|
dataispower (OP)
|
 |
March 02, 2015, 03:11:13 PM |
|
"It's a method of transmitting money. It's a very effective way of transmitting money and you can do it anonymously and all that. A check is a way of transmitting money, too. Are checks worth a whole lot of money just because they can transmit money? Are money orders? You can transmit money by money orders. People do it. I hope bitcoin becomes a better way of doing it, but you can replicate it a bunch of different ways and it will be. The idea that it has some huge intrinsic value is just a joke in my view."
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101494937
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If you don't want people to know you're a scumbag then don't be a scumbag." -- margaritahuyan
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gmiwenht
Member
 Offline
Activity: 115
Merit: 10
|
|
March 02, 2015, 03:19:41 PM |
|
No, I think that we all know better than one of the world's most successful and experienced investors.
|
1xsBEUVzo6EtAST5Bq96AztiTR5mBXNzt
|
|
|
|
Asrael999
|
|
March 02, 2015, 03:21:48 PM |
|
The difference is there is not an unlimited supply of money orders and cheques, there is a limited (albeit massive) supply of satoshi, and they can be recycled and used repeatedly. Should bitcoin have a monetary value, probably, should it be massive, debatable, but that's why there is a market in them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
dataispower (OP)
|
|
March 02, 2015, 03:22:21 PM |
|
No, I think that we all know better than one of the world's most successful and experienced investors.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
dataispower (OP)
|
|
March 02, 2015, 03:28:03 PM |
|
The difference is there is not an unlimited supply of money orders and cheques, there is a limited (albeit massive) supply of satoshi, and they can be recycled and used repeatedly. Should bitcoin have a monetary value, probably, should it be massive, debatable, but that's why there is a market in them.
The point is simple, the bitcoin network could become an efficient way for transmitting value world wide. Should not be used for storing value. |
|
|
|
|
herzmeister
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1007
|
|
March 02, 2015, 03:35:04 PM |
|
"Are checks worth a whole lot of money just because they can transmit money?"
Yes. A check is an instrument provided by a bank. And banks are worth a lot of money according to the stock exchanges, last time I checked.
|
|
|
|
|
dataispower (OP)
|
|
March 02, 2015, 03:42:26 PM |
|
"Are checks worth a whole lot of money just because they can transmit money?"
Yes. A check is an instrument provided by a bank. And banks are worth a lot of money according to the stock exchanges, last time I checked.
But the bitcoin network can operate even if one bitcoin is worth about 10$. |
|
|
|
|
Torque
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3542
Merit: 5039
|
|
March 02, 2015, 03:52:42 PM |
|
Buffett's analogy of bitcoin to checks is completely flawed, even he should know the difference. Notice that he did not compare bitcoin to actual fiat money (fiat money being the most direct form of value transmission) which does have immediate, relative value, but no "intrinsic value" per se.
Buffett hates gold as well, which agrees with his argument of having little intrinsic value, but yet gold dumbfoundedly continues to climb in value relative to fiat money decade after decade. Go figure.
Buffett acts as if companies like Coca-Cola will be with us FOREVER. They won't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
cafucafucafu
|
|
March 02, 2015, 03:55:23 PM |
|
"It's a method of transmitting money. It's a very effective way of transmitting money and you can do it anonymously and all that. A check is a way of transmitting money, too. Are checks worth a whole lot of money just because they can transmit money? Are money orders? You can transmit money by money orders. People do it. I hope bitcoin becomes a better way of doing it, but you can replicate it a bunch of different ways and it will be. The idea that it has some huge intrinsic value is just a joke in my view."
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101494937 Checks and money orders can have any amount put onto them. But you need more bitcoins to send more money. Also checks dont come with decentralized ledgers. Buffet is an investing genius but has no clue how BTC works. |
|
|
|
|
Wandererfromthenorth
|
|
March 02, 2015, 03:59:06 PM |
|
I think the point he wants to come across is the fact that the bitcoins themselves are considered valuable, the "checks" how he calls them.
The part about "it can be replicated and it will be" is important in my view. He he clearly not referring to shitcoins altcoins (lol), what he is probably saying is that the breakthroughs of bitcoins underlying technology should (and will) be used to simply improve the way payments work today, not forcing everybody to adopt a new stand-alone currency that is seriously problematic for a vast number of reasons and that it is not really needed as a currency.
We shouldn't be forced to suddenly accept that these "checks" (whether in limited supply or not) are valuable and use them for their original intended purpose.
I agree with him in that regard.
That's what the Boston Fed researchers and others recently said with their "we're bullish on the technology" article (if you actually read it).
PS: by saying "the technology behind bitcoin" they don't necessarily mean "the bitcoin blockchain" or proof-of-work or whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
dataispower (OP)
|
|
March 02, 2015, 04:00:15 PM |
|
Buffett's analogy of bitcoin to checks is completely flawed, even he should know the difference. Notice that he did not compare bitcoin to actual fiat money (fiat money being the most direct form of value transmission) which does have immediate, relative value, but no "intrinsic value" per say.
The bitcoin network can be used to transmit money, doesn't mean that people will use the bitcoin "currency" as money. |
|
|
|
|
|
dataispower (OP)
|
|
March 02, 2015, 04:08:07 PM |
|
"It's a method of transmitting money. It's a very effective way of transmitting money and you can do it anonymously and all that. A check is a way of transmitting money, too. Are checks worth a whole lot of money just because they can transmit money? Are money orders? You can transmit money by money orders. People do it. I hope bitcoin becomes a better way of doing it, but you can replicate it a bunch of different ways and it will be. The idea that it has some huge intrinsic value is just a joke in my view."
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101494937 Checks and money orders can have any amount put onto them. But you need more bitcoins to send more money. If using bitcoin to transmit money from one place to the other will be cheap and popular then people will use it. But it doesn't mean that people will use bitcoin "currency" as money. One use case, efficient way for transmitting value, doesn't mean that people will work for bitcoin the "currency" and use it to buy groceries. Why should they? |
|
|
|
|
_AquaRegia
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 23
Merit: 0
|
|
March 02, 2015, 04:11:19 PM |
|
Buffett's analogy of bitcoin to checks is completely flawed, even he should know the difference. Notice that he did not compare bitcoin to actual fiat money (fiat money being the most direct form of value transmission) which does have immediate, relative value, but no "intrinsic value" per say.
The bitcoin network can be used to transmit money, doesn't mean that people will use the bitcoin "currency" as money. If the bitcoin network is indeed transmitting money, then BTC will have a value |
|
|
|
|
|
dataispower (OP)
|
|
March 02, 2015, 04:14:33 PM |
|
Buffett's analogy of bitcoin to checks is completely flawed, even he should know the difference. Notice that he did not compare bitcoin to actual fiat money (fiat money being the most direct form of value transmission) which does have immediate, relative value, but no "intrinsic value" per say.
The bitcoin network can be used to transmit money, doesn't mean that people will use the bitcoin "currency" as money. If the bitcoin network is indeed transmitting money, then BTC will have a value Buffet point is that there is no reason for the bitcoin "currency" to have huge value. "The idea that it has some huge intrinsic value is just a joke in my view." Bitcoin has value, and the bitcoin network can operate even if one bitcoin is worth about 10$. |
|
|
|
|
|
oblivi
|
|
March 02, 2015, 04:23:16 PM |
|
Warren Buffet is a old dinosaur that had luck and is using his past success to keep preaching about what is and isn't good. He will join the quote list of horribly wrong predictions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
onemorexmr
|
|
March 02, 2015, 04:27:24 PM |
|
bitcoin needs two things to really be a money transmitter:
- liquid market
- enough security for my current transfer (miners need an incentive to secure the network - and they are paid in btc)
- a price high enough that i am able to buy the amount of btc i want to transfer
|
|
|
|
|
dataispower (OP)
|
|
March 02, 2015, 04:41:30 PM |
|
bitcoin needs two things to really be a money transmitter:
- liquid market
- enough security for my current transfer (miners need an incentive to secure the network - and they are paid in btc)
- a price high enough that i am able to buy the amount of btc i want to transfer
For people to use bitcoin to transmit money, they need to use a service that will make it secure and very easy to use. If this service will be popular and cheaper than the alternatives then people will use it. They will probably won't even know that bitcoin was used in the process. But this will not mean that the bitcoin "currency" will have a lot of value, because there is no reason to use bitcoin the "currency" as money. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wandererfromthenorth
|
|
March 02, 2015, 04:49:08 PM |
|
bitcoin needs two things to really be a money transmitter:
- liquid market
- enough security for my current transfer (miners need an incentive to secure the network - and they are paid in btc)
- a price high enough that i am able to buy the amount of btc i want to transfer
If there is a technology that allows the transfer of fiat currencies through a distributed ledger network (that doesn't need a cryptocurrency to secure it) the need to use bitcoin as a "check" to transfer value vanishes, same for your 3 requirements. |
|
|
|
|
|
onemorexmr
|
|
March 02, 2015, 04:52:02 PM |
|
bitcoin needs two things to really be a money transmitter:
- liquid market
- enough security for my current transfer (miners need an incentive to secure the network - and they are paid in btc)
- a price high enough that i am able to buy the amount of btc i want to transfer
If there is a technology that allows the transfer of fiat currencies through a distributed ledger network (that doesn't need a cryptocurrency to secure it) the need to use bitcoin as a "check" to transmit value vanishes, same for your 3 requirements. at first: as we talk specifically about bitcoin my points stand. if you talk about something like XUSD (NXT) or BitUSD (bitshares) i dont think you are right. try "buying" 100Million bitusd, transmit them and sell them back. |
|
|
|
|
