 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »
|
you can not compare value of bitcoin with value of something like gold when they don't follow the same unit of measurement. it is like saying you are taller than 1 kilogram!
when you say value of bitcoin you are talking about value of 1.00000000 BTC and when you say value of gold you are saying value of 1 OZ of gold not 1 kilogram or 1 ingot, 1 grain, 1 troy ounce,... so first clarify why you are comparing the biggest unit of bitcoin (1 whole BTC) with smallest unit of gold and why aren't you using the smallest unit of bitcoin (1 satoshi) to do the comparison.
How many kilograms are you tall? Jee, I don't know ... how many meters are you old?  I'll add this: Instead of comparing how long gold and Bitcoin exist as money, why don't we compare how widespread is their acceptance as money today? Gold today, in its different forms (jewel, coins, bars etc.) is recognised as money by around 100% of the world population. Bitcoin: end of March 2019 there were 35 million Blockchain wallets. Even if all of them have Bitcoins... even if each wallet belongs to a different person... even if each Bitcoin owner considers Bitcoin a money, and not just a gambling or investing vehicle... ... that's 0,5% or the world population. Gold acceptance as money: 100% Bitcoin acceptance as money: 0,5% |
|
|
|
Do you think the emergence of banking and corporate digital currencies will take away from the original cryptocurrencies or can they live in harmony?
For people looking for decentralisation, Stablecoins are not a viable competition to decentralised cryptos. On the other hand, where Stablecoins are needed, those are areas where decentralised cryptos hadn't come into play anyway. so no possible competition. Decentralized cryptocurrencies and centralised ones (Stablecoins) can live in harmony, as each one serves a different purpose and areas |
|
|
|
Just after the financial crisis in 2009, the journalist Scott Pelley asked Ben Bernanke on the 60 minutes CBS TV show where did they get the money for the AIG bailout in march 14, 2009? was these money of the taxpayer people?
He just said:"No. It isn't money from the taxpayers. The banks has it's own accounts with the Federal Reserve as well as you can have one with one commercial bank."
He continued: "In such way, to loan to a bank, one just simply uses the computer to mark up the size of the account they had with the Federal Reserve"
Basically there are 2 ways to steal money from the people 1) Taxes 2) Depreciating people's money Nr. 1 is made by the Govs Nr. 2 is made by the central banks (currency production --> currency depreciation) Nr. 2 is much more painless, so it is the preferred way of the Govs, as the mass media have succeeded to convince us that inflation is normal. |
|
|
|
I think this is not what OP meant
It seems like he refers to Bitcoin's value which it would have if there were no speculation ("bitcoin gains its value from itself and its features"), i.e. the value which comes through its real use, for example, by having "really convenient functionality for p2p payments". The difference is that the value which is reflected by the market (read, its price at some point in time) also includes Bitcoin's utility for speculation (i.e. how much you can potentially earn with it), and I daresay most if its value comes through this utility, not so much via its real use (for payments or whatever)
Good remarks! We must differentiate between value and price. Price is simply the result of ask and bid, and can be influenced, e.g., by speculation, which today - as you rightly point out - seems to be the main factor of cryptos price movements. Value concerns the role and the benefits offered by a currency within the economy of a country. |
|
|
|
But if we say that the increase in paper money provokes inflation, then this process has real leverage to avoid bankruptcy by the country.
The opposite is true: the increase in paper money provokes the bankruptcy of a country, as it destroys confidence in its national currency. |
|
|
|
@BobK71
Why worry about FB coin? Most countries won't allow this coin. Some countries have already started to be clear saying FB won't be able to issue coins here. The minority who will be using this currency will be from tier 3 countries, I bet you won't see it in westerner countries.
Also it's easy to block FB currency since there is a company behind, while because it's not possible.
As Libracoins are backed through western Gov Bonds too, Govs will be more than happy to help Libra. They have found a big new source to finance their debt. Sometime politician's opposition is put up just in order to save face, in which case it is just fake opposition. |
|
|
|
But seriously, what is the innovation gold itself will bring towards the future?
Gold can be owned and handled in many forms. Physical, ETF's shares, gold certificates, etc... and as gold-backed Stablecoins. I find the latter ones very innovative. Merging gold stability, the centuries old trust that people have in gold as money, with the benefits of blockchain, creating a form of digital money suitable to the needs of today's society |
|
|
|
With crypto there will be no forgery of money
Right. As long as coins can't be arbitrarily multiplied, they are a superior form of money vs. fiat currencies. That's why we need cryptocurrencies |
|
|
|
Gold is more stable and has a long history, while bitcoin can be used anytime and can be selled, to sell gold can take a lot of time if is physically hold at home. But bitcoin is indeed the crypto king and is more faster to use if want to buy or sell.
Yes.. that is definitely one of the advantages with Bitcoin. Since it is a digital asset, you can move the coins very easily to any corner of the world. And you have the freedom to sell them in an exchange which gives you the best rate. On the other hand, moving physical gold is not that easy. You have limited options, and almost always you may get 2% to 3% lower prices than the prevailing market rates. You are right. That's why they have created gold-backed Stablecoins |
|
|
|
This investment can be considered modern because it uses a computerized system and internet network in the form of virtual money.
Gold-backed Stablecoins too use a computerised system and internet network, in order offer digital money. Bitcoin is digital gold.
Gold-backed Stablecoins are real gold, digitally traded. This bitcoin investment has advantages or pluses from the ease of running it. Bitcoin investment is fairly easy because it can be done remotely (online) from wherever the investor is. Only by turning on the computer or smartphone and internet network, then you are ready to run this investment. The value of this investment is easily stored on a hard disk device used.
Same is true for gold-backed Stablecoins |
|
|
|
@coolcoinz,
I don't know where you read me suggesting that fiat currencies will survive until the end of the century.
Try to read my messages and you will see that nowhere I suggested something link that.
Commodities can become currencies if they are put on the blockchain, so to speak, i.e. if they are used to back cryptos.
In fact, something like that exists already. They call them x-backed Stablecoins, where x is a commodity.
Certain commodities were currencies, for example gold. They called it Gold Standard and it worked well until the Central Banks took control of the financial system and imposed their fake money.
Gold can be a currency again as a gold-backed Stablecoin.
Commodity-backed Stablecoins are cryptos, I guess, that's why we can talk about them in a fiat vs. crypto thread.
It seems we didn't understand each other. You said that I'm considering fiat currencies at the point of collapse, my response was that they all have a point of collapse as they all had it in the past. If we compare it to bitcoin we'll see that many of them went through hyperinflation and died in less than 10 years from being released, which makes them much more volatile in general terms. Ok. We agree about fiat currency collapsing some day. We disagree about which period we have to look at in order to consider the volatility of fiat currency: you look at the collapsing-period, I look at the normal-period. Even if a commodity becomes a currency it still won't be fiat currency. In your own words, a commodity backed stablecoin is a cryptocurrency (which is something the community has yet to agree on), but if we talk about them here what are we going to compare them to in a crypto vs fiat thread? They aren't very volatile, so in these terms cryptos score even better.
You are right. It is not clear what cryptocurrencies means. There are those who don't think commodities-backed Stablecoins should be considered cryptocurrencies. There are those who don't even think that Stablecoins altogether should be considered cryptocurrencies. For me, cryptocurrencies are currencies (means of payment) that use blockchain, blockchain-based currencies. "They aren't very volatile, so in these terms cryptos score even better." EXACTLY!!! That's the point! "Fiat VS. Crypto, which is a more stable currency?" As far as volatility is concerned... Cryptos! Just use some commodity and back them up. We don't need to look at collapsing scenarios, even in normal times cryptos are more stable than fiat. Do you want to make cryptos win vs. fake money? Back them up with gold. Problem solved. Cryptos win. Anyway, like you said it's a tricky question. As a fiat hater I took the obvious stance. The stability of fiat is fake, superficial, like that house that looks good on the outside but is ready to collapse and when it happens it's going to be quick and sudden.
I 100% agree. The stability of fiat is fake. People believe that fiat is stable because of those manipulated statistics about inflation rates. This is fiat's true stability  |
|
|
|
From what I have seen so far in this forum and other crypto platforms, most of us want fiat eliminated. But let us not forget that there are still situations whereby we can't use crypto except fiat like in rural places without computers or even internet facilities.
I think things get mixed up here. You confuse paper money with fiat money. Paper money are banknotes. They can be backed by gold, Bitcoin etc. The banknotes that we know (cash) are backed by the law. We are forced by law to accept them as money. They are legal tender. Fiat money is currency created by a monetary authority out of thin air, ex nihilo. Today it happens through the Central Banks, by keystrokes. Being created arbitrarily, fiat money historically devaluates. No exception. Bitcoin's attractively is that the number of coins cannot be increased arbitrarily. What most of us want is the elimination of fiat currencies (fake money), not of cash |
|
|
|
Libra's value will be pegged to a basket of dollars, euro, etc. by the Central Bank of Facebook.
No only. Libra will be backed also by Gov bonds. It will work like that: Users give their money to Libra in exchange for Libracoins. Libra will buy Gov bonds with the money of the users, in order to back its coins. Libra will keep the yields of the Gov bonds bought with the users' money. Evil geniuses |
|
|
|
|
Cryptos' value consists in their usability, in their potential or actual role within the financial system, in the benefits they offer to the participants.
Cryptos that get used just as a speculative vehicle, a way to make money quickly, like most cryptos today, in my view have no value.
|
|
|
|
The biggest threat to fiat money is inflation. Inflation can be cured by injecting wealth into the economy and by that rising enough belief to keep the system afloat.
You can't inject wealth into the economy. You can inject currency into the economy. That create inflation. The idea that injecting currency into the economy create wealth is wrong. On the long run, it only unsettles the currency. The biggest threat to fiat money is inflation. Inflation can be cured by injecting wealth into the economy and by that rising enough belief to keep the system afloat.
Inflation can be cured by stopping the creation of currency out of thin air, by keystrokes. This is Bitcoin's superiority vs. fiat money: its quantity cannot get increased arbitrarily |
|
|
|
This volatile it nature of Bitcoin only makes all the people to talk ok about Bitcoin and do investment over cryptocurrencies. If there is no volatile you will not find this much cryptocurrencies in the market place and no one believe that this cryptocurrency is there have it's values.
I agree, the main reason why people invest in bitcoin is its volatility, if volatility is not present then no one would have invested in cryptocurrencies. Volatility is already tied up with bitcoin or cryptocurrencies so it will really stay no matter what. "the main reason why people invest in bitcoin is its volatility" True "if volatility is not present then no one would have invested in cryptocurrencies" The opposite is the case. Most investors, private but particularly institutional ones, are not invested in cryptos precisely because of its volatility. Think for example pension funds, or sovereigns. They are prevented to invest in assets volatile like Bitcoin. That explains the current success of stablecoins. |
|
|
|
@ Jet, you have a typo on your site: Jet Cash is the sobriquet used by Kuffy for his activities in the world of ctypto-currencies  Pythagoras copyrighting the Pi --> Family Tree Research, the most lucrative business in Greece Bitcoin as a virtual asset having real, not just fiat value. That's an interesting concept. I must admit, I'm not there yet. Today someone wrote that Bitcoin is information, and as such, at least in the USA, it is protected by the 1st amendment, which would make impossible for the US authorities to ban it. Interesting ideas |
|
|
|
It will be a tool for them. A lot of people especially in underdeveloped countries still don't have access to banking; and while some people on some countries do, their country's economy is nowhere near healthy(e.g. Venezuela). Bitcoin can be their hedge against the heavy deflation of their county's currency. Yes, Bitcoin is volatile. But I'd take price volatility than guaranteed losses through inflation.
Good observation! a) being unbanked and b) having a currency subject to depreciation, are two major reasons to use cryptos. (I'm not sure about bitcoin being the best remedy for that, but that's another story.) Statistics show that cryptos adoption is indeed mostly widespread in developed countries https://www.statista.com/chart/18345/crypto-currency-adoption/ |
|
|
|
|
