Why Bitcoin is ultimately doomed to fail (not today or tomorrow)

[deisik]

Why would you pay taxes with the face value of a gold coin instead of selling the gold coin for commodity value which is 2000% higher, subsequently paying taxes with the fiat?

Doesn't make any sense. What is the point you are trying to make with the absurdity?

To prove that US gold coins are legal tender on par with paper dollars. The question was about gold coins being legal tender alongside with the national currency...

The definition of legal tender in the USA:

United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts

[1715608613]

1715608613

[1715608613]

1715608613

[1715608613]

1715608613

[AnonyMint]

Why would you pay taxes with the face value of a gold coin instead of selling the gold coin for commodity value which is 2000% higher, subsequently paying taxes with the fiat?

Doesn't make any sense. What is the point you are trying to make with the absurdity?

To prove that US gold coins are legal tender on par with paper dollars. The question was about gold coins being legal tender alongside with the national currency...

The definition of legal tender in the USA:

United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts

And thus you've failed to prove it.

Gold is taxed on its commodity value and no one would pay taxes with $50 face value of a $1000+ gold coin.

Sorry that is nonsense.

[deisik]

To prove that US gold coins are legal tender on par with paper dollars. The question was about gold coins being legal tender alongside with the national currency...

The definition of legal tender in the USA:

United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts

And thus you've failed to prove it.

Gold is taxed on its commodity value and no one would pay taxes with $50 face value of a $1000+ gold coin.

Sorry that is nonsense.

You may think as you please. I think I made my point clear enough for everyone to make their own conclusions. If no one is willing to pay taxes with $50 face value of a $1000+ gold coin, it doesn't in the least prove that this cannot be done legally. The question was about gold coins being legal tender...

If you disagree with that you can petition here

[AnonyMint]

To prove that US gold coins are legal tender on par with paper dollars. The question was about gold coins being legal tender alongside with the national currency...

The definition of legal tender in the USA:

United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts

And thus you've failed to prove it.

Gold is taxed on its commodity value and no one would pay taxes with $50 face value of a $1000+ gold coin.

Sorry that is nonsense.

You may think as you please. I think I made my point clear enough for everyone to make their own conclusions. If no one is willing to pay taxes with $50 face value of a $1000+ gold coin, it doesn't in the least prove that this cannot be done legally. The question was about gold coins being legal tender...

If you disagree with that you can petition here

You fail Logic 101.

By your logic, then Bitcoin would be legal tender even though we lose money paying taxes on Bitcoin that we don't pay on legal tender. Because you argue that losing value does not impact on whether something is actually legal tender.

I now know your IQ is less than 120.

And you now know my IQ is much higher than yours.

[deisik]

You may think as you please. I think I made my point clear enough for everyone to make their own conclusions. If no one is willing to pay taxes with $50 face value of a $1000+ gold coin, it doesn't in the least prove that this cannot be done legally. The question was about gold coins being legal tender...

If you disagree with that you can petition here

You fail Logic 101.

By your logic, then Bitcoin would be legal tender even though we lose money paying taxes on Bitcoin that we don't pay on legal tender. Because you argue that losing value does not impact on whether something is actually legal tender.

As long as Bitcoin is not officially declared a legal tender, it is not legal tender. As simple as that. I don't really know what else you are going to add to this obvious fact...

[deisik]

I now know your IQ is less than 120.

And you now know my IQ is much higher than yours.

I don't care...

[infinitybo]

By the way, early adopters who invest time and cash into BTC won't let it be doomed so easily.

[deisik]

By the way, early adopters who invest time and cash into BTC won't let it be doomed so easily.

In this thread I'm primarily concerned with economic reasons as to why bitcoin will not get into mainstream and will not be able to replace fiat currencies, i.e. government prohibition as well as non-economic reasons aside, if that was your point...

Before all, economics is concerned with rational behavior of people and their choice

[AnonyMint]

You may think as you please. I think I made my point clear enough for everyone to make their own conclusions. If no one is willing to pay taxes with $50 face value of a $1000+ gold coin, it doesn't in the least prove that this cannot be done legally. The question was about gold coins being legal tender...

If you disagree with that you can petition here

You fail Logic 101.

By your logic, then Bitcoin would be legal tender even though we lose money paying taxes on Bitcoin that we don't pay on legal tender. Because you argue that losing value does not impact on whether something is actually legal tender.

As long as Bitcoin is not officially declared a legal tender, it is not legal tender. As simple as that. I don't really know what else you are going to add to this obvious fact...

The commodity portion of the gold coins value is not legal tender and has not so been declared.

Sheesh. Are we slow today.

By the way, early adopters who invest time and cash into BTC won't let it be doomed so easily.

Your faith and their net worth is not a guarantee of anything.

This thread and others are analyzing threats and what can and can't be done.

It is not so easy as saying "won't let it". It depends whether we have economic options or not. Then it depends on whether anyone is motivated and clever enough to make the necessary changes happen.

[deisik]

You may think as you please. I think I made my point clear enough for everyone to make their own conclusions. If no one is willing to pay taxes with $50 face value of a $1000+ gold coin, it doesn't in the least prove that this cannot be done legally. The question was about gold coins being legal tender...

If you disagree with that you can petition here

You fail Logic 101.

By your logic, then Bitcoin would be legal tender even though we lose money paying taxes on Bitcoin that we don't pay on legal tender. Because you argue that losing value does not impact on whether something is actually legal tender.

As long as Bitcoin is not officially declared a legal tender, it is not legal tender. As simple as that. I don't really know what else you are going to add to this obvious fact...

The commodity portion of the gold coins value is not legal tender and has not so been declared.

Sheesh. Are we slow today.

If someone buys or sells gold coins above their face value, they become just a special type of commodity. If that was your point, then sorry my point was something different...

[Impaler]

Desik:  Your premise is wrong, 'coins from the US mint' are legal tender YES because of whats stamped on them, but the METAL IS NOT legal tender.  The only thing that is legal tender is the DOLLAR and it is irrelevant as to What material the mint puts that stamp onto, they could stamp a lead disk with a million dollar mark and that would be a million dollars and you could pay a million dollar tax bill with it.  The printing presses put lots of zero's on pieces of paper no (other then Rand Paul) thinks that paper is legal tender, it's only the stamp that has legal status.

What you can NOT do is give the IRS a lump of unstamped gold as payment in taxes, you can only give them something that bears the stamp of the mint and they will demand X amount of dollar stamps regardless of what they are on.  Sure if you wanted to give them valuable metal with stamps on it then they will accept them so long as you have X total stamps, the value of the metal will be ignored because your debt is in stamps not metal.

[deisik]

Desik:  Your premise is wrong, 'coins from the US mint' are legal tender YES because of whats stamped on them, but the METAL IS NOT legal tender.  The only thing that is legal tender is the DOLLAR and it is irrelevant as to What material the mint puts that stamp onto, they could stamp a lead disk with a million dollar mark and that would be a million dollars and you could pay a million dollar tax bill with it.  The printing presses put lots of zero's on pieces of paper no (other then Rand Paul) thinks that paper is legal tender, it's only the stamp that has legal status.

What you can NOT do is give the IRS a lump of unstamped gold as payment in taxes, you can only give them something that bears the stamp of the mint and they will demand X amount of dollar stamps regardless of what they are on.  Sure if you wanted to give them valuable metal with stamps on it then they will accept them so long as you have X total stamps, the value of the metal will be ignored because your debt is in stamps not metal.

It is not my premise, it is your premise that you out of a clear sky attributed to me. Where did you get this idea really? I'm curious since I never said anything of the kind which could in the slightest degree assume that gold bullion as such would be legal tender... I don't know what made you come to such a conclusion. Please show me that piece of text...

Besides that, I specifically pointed out that even "foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts"

[AnonyMint]

The other big problem with Bitcoin is that it isn't legal tender, and thus it is taxed on changes in its value unlike legal tender. Thus Bitcoin can NEVER be a non-anonymous currency.

So Bitcoin has very powerful arguments against it. The OP is naive.

In Germany, neither Gold nor Gold 2.0 is taxed (VAT).

http://www.welt.de/finanzen/article120823372/Zahlungen-mit-Bitcoins-sind-umsatzsteuerfrei.html
http://www.zerohedge.com/node/477785

The first link is news to me! Thanks!

No VAT on Bitcoin spends in Germany. Fabulous!

[chemicalbruva]

Desik,
I only read the first 3 pages of this thread so forgive me if im repeating something somebody else already said.
Bitcoin is deflationary not inflationary. It can be denominated into tiny units called satoshis. Google it.
It is similar to gold in that it is hard to produce and is(soon to be) universally accepted store of value.  This is where the similarities end. Your historical arguments about various crises are invalid as bitcoin is all about bypassing the global financial system that has been responsible for (more or less) EVERY financial crisis in the 100-120 years. Dont forget that thre Rothschild family dictates the price of gold. Im not sure whether they also control bitcoin.

[deisik]

Desik,
I only read the first 3 pages of this thread so forgive me if im repeating something somebody else already said.
Bitcoin is deflationary not inflationary. It can be denominated into tiny units called satoshis. Google it.
It is similar to gold in that it is hard to produce and is(soon to be) universally accepted store of value.  This is where the similarities end. Your historical arguments about various crises are invalid as bitcoin is all about bypassing the global financial system that has been responsible for (more or less) EVERY financial crisis in the 100-120 years. Dont forget that thre Rothschild family dictates the price of gold. Im not sure whether they also control bitcoin.

Deflationary nature of a currency is a big no-no for a modern expanding economy. Bitcoin can't be bypassing the global financial system if it should become a major currency. And you have to clearly distinguish between the economical crises of the later 19th century - first half of the the 20th century and all the subsequent crises...

No one is arguing deflationary nature of bitcoin here,  since it is exactly the cause of those pre-fiat era crises (i.e. deflationary nature of a gold backed dollar)

[deisik]

No one is arguing deflationary nature of bitcoin here,  since it is exactly the cause of those pre-fiat era crises (i.e. deflationary nature of a gold backed dollar)

Well, the amount of BTC in the world will continue to expand probably for at least another century. So I'd say it's incorrect to simply say that bitcoin is deflationary.

The origins of terms inflationary and deflationary are quite different. Deflationary in respect to currency means that it is appreciating in value (i.e. gathering purchasing power), since the word deflation (unlike inflation for which at least two different meanings coexist) means first and before all decline in prices...

[deisik]

But moreover, the problem with a gold-backed dollar is the dollar part, not the gold part. More specifically, the fractional-reserve central banking system, and especially the Federal Reserve and its mismanagement of that system. And in terms of the period of US history preceding World War II, don't forget the policies of FDR, which "prolonged and deepened" the Great Depression. (https://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=258)

I can give you a bunch of other problems, but here are relevant only those pertaining to deflationary nature of bitcoin and possible economic outcomes and consequences thereby...

[deisik]

But moreover, the problem with a gold-backed dollar is the dollar part, not the gold part. More specifically, the fractional-reserve central banking system, and especially the Federal Reserve and its mismanagement of that system. And in terms of the period of US history preceding World War II, don't forget the policies of FDR, which "prolonged and deepened" the Great Depression. (https://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=258)

I can give you a bunch of other problems, but here are relevant only those pertaining to deflationary nature of bitcoin and possible economic outcomes and consequences thereby...

Well, I guess in order for me to understand you I first need to understand what you mean by "deflationary nature of bitcoin". Something about going up in value?

Yes, getting more purchasing power per unit (i.e. appreciation of a money unit, which you should have learned by now) due to the discrepancy of money supply (ultimately the same or even diminishing number of coins) and the expansion of economy and growth of population, provided all other things being equal...

[deisik]

That said, the economy will likely continue growing even after the population stops. So let's say on average the world GDP grows by 3% a year. Is this a fair estimate?

So, if Bitcoin was the only currency in the entire world, and had absolutely no competition, you could, on average, earn 3% a year by sitting on your bitcoin stash. On the other hand, you could probably on average earn 5% or more by investing in stocks.

What's the problem?

You have two major courses (or sources) of earning through stocks. The first is speculation when you earn at someone's expense, meaning it is a win-lose situation (since it is a zero sum game in the short term). You win, someone loses, as simple as that. The second way of earning (which is what investing is for) is through the economy growth and expansion (some part thereof), so that only you get your slice of the newly baked loaf (i.e. expanding part of the economy). This is a win-win situation, but only for those who made right investment decisions for the right stocks beforehand (as distinct from bitcoin and its socialistic nature in this respect, where the new loaf is shared between all)...

[deisik]

That said, the economy will likely continue growing even after the population stops. So let's say on average the world GDP grows by 3% a year. Is this a fair estimate?

So, if Bitcoin was the only currency in the entire world, and had absolutely no competition, you could, on average, earn 3% a year by sitting on your bitcoin stash. On the other hand, you could probably on average earn 5% or more by investing in stocks.

What's the problem?

You have two major courses (or sources) of earning through stocks. The first is speculation when you earn at someone's expense, meaning it is a win-lose situation (since it is a zero sum game in the short term). You win, someone loses, as simple as that. The second way of earning (which is what investing is for) is through the economy growth and expansion (some part thereof), so that only you get your slice of the newly baked loaf (i.e. expanding part of the economy). This is a win-win situation, but only for those who made right investment decisions for the right stocks beforehand (as distinct from bitcoin and its socialistic nature in this respect, where the new loaf is shared between all)...

Socialistic nature where the new loaf is shared between all? No, the increase in value of Bitcoin is shared pro-rata by people who hold BTC.

So I still don't see what the problem is.

You yourself assumed that bitcoin is the only currency in the entire world with no competition, right? So everyone will have their part of the loaf which is socialistic. In a capitalistic society the major part goes only to the creators of this new loaf and those who financially supported them through buying corresponding stocks (through the creation of new money to support the expanded economy, which is impossible in the case of bitcoin). I think this is pretty obvious...

Regarding the equity premium puzzle, I would love to refrain from discussing it here, since I know the problem but don't have any firm opinion on that. If someone wants to continue, you're welcome