Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

The very first thing to understand about Bitcoin is that its store of value function is at least an order of magnitude more important than its payment or remittance functions. Very roughly speaking, something like 90% of the value of Bitcoin is in something the government cannot possibly replicate without relinquishing control of the money supply. They could create digital money, but that wouldn't touch the lion's share of Bitcoin's value proposition.

I agree with this, but I think a better term for the value proposition is "neutral money", instead of "store of value".  Bitcoin eliminates trusted authorities.  If the system has trusted authorities, it does not compete with bitcoin.

I wrote a short article about this here: https://gist.github.com/weissjeffm/ab8e157e7d7943b07310

That's a good word. I've been using "apolitical".

which is btw  the problem I have with Blockstream.

[1713957859]

1713957859

[1713957859]

1713957859

[1713957859]

1713957859

[1713957859]

1713957859

[1713957859]

1713957859

[1713957859]

1713957859

[jmw74]

Mastercard head of SE Asia goes all out with every myth, stereotype and piece of FUD he could possibly fit into 4.30 of attacking bitcoin.

This is scripted propaganda and it is excellent to watch. It really shows how worried they are that they have to make such an anti bitcoin informerci that can easily be taken apart. The part about what their core business is shows just how stupid they think their customers are

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=bO4jHXjCXw8

".. ensuring greater transparency [...] in the way people live their life..."

"Why somebody need to be anonymous? I certainly don't want somebody mining technology or mining financial services away from my control."

Fuck you Mr. Matthew Driver, you are dangerous.

What can I say? I concur with you.

They aim to eliminate cash entirely, be it electronic or not, and move toward a world based on their electronic
payment system. Wow. Every time I hear something like this I wonder how they can be so full of themselves.

Of course Mastercard wants "transparency".  Not for themselves of course!  No, the details of their internal business will be kept private.  But YOUR daily business will be monitored, data-mined, and controlled by banks and payment processors.

See, it's TRANSPARENT!  Transparent is such a nice word.

At least he barely makes the effort to conceal that mastercard wants to destroy financial privacy.

[mindrust]

Do not use credit cards until you really have to people. I always try to use cash or btc when i do shopping. Still, Btc isn't accepted by most of the sellers then i always ask first and make them aware of bitcoin at least.

MC, Visa, AE... Using those equals killing Bitcoin, anonymousity.

[sickpig]

Mastercard head of SE Asia goes all out with every myth, stereotype and piece of FUD he could possibly fit into 4.30 of attacking bitcoin.

This is scripted propaganda and it is excellent to watch. It really shows how worried they are that they have to make such an anti bitcoin informerci that can easily be taken apart. The part about what their core business is shows just how stupid they think their customers are

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=bO4jHXjCXw8

".. ensuring greater transparency [...] in the way people live their life..."

"Why somebody need to be anonymous? I certainly don't want somebody mining technology or mining financial services away from my control."

Fuck you Mr. Matthew Driver, you are dangerous.

What can I say? I concur with you.

They aim to eliminate cash entirely, be it electronic or not, and move toward a world based on their electronic
payment system. Wow. Every time I hear something like this I wonder how they can be so full of themselves.

Of course Mastercard wants "transparency".  Not for themselves of course!  No, the details of their internal business will be kept private.  But YOUR daily business will be monitored, data-mined, and controlled by banks and payment processors.

See, it's TRANSPARENT!  Transparent is such a nice word.

At least he barely makes the effort to conceal that mastercard wants to destroy financial privacy.

I think it's "funny":

https://i.imgur.com/PdfpxEV.jpg

courtesy of @ThrowAway1d52e8d

[Cortex7]

Mastercard head of SE Asia goes all out with every myth, stereotype and piece of FUD he could possibly fit into 4.30 of attacking bitcoin.

This is scripted propaganda and it is excellent to watch. It really shows how worried they are that they have to make such an anti bitcoin informerci that can easily be taken apart. The part about what their core business is shows just how stupid they think their customers are

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=bO4jHXjCXw8

".. ensuring greater transparency [...] in the way people live their life..."

"Why somebody need to be anonymous? I certainly don't want somebody mining technology or mining financial services away from my control."

Fuck you Mr. Matthew Driver, you are dangerous.

What can I say? I concur with you.

They aim to eliminate cash entirely, be it electronic or not, and move toward a world based on their electronic
payment system. Wow. Every time I hear something like this I wonder how they can be so full of themselves.

Of course Mastercard wants "transparency".  Not for themselves of course!  No, the details of their internal business will be kept private.  But YOUR daily business will be monitored, data-mined, and controlled by banks and payment processors.

See, it's TRANSPARENT!  Transparent is such a nice word.

At least he barely makes the effort to conceal that mastercard wants to destroy financial privacy.

I think it's "funny":

https://i.imgur.com/PdfpxEV.jpg

courtesy of @ThrowAway1d52e8d

It is perfectly true, the Venn diagram is correct.

But alas mainstream minds cannot grasp the notion of set intersection, they prefer simple discreet binary separation. Good/Bad etc.

Maybe it's the Flouride?

[NewLiberty]

Mastercard head of SE Asia goes all out with every myth, stereotype and piece of FUD he could possibly fit into 4.30 of attacking bitcoin.

This is scripted propaganda and it is excellent to watch. It really shows how worried they are that they have to make such an anti bitcoin informerci that can easily be taken apart. The part about what their core business is shows just how stupid they think their customers are

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=bO4jHXjCXw8

Yes.  This may be very positive.
He's probably buying.
Otherwise why the hubbub.

[rocks]

The very first thing to understand about Bitcoin is that its store of value function is at least an order of magnitude more important than its payment or remittance functions. Very roughly speaking, something like 90% of the value of Bitcoin is in something the government cannot possibly replicate without relinquishing control of the money supply. They could create digital money, but that wouldn't touch the lion's share of Bitcoin's value proposition.

We are in agreement, this is also why most of bitcoin's earliest adopters are those who were already looking for a sound money alternative with independent control of the money supply.

That said bitcoin's payment or remittance functions are what make the store of value function valuable. The more useful the payment functions are and are used the more valuable the store of value function becomes. Imagine bitcoin with no payment function but the same store of value function, yes the store of value function would work and remain fixed, but it wouldn't be valued very much.

This is the fiat money as a technology invention argument on why dollars beat gold, better payment functionality makes a given money system more used, which in turn makes it more valuable. The fact that bitcoin's payment functions are superior to fiat is what makes the project have a fighting chance.
 

[cypherdoc]

so we have our first hint that we may have a failure in the $DJT which could result in a non-confirmation:

[brg444]

The very first thing to understand about Bitcoin is that its store of value function is at least an order of magnitude more important than its payment or remittance functions. Very roughly speaking, something like 90% of the value of Bitcoin is in something the government cannot possibly replicate without relinquishing control of the money supply. They could create digital money, but that wouldn't touch the lion's share of Bitcoin's value proposition.

We are in agreement, this is also why most of bitcoin's earliest adopters are those who were already looking for a sound money alternative with independent control of the money supply.

That said bitcoin's payment or remittance functions are what make the store of value function valuable. The more useful the payment functions are and are used the more valuable the store of value function becomes. Imagine bitcoin with no payment function but the same store of value function, yes the store of value function would work and remain fixed, but it wouldn't be valued very much.

This is the fiat money as a technology invention argument on why dollars beat gold, better payment functionality makes a given money system more used, which in turn makes it more valuable. The fact that bitcoin's payment functions are superior to fiat is what makes the project have a fighting chance.
 

I'm not sure I agree here, this seems backward to me. The payment or remittance function is only useful if people value the SOV aspect.

Bitcoin has a fighting chance because of its unique monetary policies and its "sound money" function, not because of its payment system.

[justusranvier]

That said bitcoin's payment or remittance functions are what make the store of value function valuable. The more useful the payment functions are and are used the more valuable the store of value function becomes. Imagine bitcoin with no payment function but the same store of value function, yes the store of value function would work and remain fixed, but it wouldn't be valued very much.

The phrase "store of value" is almost completely useless because certain goldbugs have ruined it by treating it like some kind of intrinsic magical property.

It's best described as a behavior, or as an emergent property:

If the right conditions are met, a good medium of exchange can also behave as a store of value.

[cypherdoc]

The very first thing to understand about Bitcoin is that its store of value function is at least an order of magnitude more important than its payment or remittance functions. Very roughly speaking, something like 90% of the value of Bitcoin is in something the government cannot possibly replicate without relinquishing control of the money supply. They could create digital money, but that wouldn't touch the lion's share of Bitcoin's value proposition.

We are in agreement, this is also why most of bitcoin's earliest adopters are those who were already looking for a sound money alternative with independent control of the money supply.

That said bitcoin's payment or remittance functions are what make the store of value function valuable. The more useful the payment functions are and are used the more valuable the store of value function becomes. Imagine bitcoin with no payment function but the same store of value function, yes the store of value function would work and remain fixed, but it wouldn't be valued very much.

This is the fiat money as a technology invention argument on why dollars beat gold, better payment functionality makes a given money system more used, which in turn makes it more valuable. The fact that bitcoin's payment functions are superior to fiat is what makes the project have a fighting chance.
 

mostly agree but it's debatable to what degree the payment system needs to evolve.  i could argue it's great just where it's at. especially if Bitcoins destiny is to become the world's reserve currency or daily settlement currency btwn nations.  that's not really my position as i do see a need to increase block size for the masses to transact but perhaps that's all we need to do.

monkeying around with the source code to get tx times down to 1 min or gain absolute anonymity or to facilitate SC speculation might not be necessary for an all out success of Bitcoin.

[cypherdoc]

i wonder if the two Voorhees are related?

    "Whatever happens, the logic now is for the issues raised in the von NotHaus case to be pursued in the political arena. We are coming up on the 50th anniversary of the Coinage Act of 1965, which stripped silver from our common coinage. President Lyndon Johnson, who signed the bill into law, called it ‘the first fundamental change in our coinage in 173 years.’ He noted that during that nearly two-century span our coinage of dimes, quarters, half dollars, and dollars have contained 90 percent silver.’

    “‘The new dimes and the new quarters will contain no silver,’ the president confessed. ‘They will be composites, with faces of the same alloy used in our 5-cent piece that is bonded to a core of pure copper.’ That is how the debasement began, though LBJ did issue a warning. ‘If anybody has any idea of hoarding our silver coins, let me say this. Treasury has a lot of silver on hand, and it can be, and it will be used to keep the price of silver in line with its value in our present silver coin.’

    “It was a vain boast. At the time, the value of the dollar was more than two-thirds of an ounce of silver, as it was in 1792. By January 1980, the value of a dollar plunged to less than a 49th of an ounce of silver and even today has regained nowhere near its historic value. It is a shocking abdication by the United States Congress, a point that von NotHaus has thrown into sharper relief than any monetary gadfly has managed to do in years. That is no small achievement.”

http://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/nothaus-liberty-dollar-sentencing-013/

[cypherdoc]

i wonder if the two Voorhees are related?

    "Whatever happens, the logic now is for the issues raised in the von NotHaus case to be pursued in the political arena. We are coming up on the 50th anniversary of the Coinage Act of 1965, which stripped silver from our common coinage. President Lyndon Johnson, who signed the bill into law, called it ‘the first fundamental change in our coinage in 173 years.’ He noted that during that nearly two-century span our coinage of dimes, quarters, half dollars, and dollars have contained 90 percent silver.’

    “‘The new dimes and the new quarters will contain no silver,’ the president confessed. ‘They will be composites, with faces of the same alloy used in our 5-cent piece that is bonded to a core of pure copper.’ That is how the debasement began, though LBJ did issue a warning. ‘If anybody has any idea of hoarding our silver coins, let me say this. Treasury has a lot of silver on hand, and it can be, and it will be used to keep the price of silver in line with its value in our present silver coin.’

    “It was a vain boast. At the time, the value of the dollar was more than two-thirds of an ounce of silver, as it was in 1792. By January 1980, the value of a dollar plunged to less than a 49th of an ounce of silver and even today has regained nowhere near its historic value. It is a shocking abdication by the United States Congress, a point that von NotHaus has thrown into sharper relief than any monetary gadfly has managed to do in years. That is no small achievement.”

http://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/nothaus-liberty-dollar-sentencing-013/

Then spake the judge, sentencing von NotHaus to but six months of home detention, to run concurrently with three years of probation.

AND he got all $7M of silver back. 

[rocks]

The very first thing to understand about Bitcoin is that its store of value function is at least an order of magnitude more important than its payment or remittance functions. Very roughly speaking, something like 90% of the value of Bitcoin is in something the government cannot possibly replicate without relinquishing control of the money supply. They could create digital money, but that wouldn't touch the lion's share of Bitcoin's value proposition.

We are in agreement, this is also why most of bitcoin's earliest adopters are those who were already looking for a sound money alternative with independent control of the money supply.

That said bitcoin's payment or remittance functions are what make the store of value function valuable. The more useful the payment functions are and are used the more valuable the store of value function becomes. Imagine bitcoin with no payment function but the same store of value function, yes the store of value function would work and remain fixed, but it wouldn't be valued very much.

This is the fiat money as a technology invention argument on why dollars beat gold, better payment functionality makes a given money system more used, which in turn makes it more valuable. The fact that bitcoin's payment functions are superior to fiat is what makes the project have a fighting chance.
 

I'm not sure I agree here, this seems backward to me. The payment or remittance function is only useful if people value the SOV aspect.

Bitcoin has a fighting chance because of its unique monetary policies and its "sound money" function, not because of its payment system.

What if Bitcoin's payment system was significantly more limited (for example let's say a payment took weeks because of the crypto or both parties had to be physically present). Bitcoin would still have the fixed 21M supply, but do you think it would be widely used if that were the case? Probably not. And without being widely used those 21M wouldn't have much value.

What about Rai stones? They perfectly achieve the store of value function, but since payments are a tad difficult that system did not exactly take off, which in turn limits the total stored value.

My point was simply that the more useful the payment function is found to be, the more people use it, which in turn increases the total value of the system. So I think payment functionality goes hand in hand with store of value functionality, not necessarily one driving the other.

Many of Bitcoin's early adopters were drawn to the store of value function and sound money principles, but if we see wider adoption it will be due to the usefulness of the payment functionality of Bitcoin. It's likely a majority in the US today disagree with Bitcoin's fixed supply nature and believe the government needs to "adjust" supply to "grow with" the economy. This wrong, but probably 95% of the people I know believe it anyway. They will join Bitcoin for payment functionality first, then benefit from sound money principals as they adopt it.

[cypherdoc]

The very first thing to understand about Bitcoin is that its store of value function is at least an order of magnitude more important than its payment or remittance functions. Very roughly speaking, something like 90% of the value of Bitcoin is in something the government cannot possibly replicate without relinquishing control of the money supply. They could create digital money, but that wouldn't touch the lion's share of Bitcoin's value proposition.

We are in agreement, this is also why most of bitcoin's earliest adopters are those who were already looking for a sound money alternative with independent control of the money supply.

That said bitcoin's payment or remittance functions are what make the store of value function valuable. The more useful the payment functions are and are used the more valuable the store of value function becomes. Imagine bitcoin with no payment function but the same store of value function, yes the store of value function would work and remain fixed, but it wouldn't be valued very much.

This is the fiat money as a technology invention argument on why dollars beat gold, better payment functionality makes a given money system more used, which in turn makes it more valuable. The fact that bitcoin's payment functions are superior to fiat is what makes the project have a fighting chance.
 

I'm not sure I agree here, this seems backward to me. The payment or remittance function is only useful if people value the SOV aspect.

Bitcoin has a fighting chance because of its unique monetary policies and its "sound money" function, not because of its payment system.

What if Bitcoin's payment system was significantly more limited (for example let's say a payment took weeks because of the crypto or both parties had to be physically present). Bitcoin would still have the fixed 21M supply, but do you think it would be widely used if that were the case? Probably not. And without being widely used those 21M wouldn't have much value.

What about Rai stones? They perfectly achieve the store of value function, but since payments are a tad difficult that system did not exactly take off, which in turn limits the total stored value.

My point was simply that the more useful the payment function is found to be, the more people use it, which in turn increases the total value of the system. So I think payment functionality goes hand in hand with store of value functionality, not necessarily one driving the other.

Many of Bitcoin's early adopters were drawn to the store of value function and sound money principles, but if we see wider adoption it will be due to the usefulness of the payment functionality of Bitcoin. It's likely a majority in the US today disagree with Bitcoin's fixed supply nature and believe the government needs to "adjust" supply to "grow with" the economy. This wrong, but probably 95% of the people I know believe it anyway. They will join Bitcoin for payment functionality first, then benefit from sound money principals as they adopt it.

how do you explain gold's SOV function while not having any real payment usage?

[brg444]

The very first thing to understand about Bitcoin is that its store of value function is at least an order of magnitude more important than its payment or remittance functions. Very roughly speaking, something like 90% of the value of Bitcoin is in something the government cannot possibly replicate without relinquishing control of the money supply. They could create digital money, but that wouldn't touch the lion's share of Bitcoin's value proposition.

We are in agreement, this is also why most of bitcoin's earliest adopters are those who were already looking for a sound money alternative with independent control of the money supply.

That said bitcoin's payment or remittance functions are what make the store of value function valuable. The more useful the payment functions are and are used the more valuable the store of value function becomes. Imagine bitcoin with no payment function but the same store of value function, yes the store of value function would work and remain fixed, but it wouldn't be valued very much.

This is the fiat money as a technology invention argument on why dollars beat gold, better payment functionality makes a given money system more used, which in turn makes it more valuable. The fact that bitcoin's payment functions are superior to fiat is what makes the project have a fighting chance.
 

I'm not sure I agree here, this seems backward to me. The payment or remittance function is only useful if people value the SOV aspect.

Bitcoin has a fighting chance because of its unique monetary policies and its "sound money" function, not because of its payment system.

What if Bitcoin's payment system was significantly more limited (for example let's say a payment took weeks because of the crypto or both parties had to be physically present). Bitcoin would still have the fixed 21M supply, but do you think it would be widely used if that were the case? Probably not. And without being widely used those 21M wouldn't have much value.

What about Rai stones? They perfectly achieve the store of value function, but since payments are a tad difficult that system did not exactly take off, which in turn limits the total stored value.

My point was simply that the more useful the payment function is found to be, the more people use it, which in turn increases the total value of the system.So I thank payment functionality goes hand in hand with store of value functionality, not necessarily one driving the other.  

Many of Bitcoin's early adopters were drawn to the store of value function and sound money principles, but if we see wider adoption it will be due to the usefulness of the payment functionality of Bitcoin. It's likely a majority in the US today disagree with Bitcoin's fixed supply nature and believe the government needs to "adjust" supply to "grow with" the economy. This wrong, but probably 95% of the people I know believe it anyway. They will join Bitcoin for payment functionality first, then benefit from sound money principals as they adopt it.

This I can agree with but that's not exactly what your previous statement said

That said bitcoin's payment or remittance functions are what make the store of value function valuable.

Does the payment system make BTC potentially more valuable than other comparable store of value (gold)?

Sure, but gold itself is a great example of a SOV with a very limited payment function that is still relatively successful because of its sound money functions.

If you argue that the payment system is what will make BTC mainstream, beyond the sound money property, then yes I would tend to agree.

[cypherdoc]

the US should be feeling the pressure not only for the exchange business but in mining:

Huobi CMO Du Jun: “Bitcoin use…in China will continue to increase in the foreseeable future”

http://thecoinfront.com/huobi-cmo-du-jun-bitcoin-use-in-china-will-continue-to-increase-in-the-foreseeable-future/

[NewLiberty]

The very first thing to understand about Bitcoin is that its store of value function is at least an order of magnitude more important than its payment or remittance functions. Very roughly speaking, something like 90% of the value of Bitcoin is in something the government cannot possibly replicate without relinquishing control of the money supply. They could create digital money, but that wouldn't touch the lion's share of Bitcoin's value proposition.

We are in agreement, this is also why most of bitcoin's earliest adopters are those who were already looking for a sound money alternative with independent control of the money supply.

That said bitcoin's payment or remittance functions are what make the store of value function valuable. The more useful the payment functions are and are used the more valuable the store of value function becomes. Imagine bitcoin with no payment function but the same store of value function, yes the store of value function would work and remain fixed, but it wouldn't be valued very much.

This is the fiat money as a technology invention argument on why dollars beat gold, better payment functionality makes a given money system more used, which in turn makes it more valuable. The fact that bitcoin's payment functions are superior to fiat is what makes the project have a fighting chance.
 

The "technology" innovation of dollars vs gold was that initially dollars were tokens exchangeable for gold (actually silver, the thaler).  Gradually over time this link has been progressively severed through force of law by the primary beneficiary of the dollar issuance.
The frogs have been thoroughly boiled, all that is left is to see how many meals can be made of our meat.

[cypherdoc]

The very first thing to understand about Bitcoin is that its store of value function is at least an order of magnitude more important than its payment or remittance functions. Very roughly speaking, something like 90% of the value of Bitcoin is in something the government cannot possibly replicate without relinquishing control of the money supply. They could create digital money, but that wouldn't touch the lion's share of Bitcoin's value proposition.

We are in agreement, this is also why most of bitcoin's earliest adopters are those who were already looking for a sound money alternative with independent control of the money supply.

That said bitcoin's payment or remittance functions are what make the store of value function valuable. The more useful the payment functions are and are used the more valuable the store of value function becomes. Imagine bitcoin with no payment function but the same store of value function, yes the store of value function would work and remain fixed, but it wouldn't be valued very much.

This is the fiat money as a technology invention argument on why dollars beat gold, better payment functionality makes a given money system more used, which in turn makes it more valuable. The fact that bitcoin's payment functions are superior to fiat is what makes the project have a fighting chance.
 

The "technology" innovation of dollars vs gold was that initially dollars were tokens exchangeable for gold (actually silver, the thaler).  Gradually over time this link has been progressively severed through force of law by the primary beneficiary of the dollar issuance.
The frogs have been thoroughly boiled, all that is left is to see how many meals can be made of our meat.

instead of innovation, maybe we should call it "bait and switch"?

[rocks]

how do you explain gold's SOV function while not having any real payment usage?

Gold most definitely has a payment function, it was physical transfer of coins and bars. A payment system that lasted off and on for millennium. Even in the 1800s in many areas of the US people would only accept gold or silver coins/bars as payment, and it took some time for the population to become comfortable with paper dollars. That is a payment function for gold.

Where do you think the English phrase "In cold hard cash" comes from. It is from people demanding the real payment function of physical coins/bars, not from people demanding paper notes.

The "technology" innovation of dollars vs gold was that initially dollars were tokens exchangeable for gold (actually silver, the thaler).  Gradually over time this link has been progressively severed through force of law by the primary beneficiary of the dollar issuance.
The frogs have been thoroughly boiled, all that is left is to see how many meals can be made of our meat.

instead of innovation, maybe we should call it "bait and switch"?

What NL stated was the false promise given to people to make them comfortable with using paper dollars (the bait and switch). Otherwise many people would not have trusted dollars and continued to demand physical coins (in cold hard cash). Even with the government's false promise many still continued to use coins, which made FDR's executive order necessary.

That said, the payment function for dollars IS better than the payment function for gold, which I believe is why dollars won.

With gold you are limited to in-person physical transfers. This is very limited so we did have bank notes that people could transfer, but people understood bank notes were not the real thing and they could and did break promises all the time.

Comparatively the FED dollar ledger is a superior payment function over gold. With the dollar ledger physical transfer is no longer necessary, banks can move the ledger across oceans as fast as they can move information, this is much more useful than gold coins. And a big plus for most people were dollars were guaranteed by the FED and there was little risk of dollars defaulting (since after FDR's default dollars were only backed by themselves).

The point is gold has a superior SOV function, but I believe dollars "won" because they DO have a superior payment function. SOV alone is not enough, again Rai stones are superior to gold in SOV, but that does them no good since the payment function is very poor.

Bitcoin has a superior payment function over dollars PLUS a superior SOV function over dollars (and gold). It is the ability to easily transfer value that makes a SOV system valuable.