Andreas' current use of BTC

[Lucius]

Bitcoin is a decentralized, peer to peer, currency. Not a centralized, third party, investment vehicle, which is sadly what it is turning in to.

I have the same attitude as you, but if you just take this forum and its active user base, I believe most have never used Bitcoin as a currency and consider it just a tool that will allow them to one day have more fiat than they used to have. Maybe that's why the world's elite is somewhat mild in their attitudes towards Bitcoin, if we take into account that most coins will still end up where they can control them.

In 10 years from now people may spend Satoshi or sub-units of that. Bitcoin can still function as a currency, the 8 digits after the decimal point is a lot.
It all depends whether people will still spend or will be convinced to just HODL.

I have no doubt that there will always be enthusiasts who will try to follow Satoshi Nakamoto’s idea, but I think there will be far fewer of them in the future than there are today. Most people still have their exit point, so I've already written that with price increases, coin ownership will change in favor of wealthy individuals, companies, funds, central banks, to the point where the average Joe will no longer have anything in his crypto wallet, and the price will be so high that he may not be able to afford to buy even 1000 sats.

[witcher_sense]

Personally, I don't think it leads in the right direction, because sooner or later most of the BTC will end up in the hands of those who will have the most money - and it will happen in a completely natural way, on the way up ordinary people will sell, the rich will buy.

The question is what will eventually remain for the average Joe? Probably a lot of worthless fiat...

What you have described here is a well-known economic problem called "The problem of hoarding." However, many economists, especially those of Austrian school, argue that this is not actually a problem at all, but, instead, beneficial to society. Let's take your example, companies accumulate bitcoin and keep it in their cash balances, right? But why do they do that in the first place? Obviously, they expect bitcoin's price to increase, so it will be easier for them to overcome any obstacles in the future. Like the average Joe, they have no idea what will happen with them in the future, but they at least can slightly alleviate its uncertainty by keeping cash in their balances. What is important here is that they don't need bitcoin itself, they need goods and services they can buy with it in the future.  What will happen when most of the coins are in the hands of those companies? Right, the price of bitcoin, or more strictly, its purchasing power will skyrocket, so the companies will have a huge incentive to spend it.

Rothbard wrote:


People will almost always say, if asked, that they want as much money as they can get! But what they really want is not more units of money—more gold ounces or “dollars”—but more effective units, i.e., greater command of goods and services bought by money. We have seen that society cannot satisfy its demand for more money by increasing its supply—for an increased supply will simply dilute the effectiveness of each ounce, and the money will be no more really plentiful than before. People's standard of living (except in the nonmonetary uses of gold) cannot increase by mining more gold. If people want more effective gold ounces in their cash balances, they can get them only through a fall in prices and a rise in the effectiveness of each ounce.



Companies' demand for bitcoin will likely result in an increase in the effectiveness of each bitcoin, which will allow the average Joe to satisfy his needs more productively.

[BlackHatCoiner]

What will happen when most of the coins are in the hands of those companies? Right, the price of bitcoin, or more strictly, its purchasing power will skyrocket, so the companies will have a huge incentive to spend it.

I'd say the exact opposite. As they observe their asset skyrocket in the long-term, they're discouraged to spend it, because they can accumulate more purchasing power in the future if they do. This is the problem with deflationary currencies. You're not incentivized to spend them, but rather keep them safe or as we've modernized it, to HODL them. This slow downs the economy.

The other problem with this statement is that we have no statistics to prove it or reject it.

And why should you prove this statement? Do you have to convince someone with strong inferences? Isn't it obvious for everybody you're talking that observing a 10x within a year means we had more investors?

[o_e_l_e_o]

Not necessarily. Gold is also a store of value and it's being used only as an asset, bitcoin may also go on this path.

Gold has other uses - jewelry, electronics, chemistry, healthcare. Even without it being used as a currency, there will always be demand for gold for these reasons. Now, if bitcoin could not be used as a currency and could not be spent anywhere, why would there be any demand for it? It cannot be used for anything else (or at least, any other purpose for it is exceedingly inefficient).

On the other hand those who seek financial sovereignty through bitcoin (BTC as currency) aren't really participating in social media expressing their opinion every day so they go unnoticed.

I don't think it's necessarily a difference between how vocal each category is, but rather a difference between the numbers of users in each category. Why would bitcoin spenders be quieter than bitcoin holders? I obviously want the price to increase too, because it increases my purchasing power. I want more people to use it as a currency so I have more places I can spend it myself. I want increased adoption so I can move ever more away from fiat and towards financial sovereignty. Why would people like me not be vocal?

Even on this forum, users here for these reasons are in the minority.

[NeuroticFish]

Gold has other uses - jewelry, electronics, chemistry, healthcare. Even without it being used as a currency, there will always be demand for gold for these reasons. Now, if bitcoin could not be used as a currency and could not be spent anywhere, why would there be any demand for it? It cannot be used for anything else (or at least, any other purpose for it is exceedingly inefficient).

The price of gold has nothing to do with its usefulness, it's more related to the hoarding of gold by banks, states, ...
And I see this similar with bitcoin too: I don't think that those hoarding it as a store of value would care much whether bitcoin is used as a currency or not, as long as they can use it as an asset, even if not traded so often (and bitcoin price is also a result of hoarding more than actual usage).

And with the rise of LN, with far too many keeping their coins in custodian wallets, the users who want to spend may soon not even use bitcoin, they may use IOUs without knowing it.

[BlackHatCoiner]

The price of gold has nothing to do with its usefulness, it's more related to the hoarding of gold by banks, states, ...

What he's telling you is that the price of gold and its usefulness are implicitly connected. Yes, the price isn't directly related with it, it's a matter of supply and demand. But, if it wasn't useful, why would it be demanded? People evaluate goods by their utility. If they all had the properties of a store of value asset, they could also be used similarly by the belief that they will be used essentially in the future.

Gold does have these properties and is, thus, stored with the conviction that someone will use it to either create jewelry or experiment with it in chemistry, or use it into electronics etc.

[NeuroticFish]

The price of gold has nothing to do with its usefulness, it's more related to the hoarding of gold by banks, states, ...

What he's telling you is that the price of gold and its usefulness are implicitly connected. Yes, the price isn't directly related with it, it's a matter of supply and demand. But, if it wasn't useful, why would it be demanded? People evaluate goods by their utility. If they all had the properties of a store of value asset, they could also be used similarly by the belief that they will be used essentially in the future.

Gold does have these properties and is, thus, stored with the conviction that someone will use it to either create jewelry or experiment with it in chemistry, or use it into electronics etc.

Sorry, I disagree. I think that the price and the hoarding are more related to the (perceived) scarcity than usefulness.
And that's what I try to express, but maybe I'm failing to do that, or maybe I'm wrong. I guess that we have to agree that we disagree on this and just move on 
Thanks for the attempt to clear it up though.

[o_e_l_e_o]

BHC summed up my point pretty well. The price of gold is absolutely driven by hoarding and people using it as a store of value, but people hoard it and use it as a store of value because they know in the future there will be a demand for gold from various industries. If there was no demand from anyone anywhere for gold, then there would be no point hoarding it as a store of value.

People hoard bitcoin and use it as a store of value because they know they will in the future they will be able to use it to buy goods or services, either directly or indirectly (by selling it for fiat to someone else who will use it to buy goods or services). If there was no one anywhere who would accept bitcoin in exchange for goods or services, then there would be no point hoarding it as a store of value.

Bitcoin has value because it can be used to buy goods or services. If no one could ever use it to buy goods or services (i.e. it failed to function as a currency) then it would be worthless.

Scarcity only makes an already valuable or useful asset more valuable - it does not create value out of nothing. There are trillions of completely unique objects in the world, none of which are valuable in the slightest.

[superbotolo]

Stop hanging out in "speculation forums" where everyone only talks about price and how they HODL to become rich and start going into the real world and look around for merchants whether online and offline and see how adoption (as a currency) has grown so much in recent years.

That's my issue. I live in Los Angeles and I have never seen any store displaying a BTC sign. Wait, I might have seen one, and it was a sketchy jewelry store.

Bitcoin has value because it can be used to buy goods or services. If no one could ever use it to buy goods or services (i.e. it failed to function as a currency) then it would be worthless.

That's my issue. If BTC has value because it can be used to buy goods, what happens where everyone is HODLing and nobody is using it to buy goods? It will most likely see a continuous decrease in adoption and, as a consequence, a decrease in value because at that point you own a digital coin that is completely useless.

And now that I think about this, one solution could be to introduce a system in the Bitcoin protocol where a small, but increasing portion of BTC that are not moving from an address are transferred automatically to a "community address" for other users to buy, or maybe it goes to active nodes as a way to incentivize network security. The more you hold, the more BTC are transferred to this community address or to nodes.

This would solve the hoarding issue and would also re-appropriate tons of lost BTCs.

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

[witcher_sense]

That's my issue. If BTC has value because it can be used to buy goods, what happens where everyone is HODLing and nobody is using it to buy goods? It will most likely see a continuous decrease in adoption and, as a consequence, a decrease in value because at that point you own a digital coin that is completely useless.

The main thing to realize is that money is useless for people if not used for exchange for goods or services. It is nonsense to assert that people will hold their bitcoin until they die. What's the point?

And now that I think about this, one solution could be to introduce a system in the Bitcoin protocol where a small, but increasing portion of BTC that are not moving from an address are transferred automatically to a "community address" for other users to buy, or maybe it goes to active nodes as a way to incentivize network security. The more you hold, the more BTC are transferred to this community address or to nodes.

This would solve the hoarding issue and would also re-appropriate tons of lost BTCs.

First of all, there is no hoarding issue because every bitcoin that is lost or not moving adds to the purchasing power of each unit. Given that bitcoin is a highly divisible currency, any "active" supply of it is able to satisfy all economic activities that take place in the world.

Secondly, we don't need socialism in bitcoin where the property of one productive person would be seized and shared among unproductive assholes.

I'd say the exact opposite. As they observe their asset skyrocket in the long-term, they're discouraged to spend it, because they can accumulate more purchasing power in the future if they do. This is the problem with deflationary currencies. You're not incentivized to spend them, but rather keep them safe or as we've modernized it, to HODL them. This slow downs the economy.

How do you know this will slow down the economy? We haven't had deflationary currency yet. In my view, deflationary currency incentives people and businesses to be more productive, offer better services, build better houses so that they can obtain more of scarce money.

[o_e_l_e_o]

That's my issue. If BTC has value because it can be used to buy goods, what happens where everyone is HODLing and nobody is using it to buy goods?

We will never reach a point where nobody is using it to buy goods. There will always be at least some people like me who use bitcoin primarily as a currency. And indeed, I think the number of people using it at least partly as a currency is increasing - certainly I personally know of far more merchants accepting it and I spend it in a much wider variety of places than I did 5 years ago. But I still think those people are very much in the minority and are growing at a slower rate compared to the percentage of people that are only here to make fiat profits.

And now that I think about this, one solution could be to introduce a system in the Bitcoin protocol where a small, but increasing portion of BTC that are not moving from an address are transferred automatically to a "community address" for other users to buy, or maybe it goes to active nodes as a way to incentivize network security. The more you hold, the more BTC are transferred to this community address or to nodes.

I would be against this proposal 100%. One of the basic principles of bitcoin is that you can be your bank, hold and secure your own money, without any intervention from third parties. As soon as you start effectively stealing other people's coins for any reason, then you have violated this principle and bitcoin is little better than seizable and freezable fiat.

[buwaytress]

He's actually said quite a bit on this, as he frequently gets asked on podcasts and interviews about the rumour (or myth or whatever) that he lives chiefly on Bitcoin and crypto, and he says quite forwardly that he doesn't because it's simply not possible to.

It's not wrong for the future of BTC -- he encourages use, he has a shop that accepts it and uses Lightning, and he teaches people how to use it as an alternative.

Remember, he didn't actually have significant BTC holdings for a rather long time, think it was a few years back that someone kicked it off by sending him BTC. Think he's more than "paid" his dues as an educator.

[MariaWang]

I love Andreas Antonopoulos. Having said this, he recently said something in one episode of his podcast that surprised me. He was talking about living on Bitcoin and he said that he HODLs his BTC and basically spends only USD. He gets paid in all different fiat, and he spends this fiat for his daily life. When he can, he buys more BTC and HODL.

While I understand that many of us HODL, isn't this just wrong for the future of BTC. First, Satoshi created BTC as a currency. It is intended to be spent. Second, if everyone HODL and nobody spends BTC, isn't this becoming just a pyramid scheme?

I think there is not right and wrong, and no one way. Any of us have a way to do things, and it depends on our circumstances (country, job, income, family, ...).

Best wishes

[_Miracle]

There'll always be people willing to use it as a currency. This is the fact where most of us rely on. We see it as a store of value, but the only value it stores is its future usage as a currency.

And if more people used it as a currency, then it would fuel adoption, would fuel growth, would fuel demand, and would fuel a rise in price. It is a shame that the majority only want to use bitcoin as a means to increase the amount of fiat they have, especially when we see rampant money printing, endless inflation, and Quantitative Easing Round 9001. We could be on the way to a monetary revolution, but instead we see centralized exchanges turning themselves in to crypto-banks, and legacy banks and financial institutions offering bitcoin ETFs and other products, creating more centralized control which most people seem absolutely happy to buy in to as long as they can make some fiat profit.

Bitcoin is a decentralized, peer to peer, currency. Not a centralized, third party, investment vehicle, which is sadly what it is turning in to.

It can be and is all of those things which goes to show the adaptability of bitcoin (another added value)

And now that I think about this, one solution could be to introduce a system in the Bitcoin protocol where a small, but increasing portion of BTC that are not moving from an address are transferred automatically to a "community address" for other users to buy, or maybe it goes to active nodes as a way to incentivize network security. The more you hold, the more BTC are transferred to this community address or to nodes.

This would solve the hoarding issue and would also re-appropriate tons of lost BTCs.

It's interesting that anyone could think of introducing a "solution" like that into the bitcoin protocol? It wouldn't be bitcoin anymore. Do you have any btc?
You realize there are fees to move coins from wallet to wallet and that plenty of coins from the early days haven't moved--if they want "the community" to have it: they could choose to give it.

Create your own coin that functions that way.


P.S.
I also hold as much precious metals as I can afford---I'm a guilty little gold bug
Some of gold's value is in our perception of it (beyond its utility) for thousands of years
Homes and property also have value and their prices are subject to speculation and market whims as well

[germsite]

That's my issue. If BTC has value because it can be used to buy goods, what happens where everyone is HODLing and nobody is using it to buy goods?

We will never reach a point where nobody is using it to buy goods. There will always be at least some people like me who use bitcoin primarily as a currency. And indeed, I think the number of people using it at least partly as a currency is increasing - certainly I personally know of far more merchants accepting it and I spend it in a much wider variety of places than I did 5 years ago. But I still think those people are very much in the minority and are growing at a slower rate compared to the percentage of people that are only here to make fiat profits.

And now that I think about this, one solution could be to introduce a system in the Bitcoin protocol where a small, but increasing portion of BTC that are not moving from an address are transferred automatically to a "community address" for other users to buy, or maybe it goes to active nodes as a way to incentivize network security. The more you hold, the more BTC are transferred to this community address or to nodes.

I would be against this proposal 100%. One of the basic principles of bitcoin is that you can be your bank, hold and secure your own money, without any intervention from third parties. As soon as you start effectively stealing other people's coins for any reason, then you have violated this principle and bitcoin is little better than seizable and freezable fiat.

It might also change more towards Bitcoin being used a currency when there are more favorable tax laws all around the world. Right now using Bitcoin can lead to capital gains taxation if the BTC you use increased in value. That makes it quite cumbersome for all the accounting requirements if you have to list buy and sell/use prices for every coffee you purchase or every package of chewing gum. I think that is one major aspect that would have to change in a number of countries in order to see Bitcoin circulate much more as a currency at least for everyday purchases (Lambos and stuff, you know...)

[YinShuiSiYuan]

I love Andreas Antonopoulos. Having said this, he recently said something in one episode of his podcast that surprised me. He was talking about living on Bitcoin and he said that he HODLs his BTC and basically spends only USD. He gets paid in all different fiat, and he spends this fiat for his daily life. When he can, he buys more BTC and HODL.

While I understand that many of us HODL, isn't this just wrong for the future of BTC. First, Satoshi created BTC as a currency. It is intended to be spent. Second, if everyone HODL and nobody spends BTC, isn't this becoming just a pyramid scheme?

We cannot talk about a financial pyramid (scheme) because no one has guaranteed profits. We all know that this is a free market and anything can happen there. After all, Andreas will also start trading Bitcoin normally on the market. He will just do it after a longer time than most of HODLers.

[o_e_l_e_o]

It's interesting that anyone could think of introducing a "solution" like that into the bitcoin protocol? It wouldn't be bitcoin anymore.

Not only that, but the proposal doesn't actually solve the problem of people not spending their bitcoin - it only incentivizes people to move bitcoin around between their own addresses and clog up the network with unnecessary transactions.

It might also change more towards Bitcoin being used a currency when there are more favorable tax laws all around the world.

Agreed. In the US, at least treat it the same as any other foreign currency in which there is no tax for any purchases under $200. Unfortunately our legislators don't understand the first thing about bitcoin or cryptocurrency.

[Lucius]

Agreed. In the US, at least treat it the same as any other foreign currency in which there is no tax for any purchases under $200. Unfortunately our legislators don't understand the first thing about bitcoin or cryptocurrency.

It seems to me that the US authorities understand cryptocurrencies very well, but that such laws are in place to deter people from using Bitcoin as a means of payment, and the impression is that this affects most of those who would otherwise have such intentions. I might expect a misunderstanding from a third-world country ruled by a dictator, but I would not agree that politicians and institutions are more intelligent in El Salvador than in the US.

[germsite]

It's interesting that anyone could think of introducing a "solution" like that into the bitcoin protocol? It wouldn't be bitcoin anymore.

Not only that, but the proposal doesn't actually solve the problem of people not spending their bitcoin - it only incentivizes people to move bitcoin around between their own addresses and clog up the network with unnecessary transactions.

It might also change more towards Bitcoin being used a currency when there are more favorable tax laws all around the world.

Agreed. In the US, at least treat it the same as any other foreign currency in which there is no tax for any purchases under $200. Unfortunately our legislators don't understand the first thing about bitcoin or cryptocurrency.

Ok, that is quite good then already, but correct if I am wrong, that wasn't always the case was it? Has that regulation officially been applied to crypto recently? The European Union is much more complex in that regard.

Oh and the under $200 rule, is that nationwide or does it depend on the state?

[NelfiNovita]

I love Andreas Antonopoulos. Having said this, he recently said something in one episode of his podcast that surprised me. He was talking about living on Bitcoin and he said that he HODLs his BTC and basically spends only USD. He gets paid in all different fiat, and he spends this fiat for his daily life. When he can, he buys more BTC and HODL.

While I understand that many of us HODL, isn't this just wrong for the future of BTC. First, Satoshi created BTC as a currency. It is intended to be spent. Second, if everyone HODL and nobody spends BTC, isn't this becoming just a pyramid scheme?

Not everyone who does HODL, on the other hand traders often use Bitcoin to transact. We know that at this time Bitcoin has several uses such as trading and as a means of payment for countries that have legalized bitcoin.
Bitcoin was created as a currency but over time the demand for someone to buy bitcoin is increasing so that the price of bitcoin continues to rise from year to year, therefore many people use the HODL strategy.