Is Buffet right or wrong?

[greenlion]

I'm not sure that anybody should take the opinion seriously of an inveterate establishment insider trader who is likely to pass away before any of these questions can be settled.

[1714975071]

1714975071

[1714975071]

1714975071

[1714975071]

1714975071

[Taras]

Maybe he's trying to do his best to keep us from taking off?
I mean, it could have an impact on his usa bucks.

[criptix]

Buffet and OP are right, the only difference is that the "cheque" is limited is the case of bitcoin, so btc cheques are valuable. But it does not need to be, one can change the original source code or switch to an alternative that with the same features except that it is not limited. Which can be easily done by any bank or anyone that can reach a large number of people and process the transactions. So Buffet is right when he calls it a Mirage.

The day a large financial corporation releases a bitcoin based money transfer system, if they keep all other features, bitcoin is over.

Note: Jp Morgan patented a money transfer system that is just the description/copy of bitcoin, including the privacy.

I'm still waiting for Microsoft to release Internet 2.0  

You dont even know how dumb you sound.

So explain how dumb i am? Or better than that, explain how dumb Buffet is?
If you are thinking in the line of adption rate, bitcoin does not have any significant adoption rate and won't have in any near hypothetical future. Easily reversible.

Take my analogy, just because Microsoft has a large user base, they cant release their own network and call it internet.

Banks cant release a network like bitcoin because the key feature of bitcoin is decentralized.

You comparison in ureasonable. Microsoft would be unlikely to succeed on that just due adoption rate. The whole world is on the internet already, satisfied, and there is a huge tested and working structure around it. But bitcoin in not the internet, again it does not not have any significant adoption and structure.

One(banks or not) can do it "descentralized" and still profit(if that's the interest). As i said one would have to keep all the features(except the fictional limit) to wipe bitcoin.

But just as a side note, bitcoin is not completely descentralized. bitcoin is limited exactly 'cause a centralized organization decided so and can decide differently at any time, there is no contract that does not allow it. The scarce is fictional, a mirage. bitcoin is 100% on risk while it does not go mainstream.

this is wrong. if all nodes or the majority of nodes decide to make bitcoins unlimited it will happen.
or rather all decisions based on changing the bitcoin code can only be applied if the majority of nodes agree to it.
there is no centralized organisation making decisions about bitcoin.

one of the main reasons for bitcoin is decentralization, which cannot be archieved by 1 entity.

[bananas]

Buffet and OP are right, the only difference is that the "cheque" is limited is the case of bitcoin, so btc cheques are valuable. But it does not need to be, one can change the original source code or switch to an alternative that with the same features except that it is not limited. Which can be easily done by any bank or anyone that can reach a large number of people and process the transactions. So Buffet is right when he calls it a Mirage.

The day a large financial corporation releases a bitcoin based money transfer system, if they keep all other features, bitcoin is over.

Note: Jp Morgan patented a money transfer system that is just the description/copy of bitcoin, including the privacy.

I'm still waiting for Microsoft to release Internet 2.0  

You dont even know how dumb you sound.

So explain how dumb i am? Or better than that, explain how dumb Buffet is?
If you are thinking in the line of adption rate, bitcoin does not have any significant adoption rate and won't have in any near hypothetical future. Easily reversible.

Take my analogy, just because Microsoft has a large user base, they cant release their own network and call it internet.

Banks cant release a network like bitcoin because the key feature of bitcoin is decentralized.

You comparison in ureasonable. Microsoft would be unlikely to succeed on that just due adoption rate. The whole world is on the internet already, satisfied, and there is a huge tested and working structure around it. But bitcoin in not the internet, again it does not not have any significant adoption and structure.

One(banks or not) can do it "descentralized" and still profit(if that's the interest). As i said one would have to keep all the features(except the fictional limit) to wipe bitcoin.

But just as a side note, bitcoin is not completely descentralized. bitcoin is limited exactly 'cause a centralized organization decided so and can decide differently at any time, there is no contract that does not allow it. The scarce is fictional, a mirage. bitcoin is 100% on risk while it does not go mainstream.

this is wrong. if all nodes or the majority of nodes decide to make bitcoins unlimited it will happen.
or rather all decisions based on changing the bitcoin code can only be applied if the majority of nodes agree to it.
there is no centralized organisation making decisions about bitcoin.

one of the main reasons for bitcoin is decentralization, which cannot be archieved by 1 entity.

But then if nodes don't agree, you get a split or in the worst case the whole network stop working. There is no good scenario in such situation. I don't think such thing would ever happen, but factually it is based on centralized decisions regardless of users or nodes, they agreeeing is a secondary issue.

[seriouscoin]

The day a large financial corporation releases a bitcoin based money transfer system, if they keep all other features, bitcoin is over.

Note: Jp Morgan patented a money transfer system that is just the description/copy of bitcoin, including the privacy.

LOL

*The* biggest advantage of Bitcoin is that it's 100% independent of any company, government, corporation, business or authority.

So if company/government/corporation/business/authority X would release their own Bitcoin variant, it defeats its own purpose by definition.

It doesn't matter what any company releases. The Bitcoin genie is already out of the bottle, and it won't get back in.

It could be yourself, i just gave the bank example 'cause it is their business and they have resources to go mainstream quickly. They might do it without defeating the purpose. According to JP Morgan patent they don't have any interest in defeating the purpose.

You realize its not just about " having resource to go quickly" right?

If only banks that secure the network, then its nothing but the same old banking system that we've got.

Stop making nonsense and use your brain once in a while will ya? who will supply those bankcoins?

[bananas]

The day a large financial corporation releases a bitcoin based money transfer system, if they keep all other features, bitcoin is over.

Note: Jp Morgan patented a money transfer system that is just the description/copy of bitcoin, including the privacy.

LOL

*The* biggest advantage of Bitcoin is that it's 100% independent of any company, government, corporation, business or authority.

So if company/government/corporation/business/authority X would release their own Bitcoin variant, it defeats its own purpose by definition.

It doesn't matter what any company releases. The Bitcoin genie is already out of the bottle, and it won't get back in.

It could be yourself, i just gave the bank example 'cause it is their business and they have resources to go mainstream quickly. They might do it without defeating the purpose. According to JP Morgan patent they don't have any interest in defeating the purpose.

You realize its not just about " having resource to go quickly" right?

If only banks that secure the network, then its nothing but the same old banking system that we've got.

Banks don't need to necessarily profit from transaction fees, processing can be descentralized and they still profit. The average joe, that joe from the mainstream will always demand bank services. By the way trusty bank-like services are a requirement for bitcoin going mainstream.

[seriouscoin]

The day a large financial corporation releases a bitcoin based money transfer system, if they keep all other features, bitcoin is over.

Note: Jp Morgan patented a money transfer system that is just the description/copy of bitcoin, including the privacy.

LOL

*The* biggest advantage of Bitcoin is that it's 100% independent of any company, government, corporation, business or authority.

So if company/government/corporation/business/authority X would release their own Bitcoin variant, it defeats its own purpose by definition.

It doesn't matter what any company releases. The Bitcoin genie is already out of the bottle, and it won't get back in.

It could be yourself, i just gave the bank example 'cause it is their business and they have resources to go mainstream quickly. They might do it without defeating the purpose. According to JP Morgan patent they don't have any interest in defeating the purpose.

You realize its not just about " having resource to go quickly" right?

If only banks that secure the network, then its nothing but the same old banking system that we've got.

Stop making nonsense and use your brain once in a while will ya? who will supply those bankcoins?

Banks don't need to necessarily profit from transaction fees, processing can be descentralized and they still profit. The average joe, that joe from the mainstream will always demand bank services. By the way trusty bank-like services are a requirement for bitcoin going mainstream.

Please dont make me laugh.... Whats the point of them releasing their bitcoin copy?

why cant they run those services with bitcoins?

You cant even stick to your goddamn opinion. Its time for me to stop wasting my time discussing this further.

[Kazimir]

Banks don't need to necessarily profit from transaction fees, processing can be descentralized and they still profit. The average joe, that joe from the mainstream will always demand bank services. By the way trusty bank-like services are a requirement for bitcoin going mainstream.

Then why don't they start providing & selling such services for Bitcoin right now. There's HUGE opportunities waiting for the first bank that adopts Bitcoins and launches some new, innovative, customer friendly Bitcoin-related services.

Why the hell would they develop + launch some alternative altcoin instead, that is either:
(a) controlled by them, thus it would actually be a copy of fiat money, not of Bitcoin
or
(b) controlled by nobody, thus it would be a copy of Bitcoin that is 5 years behind and has no advantage for the bank (or for anyone) whatsoever

[bananas]

The day a large financial corporation releases a bitcoin based money transfer system, if they keep all other features, bitcoin is over.

Note: Jp Morgan patented a money transfer system that is just the description/copy of bitcoin, including the privacy.

LOL

*The* biggest advantage of Bitcoin is that it's 100% independent of any company, government, corporation, business or authority.

So if company/government/corporation/business/authority X would release their own Bitcoin variant, it defeats its own purpose by definition.

It doesn't matter what any company releases. The Bitcoin genie is already out of the bottle, and it won't get back in.

It could be yourself, i just gave the bank example 'cause it is their business and they have resources to go mainstream quickly. They might do it without defeating the purpose. According to JP Morgan patent they don't have any interest in defeating the purpose.

You realize its not just about " having resource to go quickly" right?

If only banks that secure the network, then its nothing but the same old banking system that we've got.

Stop making nonsense and use your brain once in a while will ya? who will supply those bankcoins?

Banks don't need to necessarily profit from transaction fees, processing can be descentralized and they still profit. The average joe, that joe from the mainstream will always demand bank services. By the way trusty bank-like services are a requirement for bitcoin going mainstream.

Please dont make me laugh.... Whats the point of them releasing their bitcoin copy?

why cant they run those services with bitcoins?

You cant even stick to your goddamn opinion. Its time for me to stop wasting my time discussing this further.

The point is that they are not shinny angels that will make bitcoin speculators rich. If bitcoin is still reversible they would rather do it with a non volatile speculative "currency"(which just works much better) or a speculative one that they will profit themselves since day one. I'm trying to be polite with you, but it is becoming increasingly difficult, your "fanboy-ism" is making you an unpleasant person in denial.

[seriouscoin]

Banks don't need to necessarily profit from transaction fees, processing can be descentralized and they still profit. The average joe, that joe from the mainstream will always demand bank services. By the way trusty bank-like services are a requirement for bitcoin going mainstream.

Then why don't they start providing & selling such services for Bitcoin right now. There's HUGE opportunities waiting for the first bank that adopts Bitcoins and launches some new, innovative, customer friendly Bitcoin-related services.

Why the hell would they develop + launch some alternative altcoin instead, that is either:
(a) controlled by them, thus it would actually be a copy of fiat money, not of Bitcoin
or
(b) controlled by nobody, thus it would be a copy of Bitcoin that is 5 years behind and has no advantage for the bank (or for anyone) whatsoever

It sure sounds like he got no clue.
First he said if banks release something like bitcoin, then bitcoin is over.....

After being pointed out, thats not possible because of fundamentals of bitcoin is decentralized, hes just rambling nonsense  " no no, banks can just release a newcoin that let ppl in control of the network...., they just need to handle financial services "

  where have i seen this dumb talk b4? ..... oh right, 2011.... after the first run up to $31

[AnonyMint]

bananas is correct, he just doesn't know how to defend his point well.

Bitcoin isn't decentralized, it is controlled by a few pools which have more than 50% of the hashrate.

Bitcoin is taxed as a commodity, and normal people aren't going to want to keep tax records for every small transaction they make. This is why Bitcoin can never advance as currency.

Because of this Bitcoin is already controlled by the governments. When they are ready to bless their bankster fiat patented solution, they will simply increase the taxes to unbearable levels.

The masses will readily jump to the fiat solution which has theft protection, chargeback protection, don't have to jump through hoops to use it and get it. Instant transaction times, etc, etc.

Bitcoin is a joke. It is for speculators only, not for serious uses.

If you were really serious, you'd have an anonymous coin that can't be taxed, with cpu-only mining that can't be centralized in pools. But you aren't serious. You are just n00bs.

Get off my lawn kiddies. Bye.

(and fuck you too, all you fucking idiots who berated me)

[bananas]

Banks don't need to necessarily profit from transaction fees, processing can be descentralized and they still profit. The average joe, that joe from the mainstream will always demand bank services. By the way trusty bank-like services are a requirement for bitcoin going mainstream.

Then why don't they start providing & selling such services for Bitcoin right now. There's HUGE opportunities waiting for the first bank that adopts Bitcoins and launches some new, innovative, customer friendly Bitcoin-related services.

Why the hell would they develop + launch some alternative altcoin instead, that is either:
(a) controlled by them, thus it would actually be a copy of fiat money, not of Bitcoin
or
(b) controlled by nobody, thus it would be a copy of Bitcoin that is 5 years behind and has no advantage for the bank (or for anyone) whatsoever

It sure sounds like he got no clue.
First he said if banks release something like bitcoin, then bitcoin is over.....

After being pointed out, thats not possible because of fundamentals of bitcoin is decentralized, hes just rambling nonsense  " no no, banks can just release a newcoin that let ppl in control of the network...., they just need to handle financial services "

  where have i seen this dumb talk b4? ..... oh right, 2011.... after the first run up to $31

Are you more than 13 years old?? The forum is in need of a underaged section.

[esse83]

He is missing the point that bitcoin is the sum of two parts; the payment network  and the BTC currency. So if the payment network has value and only BTC is accepted then neccessarily it follows that the BTC currency must have value. Because his analysis begins and ends with the first part he is simply wrong.

[bananas]

Thanks for adding intelligent inputs in the discussion.
I had not thought about the hashrate oligopoly.

bananas is correct, he just doesn't know how to defend his point well.

Bitcoin isn't decentralized, it is controlled by a few pools which have more than 50% of the hashrate.

Bitcoin is taxed as a commodity, and normal people aren't going to want to keep tax records for every small transaction they make. This is why Bitcoin can never advance as currency.

Because of this Bitcoin is already controlled by the governments. When they are ready to bless their bankster fiat patented solution, they will simply increase the taxes to unbearable levels.

The masses will readily jump to the fiat solution which has theft protection, chargeback protection, don't have to jump through hoops to use it and get it. Instant transaction times, etc, etc.

Bitcoin is a joke. It is for speculators only, not for serious uses.

If you were really serious, you'd have an anonymous coin that can't be taxed, with cpu-only mining that can't be centralized in pools. But you aren't serious. You are just n00bs.

Get off my lawn kiddies. Bye.

(and fuck you too, all you fucking idiots who berated me)

[seriouscoin]

Oh.... AnonyMint is here....

Everyone knows what he would post right?


Let me guess..... Rambling about flaw of bitcoins mining.... lol
I guess hes working hard to pump his altcoin. Too bad hes ignored by most members on here.

[seriouscoin]

Banks don't need to necessarily profit from transaction fees, processing can be descentralized and they still profit. The average joe, that joe from the mainstream will always demand bank services. By the way trusty bank-like services are a requirement for bitcoin going mainstream.

Then why don't they start providing & selling such services for Bitcoin right now. There's HUGE opportunities waiting for the first bank that adopts Bitcoins and launches some new, innovative, customer friendly Bitcoin-related services.

Why the hell would they develop + launch some alternative altcoin instead, that is either:
(a) controlled by them, thus it would actually be a copy of fiat money, not of Bitcoin
or
(b) controlled by nobody, thus it would be a copy of Bitcoin that is 5 years behind and has no advantage for the bank (or for anyone) whatsoever

It sure sounds like he got no clue.
First he said if banks release something like bitcoin, then bitcoin is over.....

After being pointed out, thats not possible because of fundamentals of bitcoin is decentralized, hes just rambling nonsense  " no no, banks can just release a newcoin that let ppl in control of the network...., they just need to handle financial services "

  where have i seen this dumb talk b4? ..... oh right, 2011.... after the first run up to $31

Are you more than 13 years old?? The forum is in need of a underaged section.

It does not matter what my age is. Your argument is full of holes that you ignored to cover.

How does your proposal prevent speculators? Do you even know everything thats being traded on market has speculators? Gold, oil, rice....you name it. Having speculators isnt a flaw of bitcoin.

Somehow, if banks "endorse" a newcoin (not released as you later "backpedal it"), would prevent it being speculative.

What a pipe of nonsense, if you gave this 5 sec thought, dont expect me to take you seriously.

Bitcoin is not perfect, it does have flaw/setbacks. I'm far from being a fanboy, i'm tired of the idiots who think they found something better.

[zimmah]

Bitcoin is essentially a modern  moneygram.


This example is based on bitcoin maintaining price stability which is likely to occur when widely adopted.


example1
Person A pays x for a £100 money gram to which is sent to Person B. Person B trades the money gram to  x  and receives £100. The money gram is now worthless and disgarded. Person x charged £2.50 for holding and releasing the fiat currency.

example 2
Person a pays x for £100 worth of Bitcoin to which is sent to person b.Person B trades the bitcoin with person x  and receives  £100.  Person x retains the bitcoin and is free to trade again.

The only difference between the two is that in example 2 the transfer method is reused in other transaction. i.e the bitcoin continues to be used and owned by new people. Wheras in example 1 the moneygram is destroyed at the end of the transaction. A new one is printed for a new transaction.

So despite the obvious advantage in speed and it being free...what gives the bitcoin any more value than a single money gram? i.e why would anyone pay £350just to hold what is essentially the right to send a transfer.

Any comments?

You do realize that money is essentially paper (or coin) that represents the right to buy a product or service. But that all forms of fiat money are controlled by the fed or something similar, which is not part of the government (Altough it is above the law and it's protected by the government and influencing the government, even enslaving the government to a degree) and is only there to make profit for the shareholders by inflating the currency, stealing away value from your fiat, while also increasing national debt by the second?

If you realize that, holding bitcoin doesn't seem all that bad now does it?

[bgmc]

Of course he's wrong. He is just a spokesman for the international bankers who are threatened by cryptocurrencies. He does NOT want bitcoin to succeed because it might threaten his own portfolio.

[Bit_Happy]

Bitcoin is essentially a modern  moneygram....

Can moneygram quickly send money to people in over 180 countries who normally use only one of over 50 different currencies?

EDIT: I just checked:
moneygram = Lots of countries but only USD, no other currency.
BTC can be converted into a large and growing list of different currencies (sometimes with very low fees)

Bitcoin is much > moneygram.

[seriouscoin]

Bitcoin is essentially a modern  moneygram....

Can moneygram quickly send money to people in over 180 countries who normally use only one of over 50 different currencies?

EDIT: I just checked:
moneygram = Lots of countries but only USD, no other currency.
BTC can be converted into a large and growing list of different currencies (sometimes with very low fees)

Bitcoin is much > moneygram.

I'm still disappointed that Buffett dissed Bitcoin just for the sake of doing it. I mean a guy like him should understand what value is.

A check or money order has no value..... what gives it value is the banks or institution issuing it and the clearing house.

I'm sure no1 here would accept a check issued by a no name bank (Cosmofly bank for ex.) So thats alone must have some value. Bitcoin has a public ledger that takes care of that.

Now tell me, how much a bank like Citigroup is worth?