Of course, we have all kind of things going on in bitcoin at the same time in terms of what makes it useful and what makes it valuable and what kinds of liquidation avenues exists (and what kinds of onboarding ways exist). The mere fact that guys might not be searching ways to buy coffee with their bitcoin does not automatically translate into their ONLY "speculating" bullshit dichotomy that you suggested in terms of SCAM and inferences towards those other various dumbass talking points that we heard from the bigblocker nutjobs in 2017 and we hear them repeated from time to time.
The argument that Bitcoin should be used as money is sound. It does not logically lead to the conclusion that we should blow up the blocksize—a non-scaling non-solution which would wreck Bitcoin, like taking cyanide to cure a headache. Strawmanning me with bigblockers is rather unjustified, don’t you think.
No. I think that I made my points. You seem to be making different points.
Do you do the same to Bitrefill, or to the people who build Lightning checkout terminals for literal purchases of cups of coffee?
Yes. Of course, we have a lot going on in bitcoin. Was I saying that systems for spending bitcoin should not be developed? If we have bitcoin, then we can choose whether we want to spend our lil precious or not, though, no?
Seems that I was proclaiming that anyone telling HODLers that we need to spend our bitcoin in order to be a
proper bitcoiner should fuck off. BTC HODLers can do what we want, and hopefully bitcoin gives us options rather than obligations to follow any prescriptions regarding what we need to do in regards to our bitcoin.
I redouble what I said: A thing that exists only for the purpose of trying to resell it for a higher price is a SCAM and a textbook Ponzi scheme.
Apparently we are not talking about bitcoin then.
If you try to contradict and rebut that, you are inviting that your arguments be used and quoted to shill for thousands of worthless shitcoins in WO.
You must be trying to make some different points than me. If you are making some kind of description of what is a scam and what is not a scam and then trying to suggest that some bitcoiners are less than pure because they are thinking about and using bitcoin in ways that seem scammy, then that is your choice... From my perspective, Bitcoin is not a scam,.. and BTC hodlers can choose how to think about bitcoin, how to talk about bitcoin and how to use their bitcoin (or not) too; whether pure speculation or various ways that you believe are not assisting with bitcoin velocity. It's their choice regarding whether and how to use their bitcoin and how to think about it, too.
It's your choice if you want to classify bitcoiners in terms of their views and actions about bitcoin.
[...] like a stock (which is perhaps only part of the story or a temporary status for whatever that bitcoiners might be doing and uie-pooie don't like it) .
Bitcoin is NOT A STOCK, it is NOTHING LIKE A STOCK, and I will rain hellfire on any suggestions that treating it like a stock is somehow acceptable behaviour. I have an absolute, no-compromise, non-negotiable zero-tolerance policy for mistreating Bitcoin as if it’s a quasi-stock.People can treat bitcoin like a stock if they want to. It's their choice.
You misunderstood my point about that.
Want to buy and hold Bitcoin as a speculative investment in a deflationary currency? Fine. HODL.
Want to trade Bitcoin for profit? Fine. Have fun trading high-volatility forex. Indeed, BTC should be a delight to pro forex traders who get bored with chasing a few bps on the EUR/USD pair, or whatever.
Thanks for permission in regards to those possible uses.
Bitcoin is money, i.e., a currency. A stock is not a currency. A stock is nothing like a currency. And in altcoinland, I have recently experienced up-close what happens when people treat an alleged “cryptocurrency” like a stock: Fungibility gets broken, investors with losses demand some sort of a refund (!) based on how much they paid (!!), and greed-blinded scammers throw the door wide open for securities regulators to crack down on their illegal unregistered securities scheme.
Sure bitcoin can be like money, too.. I don't know what shitcoins have to do with this, except that if I have bitcoin and I have shitcoins, then I will most likely spend the shitcoins first.
Your tolerance of thinking of Bitcoin like a stock will lead to:
- 1 BTC ≠ 1 BTC. People who bought BTC for $67,000 will demand special rights and higher equity—because they paid-in a capital contribution larger than people who bought BTC for $200, or for $0.01, or for pizza at a notional rate of 0.0002 unit pizzas per 1 BTC. They will complain that it’s unfair that they paid literally >26,000,000x more for BTC than some other people paid for BTC. Unfair! Think it can’t happen? That is exactly what happened in Terra, where it was deemed “unfair” that some people paid $100 for LUNA, and others paid $0.000003 for LUNA—all in fair-market trades. (Bitcoiner honesty: “A trade happens because both parties think they’re getting a good deal.” — Laszlo Hanyecz.)
That seems to have little to do with whatever points I was making earlier.
- Regulation as a security. Existing laws not only allow, but require securities regulators to regulate stocks. This includes anything that behaves like a stock, on grounds of “looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck”. Some altcoins, some ICOs, and some of the weirder NFT projects have gotten in trouble on such grounds. And if Bitcoin, a decentralized system with no boss, gets infected with the brain-damage of treating BTC like a stock, then there is no way to stop people from corrupting it so that BTC really behaves like a stock.
- Shareholder rights. People who own shares of stock have rights accorded by law and custom. People who buy BTC in the belief that it’s “like a stock” will naturally start to demand those types of rights.
- This list could be continued. I think I’ve made my point.
Yes... You are making a new subject... like a strawman set of arguments to argue with some fictitious character that does not seem to be not me... or maybe you believe that such character is me, but whatever, I was not talking about the kinds of considerations that you are raising... which seem questionably relevant to any points that i had been making.
Bitcoin is now a topic of mass-media headlines. It is attracting buyers who have no idea what it is.
That's true. I doubt that I am contributing to any confusion in regards to what bitcoin is or is not.
I have spoken to people both online and IRL who are just now getting curious about Bitcoin—curious enough to be interested in buying BTC. Not infrequently, their uncomprehending search for a familiar analogy leads them to: “So, Bitcoin is sort of like a stock.”
Whenever I speak with people about bitcoin, I like to attempt to figure out their various reference points, and to attempt to work with them from where they are at.. rather than presuming some kind of hypothetical place that they have to be in order to be a "true bitcoiner."
So if someone said to me that bitcoin is like a stock, then I would start out by saying no.. but if they are not asking my opinion, then maybe we might go further in our conversation in regards to my trying to inquire whether they engage with self-custody or if they hold their BTC with 3rd parties.
Also, if they have already bought bitcoin, then that seems to be a lot better than if they are merely talking hypothetical as a no coiner or as someone who "used-to own" bitcoin. For me, it tends to make more sense to go into details about preferable ways to hold bitcoin in the event that they have actually bought bitcoin already versus if they are speaking hypothetically.
Yes, I have run into quite a few folks in real life who are afraid to try to hold bitcoin on their own.. so they are just getting price exposure by holding it through a third party.. What are we supposed to do, cut off our conversation with them because they are not pure enough for us or impose our values upon them and they will not even follow what we suggest anyhow? Do you believe that you can proclaim some kind of ideal on high and normies will just fall in line and start to do whatever you had proclaimed to be correct because it is a best practice? What if you told them that you like to gamble with your BTC, but they should do something more simple? Do you believe that will be helpful to help to clarify for them what they should do?
It seems that there is only so much that any of us can do when interacting with various normies in real life in terms of even getting them to hold their own keys when they are already barely into bitcoin in the first place, but at least they have taken some pro-active steps by getting some exposure.. versus not having had gotten involved at all... so part of my point is to figure out from where my audience is coming before figure presume too much and start lecturing at them in ways that are too abstract and will not even motivate them anyhow, if they were to be on the cusp of actually getting involved in bitcoin or even moving their keys to some form of self-custody.
That is innocent ignorance, but it is dangerous ignorance: Dangerous to them (it’s a great way to lose money!), and even more dangerous to Bitcoin.
Dangerous to bitcoin.. ok.
It must be corrected—kindly corrected, in the many cases of good-faith confusion, but corrected firmly nevertheless.
It depends. If you actually deal with real people, they tend to be all over the place, even if there may well be some common themes.
As a longtime Bitcoiner, I have a duty to Bitcoin to help keep it healthy by educating the clueless newbies: Bitcoin is absolutely nothing like a stock. Bitcoin is a currency. The correct analogy: Buying BTC is like exchanging your USD to EUR, JPY, etc.
Yes. You can choose how you discuss matters in any way that you like.
This means, among other things:
- When you buy BTC, your paid-in equity is zero.
- You are not making a capital contribution to an enterprise.
- Accordingly, Bitcoin has no memory of what you paid for it.
- When you “buy BTC”, you are exchanging one currency to another. Your then hold that currency, and your holding is denominated exclusively in that currency: 1 BTC = 1 BTC. “1 BTC” has no dollar equivalent, no dollar value—except for the freely-floating market exchange rate of an independent currency, Bitcoin, trading against the dollar.
- By analogy, if you exchange your USD to EUR, the ECB does not keep track of how many dollars you paid-in to their system. You did not make a capital contribution to Europe—not in the sense of purchasing an equity stake in an enterprise. You swapped one currency for another. You now hold hold EUR, not USD. EUR does not have a dollar-denominated value: The value of EUR is denominated in EUR: 1 EUR = 1 EUR. That is easy to understand, and it is nothing like investing in a stock.
Most likely I would not present matters like that, so of course, the choice is yours regarding what you are going to say.
Some aspects of how I talk about bitcoin has changed over the years, but I tend to start out by suggesting that bitcoin is a unique asset class in which everyone should attempt to invest, and currently I am suggesting that such investment should be 1% to 25% of their investment portfolio... so they are the ones who need to both figure out what is goin to be their target BTC accumulation level and also how they are going to get there in terms of DCA, buying on dips and lump sum investing. Once they reach their accumulation level target (or perhaps overallocate into BTC) then thy have more options.
Over the years, I have become more comfortable with how I discuss BTC with people, but of course, I am still learning ways of framing matters too - while at the same time considering attempting to figure out if my audience is even receptive to bitcoin discussions, but if they are somewhat interested, it is helpful to start out with several basics, and whatever the fuck you are talking about in terms of basics seems way too abstract, and I don't consider currency analogy to be very helpful.. even though that is one of bitcoin's possible use cases.
Sure some aspects of bitcoin are changing with the times too.. so there might be lightning developments (even El Salvador's usage as a test location) or legislations to make transacting easier (less burdensome), and these developments might contribute towards my changing some of my ways of talking about bitcoin.. perhaps? perhaps?... not over night, and I am not going to start to insert any of your seemingly overly abstract talking points.
These are not nitpicks, and not idle theories. They are issues both of profound principle, and of grave practical import. Observe my use here of some terminology that has precise, highly significant legal meanings.
From my perspective, most of them come off as a wee bit more abstract than ways in which I prefer to attempt to interact with normies. Sure each of us have our ways of talking, so do what you like. If it works for you when interacting with aliens, then so be it.
We know that Bitcoin is multi-faceted in its use cases. We know that there is a lot of why not both..
Bitcoin has many use cases. Treating it like a stock is NOT one of them, but it does have many use cases.
It seems that you are the one who brought up the idea of treating bitcoin as a stock, and I just said whatever... so it is your talking point, not mine.
Medium of exchange—store of value—sure, why not both. However, the cart cannot come before the horse. Bitcoin’s utility as a medium of exchange is an intrinsic, inseparable part of what gives it the fundamental value that makes it a good store of value. It is not a tangible pretty thing like gold, so its only fundamental value is its nature as a superior form of money.
Comes off as a BIG Blocker nonsense talking point to me. You probably got that wrong in terms of order, but whatever I don't really feel that it is necessary to argue big blocker nonsense talking points that we beat to death for about 4 years or so in this thread from 2016 to 2019... and you want to bring them up again as if they are your own unique perspective?
I should not even need to be responding to any pints that I made, but hey.. I am willing to entertain matters to some extent including to point out that we know that Gresham's law exists too, along the side of at least 7 network effects that are still building in connection with bitcoin and are at various stages of their growth as well as that some of those same network effects build upon others, snowballing and feedback loops..
All of those theories about Gresham’s Law and network effects stand on my premise that
Bitcoin is money. Not a stock. Definitely not a Ponzi that exists only for resale to the greater fool.
You seem to be creating some false frameworks. bitcoin is the strongest of monies.. so likely spend it last. People can decide these matters for themselves in regards to which monies they want to spend first, and if you want to spend your bitcoin first, then that is your choice.. you probably are going to regret it because you had not realized that it s the one that you should have been spending last... each person decides for himself. The seven or more Network effects are an existing phenomena that we could measure if we wanted to.
Again, you seem to be creating some false dichotomies and even wrong thinking if you believe everything is premised upon spending first.. but you can believe what you like.
I’m not sure why you are arguing with my premise, when it is a prerequisite for your conclusions.
It's not. I am not arguing.. Go do what you like, believe what you like and propagate the information that you like..
Furthermore, in the spirit of Gresham's law, if we already can appreciate that Bitcoin is the best of moneys, why would we want to spend it first (as I already referred to that)?..
I did hint that “go out and spend your coins!” is, in itself, not exactly the best financial advice. I myself hate to spend my BTC savings; if possible, I prefer to use Bitcoin as a payment rail, sort of like my own personal version of Strike. When that is not a practical option (as it often is not), I have developed over the years some methods of personal finance accounting that help me to reduce or avoid the negative effect of spending my BTC—in essence, ways of managing currency exchange risk when I hold an
extremely volatile currency.
Your not exactly being clear.
Since I keep my primary savings in BTC, aversion to spending BTC is a part of how I got in trouble with debt. A few months ago, I tried settling some BTC-spending transactions by borrowing dollars against BTC, using the dollars to buy BTC, and then immediately spending what was effectually margin-buy BTC.
I doubt that we want to listen to you in regards to either how to manage our BTC or how to not manage our BTC. With any kind of debt it is good to have options in terms of servicing it.. such as a cashflow... or other liquidation items that are not volatile in the same way.
and[/i] to avoid exchange rate risk, since I was essentially doing an unprofitable arbitrage trade on margin. Needless to say, this use of debt turned out to be a very bad idea (although doing similarly with fiat cash would probably be wise).
We have to be careful not to be too clever... or too clever for our own good.
Much though I loathe spending my own BTC, I also actively seek to use BTC as money—to use it one of my most preferred payment methods, and to support vendors who accept BTC. The effort and the unfortunate risks that I have taken to reconcile these two conflicting goals shows, at least, that I put my money where my mouth is.
I doubt that you are clear in a situation that would be any kind of potentially generally applicable one that can be used by a lot of guys..especially if you are keeping a lot of value in BTC and maybe you do not even have enough other kinds of cash reserves?
Many of us have value that is in BTC and also value that is pegged to the dollar. So usually we might have our expenses projected out for 6-24 months in the future.. so of course, if we have investments other than bitcoin, we can choose how much allocation to keep in each of those assets, too.. but then the main two for discussion purposes of this thread are dollars (or other fiat) and BTC.
If you start playing around with one of them or the other of them (BTC and dollar in this case), then you are gambling, so I frequently suggest that we need to try to lessen the extent to which we are gambling with our investment portfolio, so we should be trying to develop systems to continue to increase our investment portfolio without putting principle at risk, and the more that we build a cushion in assets that we are holding in our investment portfolio, then the more options that we have to shave some of them off at times of our own choosing.
Yes, maybe I am also devolving into too much abstraction, but just getting to the point of figuring out your investment portfolio0 can take some time before figuring out how to manage it, so cashflow, timeline, other investments, view of bitcoin as compared with other investments, risk tolerance, and time, skills and abilities to plan, strategize, learn and tweak along the way which might include the employment of trading, reallocating, leverage, financial instruments. .. But surely, the more basic techniques should be employed and honed before attempting to employ more advanced techniques.
Poll
