This is the first bit of useful information anyone has been able to tell me about it. Now though, what would make this more useful than handling insurance the traditional way? What exactly is the revolution here?

I have always said this. The volatility makes bitcoin impractical as a currency. I would much prefer bitcoin trade in a very tight range of lower value than a highly variable range that is higher. For example, it's more useful as a currency if it trades between $200-$205 than if it trades between $600 and $750, even though the low range is three times higher. It's just not useful when the value changes so drastically, but naturally, people are lured by the prospect of the gamble.

I think he's talking about the inflationary supply of the newly minted coins. The rate they are produced is halved, but it's not the same as supply.

I would assume that most of the increase has already been baked into the current price. Everyone has known about the halving, and everyone is of the mind it will increase the price. From that perspective, consider that the price has risen from $220 in August of 2015 to $410 in March of 2016, a slow and steady increase of 86% shortly before the halving.

Coincidence?

Price is always determined by what active supply and active demand is for the coins being traded, which is far smaller than the amount that is accessible, which is smaller than the total amount in existence. As coins are lost, it decreases the accessible supply, which can affect active supply and affect price that way. It's rather a moot point as long as we're still in a highly inflationary period though.

Let's first just take your sentence and try to get you to reach a conclusion. "All of the money we work for is backed by a debt that will never be paid." Let's just assume everything about that is true. So what? What exactly do you think that means? How do you think that makes you an indentured servant? Do you think the job you work is because of the central bank and not because you need to perform something of value to the economy in order to eat? Are you under the delusion that you work directly for the central bank, and that you don't have a choice in the matter? Do you think this "debt" means the money in your wallet is owed to someone, or is going to be called in to pay the "debt?" Do you think that the central bank issuing fiat is the reason you have to work or that the work you do is to pay back the central bank's debt? You must think these things, otherwise I can't wrap my head around what you think is the implication for this statement.

Now let's follow through on your premise to a conclusion. Money is issued by debt that cannot be repaid, according to you. So I guess first you're assuming that it needs to be, which isn't true. Fiat is issued through debt, and if they the issuer wanted to collect on the debt, all they'd be doing is devaluing the money they collect. Fiat money is a zero sum game because it is simply a representation of the value of the goods and services in an economy. So it doesn't matter how much money is issued, it doesn't change how much goods and services exist in an economy. If the "debt" can never be repaid, it doesn't matter. Fiat is only representative value anyway. So call in all the loans on the "debt," all the issuer would be doing is collecting worthless paper, and the more they collect the more worthless it is. This is why the debt never has to be repaid, or actually, can't be, and why it doesn't mean anything sinister for the economic system. Goods and services have value independent of fiat. Fiat doesn't give goods and services value, goods and services give fiat value, because fiat is just the means of trade.

But this is incredibly shortsighted. Already there is progress in alternative energy for transportation. Natural gas is used as an alternative in the heavy duty trucking industry, and in fleet operations (companies and cities that run buses or waste removal services are the largest users of natural gas for trucking and buses), and then there is Tesla and the innovations they are making and forcing other automobile manufacturers to also compete in electric vehicles. Oil is still cheap and easy, and we've built 100 years of infrastructure that runs on oil for transportation. You can't just flip a switch and and switch fuels, but progress is being made. All that said, oil will be the dominant transportation fuel for the next 30 years, but we've all known for a very long time that oil is finite and another plan would be needed.

How can you possibly have bitcoin in physical form?

I see the guy who was such an Ethereum expert never came back to justify his position or answer any questions. Doesn't lend very much credence to the notion this isn't a massive pump.

Sorry you're having so much trouble with this. I clearly stated what the anecdotal data point was:  it is presently more profitable to refine oil to gasoline than normal because gasoline prices have not fallen as much as oil. This is only a temporary circumstance, oil and gas prices normally track each other very reliably.

So unless your thesis is Buffet is making a major short term investment (something anathema to his entire investing career) to take advantage of a temporary condition, you have to conclude he's not investing in a circumstance, but a profitable company that will return value over many years, which is consistent with every investment he's made through Berkshire and consistent with the strategy he elucidates in his shareholder letters about exactly what his strategy is.

I've already stated my point, sorry if you can't keep up. Buffet doesn't gamble, he invests. Read his shareholder letters over the last 30 years. He publishes them every year, and states in very clear language what his investment strategy is. I'm sure you're very sure he's gambling on oil price, but he isn't. He's a fundamentalist as an investor, which is the opposite of speculation. He buys companies that make solid, dependable money regardless of what the market as a whole is doing, and when the the market is pessimistic about a sector or industry, he can swoop in for a better price. That's what he did with CSX, Heinz, and that's what he's doing here, except he's opportunistically buying shares instead of the whole company.

How is it you think that in a financial crash, the most volatile and speculative asset is going to skyrocket it value? In times of crisis, people flee to safety, not flock to a gamble.

You are. You are wrongly drawing a conclusion that isn't sound, and you've apparently taken one data point of anecdotal evidence in the article to try and claim that he's betting on the price of oil because in the present instance, it is more profitable to refine oil to gasoline than normal because gasoline prices have not fallen as much as oil. This is only a temporary circumstance, oil and gas prices normally track each other very reliably.

Also, if you would have bothered to read the sub headline of your own source, you would see clearly what the article is talking about:


Emphasis added, but notice your own source that you claim is so definitive definitively states that Buffet's bet is on the sector, not the price of oil.

So there you have it, plain-as-day proof from your own source that the conclusion you drew is incorrect.

No, he doesn't have to be betting on the price of oil at all. He doesn't care what the price of oil is because it's not material to this business's ability to turn a profit. It makes a profit when oil prices are high, it makes a profit when oil prices are low. The decision to buy these shares is completely price agnostic. He's taking advantage of an opportunity to buy cheap stock because pessimism in the entire oil industry has whacked all oil companies, regardless of what part of the oil production cycle they are in.  This is the strategy he has executed his entire life: buy good companies when others' fear drives the price down. It's not a bet on what oil is going to do at all, just that this business is going to continue to make money and he can buy a lot of it more cheaply than normal right now.

I cannot imagine how indentured servitude and fractional reserve banking are anywhere near being analogous, but I'd be open to considering your view on it if you write it out. However your overly generalized statement that the rich do not deserve what they have because you've lazily assumed that there's no way it could have been justly derived and therefore it is proper to take it away is an immoral argument because it requires the initiation of force to do so.

State-controlled crypto defeats the purpose of having crypto. State-controlled electronic money is basically the current system we have, since the vast majority of fiat money exists electronically anyway.

It's pretty obvious that I'm talking about market capitalization, and that market capitalization is what matters. And a coin cannot drop in value by 50000%. Once it drops 100%, it's worth zero.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not representing that bitcoin was first therefore will always be preeminent. I'm just asking for some justification for this bubble.

In some cultures, castes are almost a physical barrier. Certain members of of society are not permitted to interact with higher status members, and are not permitted to hold certain jobs. That system doesn't exist in America. America does not have a caste system. You can make an argument (unconvincingly) that our economic system is a type of defacto caste system, but that's 1) not the same, and 2) not an overly interesting debate to me because I've had it so many times.

So moving on to what I do find interesting:

The initiation of force is unjustifiable. The only morally acceptable force you will be able to list will be responses to people who unjustifiably initiate aggression. Police do not initiate force, they respond. When police are the ones who initiate force, the public rightly throws a conniption over it. Community-based force is immoral when it is initiated against life, liberty, or property, but never in defense of innocents.

The initiation of "community force" to correct an "immoral reality" (and I'm using quotes on that term because it's highly subjective) is indeed immoral. In every instance, the initiation of force is immoral.

Your example about using force to chew food is irrelevant. I'm not sure why you would even write that. As for your other examples, using force to protect a community is reactionary, not initiation. Force to protect a person is defensive, not initiation. And force by it's nature carries a moral position, you cannot use force without assigning a moral value to it. And most of our laws carry the implicit understanding that using force is only morally acceptable in defense of life, liberty, and property. It is the initiation of force that is immoral.

Along that line, there would be a strong incentive to be able to hack and manipulate a foreign nation's money supply since they would have no physical currency to fall back on. It would almost guarantee that nations attempt it as an economic warfare contingency.