and then pocketing the difference. Crypto doesn't help here. |
|
|
|
If at least they would be real games, in fact, they are just demanding you money in order to buy some worthless tokens that you can "invest" in stuff
Nothing different from any pay-to-win game where they give a few free actions a day and that's it, for the rest you need tokens, most of them are below zoo tycoon or quake when it comes to the actual gaming experience, every single of those games has a free-to-play counterpart that is at least 100 times more fun to play.
Once the hype dies down and nobody is able to sell his game assets with a profit the games go down, with all the billions in the market cap the token has.
Even if someone managed to create a blockchain game with fun gameplay, having real money involved would only hurt it. It would attract countless botters and hackers, and pay-to-win mechanics are generally very frowned upon among gamers. It's a really good example of how blockchain peddlers have zero understanding of the industries they are trying to improve with their wonderwful technology. |
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SpacePirate_io/status/1448713803680473089Steam decided to kick all blockchain games because they tend to feature real money trading for in-game items. IMO this is a good decision, at the current state blockchain games are just another vehicle for speculative investments and even scams, and unsuspecting people shouldn't be lured into them. And I can't agree that blockchain is the future for gaming, I'm a gamer myself and I never thought "Oh how I fish this game was running on blockchain". I never had any problems with centralized game servers, so why fix what is not broken? Especially since it's the blockchain that has problem like high fees, bugs in smart contracts, confirmation times. Not to mention that introducing real money into games tends to leading into very poor ecosystem.
|
|
|
|
But at the same time, it's understandable the numbers are low, who would use bitcoin to buy stuff in a bull run? It's damn normal, even I would do the same.
The poeple who don't care about BTC have long sold their 30$, the rest are keeping them or if they buy on top of that hold that also, so I assume that just as in other countries the percentage factual daily-weekly user would be around 1% of the ones holding coins.
So, when Bitcoin is in bull market, no one wants to pay with it because it will go higher, but when it's in bear market people either panic sell it for fiat or double down on hodling because now it's too low to spend it. This is why volatility is so harmful to Bitcoin's adoption as a currency. |
|
|
|
If Tesla (EM) did not sell all that BTC, then it would be more accurate to say that it is an unrealized profit - and EM has stated that it has no intention of selling that BTC, although this may change at any time. In addition, Tesla appears to have bought a total of 46 000 BTC at an average price of $32 610, but sold 10%, so the total amount of BTC is now 41 400 currently worth 2.375 billion.
This was my first thought too, but journalists like to count someone's unrealized gains and losses, titles like "billionaires made trillions in last year" actually mean the same thing as in this article. And I think in this case it's a positive thing, because people who will hear that Elon Musk made a billion from Bitcoin could get interested and eventually buy their first coins too. |
|
|
|
|
I'd like to get a direct source for that, cause in this article the words "bitcoin" and "cryptocurrency" are interchangeably used. I've seen many times titles like "country X supports Bitcoin" and then you read the article and they are actually talking about CBDC or stablecoins.
I hope people won't start saying that "Russia will make Bitcoin a legal tender" and include it in that fake list of countries that will adopt Bitcoin next.
|
|
|
|
The CCP has planted the seeds of the rebellion that will throw them out of power and they don't even know it.
Do you seriously believe that people will rebel because of crypto? China has been a totalitarian country for many-many years, and they literally mowed down people on the streets because they tried to protest. And currently hundreds of thousands of people are in concentration camps because of their religion. What crypto ban means is that millions of people who would have liked to invest in crypto or use it will now won't do it because of the fear of being prosecuted. For most people crypto investment is no something worth risking going into prison. |
|
|
|
|
Inflation means the growth of prices due to the loss of value of currency. Since no one is using gold as a currency, even if its value was decreasing due to increased supply, it won't cause inflation.
Bitcoin can't fully replace gold as store of value, because they have different properties. Being physical or digital can both be advantage or disadvantage in different situations. And in some point in the future Bitcoin will finally reach "moon" and it will start behaving more like gold with small yearly gains.
|
|
|
|
|
As crypto gets more regulated, eventually major governments will start blocking non-compliant exchanges - they will simply disconnect them from Visa/Mastercard so you could only trade crypto to crypto, which you can already do on decentralized exchanges. I think this will happen in the next 3-5 years as regulators have already turned their attention to crypto.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
