How do you imagine this adoption taking place? A country just exchanging their fiat, together with their national wealth to bitcoin? So that artificial deficit could be created, with driving the price up 1000000000% and with actually only changing about 2% of total bitcoins to the wealth of that country? And so the rest who own the 98% and who didn't sell, will actually be the new owners of that countries national wealth?
I am more in awe of the current financial system, where people are supposedly fighting to be integrated to a block, which a) immediately takes your gold reserves and transports them away, never to be seen; b) replaces your non-debt based currency with a debt-based, so that every time you want to obtain medium of exchange or store value, somebody, somewhere has to go deeper in debt; c) typically the one that goes into debt, though, is you; d) the interest of this (fabricated and imaginary) debt is paid to private bankers and does not benefit you; e) you are not in Mundell optimum with this currency and your economy is destroyed by this, among other things.
The adoption is quite easy, anyone can buy bitcoins and trade with them. The state also accumulates. Prices are quoted in an independent banana currency that depreciates against bitcoin. When nobody wants the banana currency any more, its value has gone to zero and it is scrapped, everybody uses bitcoin. Simple things are good.
you could actually believe things like "a country would be insanely rich if it would adopt bitcoin!!"
Yes, I don't subscribe at all to the Keynesian theory that countries should be financially managed differently than households or companies.
I have a household, and we are now quite rich because of Bitcoin. I also have a company, which has grown a lot richer because of Bitcoin (the downside is that the company now employs about 10 people, but the cashflow is zero because everybody is so rich and does not need to work). If there is a country, you say that magically it would
not be better off??!
No. There is no transition point where black becomes white. What is good for a small company, is good for a large, and for a small country, and a large country. They just have the fallacy that they need to invest a lot to make it worthwhile for them. Why? I was never net invested even a million USD, and now you say that I am so rich that countries adopting Bitcoin would just benefit
me, and that this is a reason why they should not invest! Oh, the irony -
entire countries sentencing their population to poverty because of envy towards rpietila! They could go and buy 10k bitcoins for any leftover money in their budget and live happily ever after, which is what I am doing. Number of bitcoins is important, not the amount of fiat you paid. Fiat is just a con.
Not that I cared. No country is currently buying bitcoins openly, and bitcoin is doing just fine. When they realize that envying me is not a reason enough to destroy the future of their population, then they buy. Or at least the people there.
When the currency is strongly tied to fossil fuels, then it keeps relative stability to practicly everything else.
If the policy was actually governed by that,
gold would still be your currency. At that time the prices were quite stable. Even after taking the reckless fiat course in 1971, the charts show that priced IN gold, oil has been trading in a tight channel, only occasionally visited below 10 or above 20. This one also shows what a joke
fiat's supposed stability is. For more than 100 years(!) in gold dollar, oil price has been trading in channel of 0.50-2 dollars per barrel. After 1971 and "managed dollar", the price periodically readjusts 10 times higher than before, and even the period between readjustments is not stable (since 2000, price range 20-150).
Bitcoin will never be stable, even with growth. Only thing happens is that the players will get bigger. today we have whales that are battling eachother with manipulation, but in the future we would have megacorporations and countries that would battle eachother with manipulation and attempts to screw with eachothers efficency.
That you cannot develop remedies to this, does not mean that they don't exist. I (for one) am well capable to think about those matters and implement them, but we are in general still in the kindergarten stage, where people debate over whether it is a good deal to buy
BTC1,000 with $10,000,000. Hint: with those figures, the next year solves the question effortlessly, 100M I'm not sure.
No one wants to take responsibility for anything and everyone just want to whine and act like they're powerless.
I agree that this is very annoying.
Haha, if you buy something with bitcoin, from a merchant that uses BitPay, then you are just converting your BTC to USD at bitpay and not in the exchange before. To this date I have only met one store that accepts bitcoin directly, without the support of bitpay.
To repeat:
- I know guys who don't use fiat at all, many of them are quite rich because it's bitcoin they use
- Personally I use fiat and have it in balance sheets of my company but it is because my business is currency exchange between fiat/btc/gold/silver, where fiat is an input to the production process (plus a responsible hedge against bitcoin failure)
- Value transmit and value storing are different functions for a currency. This enables people who don't care for bitcoin's price, to use it as a remittance mechanism (and hasten its development), and people, who don't care to transact with it before it's mature, to use it as a store of value (and hasten its maturity).
Poll
