Bitcoin is still early

[NapoleanDynamite]

I don’t know. The main players in the internet bubble deflated around 98%, so it wouldn’t surprise me to see that happen to BTC, ETH.
In 1999 Amazon peaked at 95 and bottomed in 2001 around 5. So if this occurred for BTC, it might be $2,500. Or maybe it will be $500,000. It’s just fascinating to watch the story evolve. I tend to think a lot of people will get hurt.

Your strategy of taking profits off the table is probably sensible. Maybe 1 in 100 will be able to hold onto profits. The killer would be averaging down if it craters. Averaging down into oblivion.

If Jerome Powell and the politicians have anything to say about it, the everything bubble will never deflate. They will just keep printing $ to infinity in order to keep the equity, Real estate, and everything market going up. After all, stocks only go up you know.

[orthodds]

The “use case” for cryptos doesn’t make any sense to me. Why would end users need to “pay to play” in order to benefit from, for example, a faster or more secure financial transaction? It makes no sense that the average person would accept the idea they have to pay for these tokens and then also store them securely in order to participate in a given “project” or blockchain infrastructure. A business might benefit from using a certain blockchain infrastructure but again they wouldn’t pay ridiculous amounts when it’s easy to create a new blockchain as needed.

Cryotos as a decentralized financial system? Faster, cheaper and better is a good standard to judge. Bitcoin is super inefficient in more ways than one and certainly isn’t faster than current financial instruments or transactions. It isn’t easier for the user than using existing currency or even gold. Is it better? Maybe in some ways but clearly worse in others. Doesn’t seem like a home run to me.

The ONLY reason 99 percent of people care about cryptos is because they think they can make a lot of money quickly. Bitcoin is controlled by relatively few people who stand to benefit enormously if the price is driven up. It’s shady.

I have gone through the cryptocurrency/cryptography courses by MIT and Princeton. I have listened to many “experts” on both sides. What am I missing? It’s also hard not to recognize we are currently in the midst of a historic flood of liquidity that tends to amplify speculative markets such as cryptocurrencies.

The more I learn about cryptos the less I believe in them. Are there any pro-crypto people out there who don’t also stand to gain personally from an increase in crypto prices? Is there any reason to believe there isn’t a similar cryptography tech that will be better than that used in Bitcoin or other coins? (Any hashgraph fans out there?)

[jacoavlu]

The “use case” for cryptos doesn’t make any sense to me. Why would end users need to “pay to play” in order to benefit from, for example, a faster or more secure financial transaction? It makes no sense that the average person would accept the idea they have to pay for these tokens and then also store them securely in order to participate in a given “project” or blockchain infrastructure. A business might benefit from using a certain blockchain infrastructure but again they wouldn’t pay ridiculous amounts when it’s easy to create a new blockchain as needed.

Cryotos as a decentralized financial system? Faster, cheaper and better is a good standard to judge. Bitcoin is super inefficient in more ways than one and certainly isn’t faster than current financial instruments or transactions. It isn’t easier for the user than using existing currency or even gold. Is it better? Maybe in some ways but clearly worse in others. Doesn’t seem like a home run to me.

The ONLY reason 99 percent of people care about cryptos is because they think they can make a lot of money quickly. Bitcoin is controlled by relatively few people who stand to benefit enormously if the price is driven up. It’s shady.

I have gone through the cryptocurrency/cryptography courses by MIT and Princeton. I have listened to many “experts” on both sides. What am I missing? It’s also hard not to recognize we are currently in the midst of a historic flood of liquidity that tends to amplify speculative markets such as cryptocurrencies.

The more I learn about cryptos the less I believe in them. Are there any pro-crypto people out there who don’t also stand to gain personally from an increase in crypto prices? Is there any reason to believe there isn’t a similar cryptography tech that will be better than that used in Bitcoin or other coins? (Any hashgraph fans out there?)

you’re oscillating back and forth between bitcoin and “crypto” which tells me you don’t understand it that well

your argument against “crypto” is fair in that a lot of these “projects” are just a way to get around securities laws by issuing a utility token instead of a security. The founders and VCs get enriched by this

but with regards to bitcoin. It certainly is faster than legacy finance transactions even with a 10 minute block time bc it’s a digital bearer asset that settles with finality and is irreversible after a few block confirmations. And requires no permission. When you pay Starbucks with your credit card or send your buddy funds on Venmo those transactions actually take several days to settle and are reversible. And go ahead and try to send an international wire transfer, see how long it takes and during what hours you can initiate and get finality.

And bitcoin is “controlled by relatively few”? Exactly who? Even if you want to argue that too much coin is held by relatively few - and this is debatable - those few have no more control over bitcoin than anyone else.

[orthodds]

I was oscillating because I was using Bitcoin as an example. I guess I didn’t pass your test there, dang! But since you are an expert and I am a self-proclaimed neophyte maybe you can help me. I would seriously appreciate it. I have read some about it. I bought some Bitcoin years ago just to see what it was and how it worked (I didn’t spend it yet so I guess I’m long Bitcoin). But I definitely don’t know everything there is to know.

Control meaning owned. If you own a Bitcoin you certainly do control that particular Bitcoin.

Believe me, I promise I do know how blockchain works so I don’t need help there.

In your example if I use Bitcoin I would be standing there waiting 10 minutes for the Bitcoin transaction to clear before they would give me my coffee. With current transactions it’s a matter seconds. While the traditional method doesn’t fully clear through the bank for a day or two (there are faster systems than “several days”) but who cares? It’s my time I care about. I don’t sit around refreshing my bank account app to see if something cleared. That’s already taken care of in the current system. So your example is a solution in search of a problem. That’s not very compelling.

[jacoavlu]

I was oscillating because I was using Bitcoin as an example. I guess I didn’t pass your test there, dang! But since you are an expert and I am a self-proclaimed neophyte maybe you can help me. I would seriously appreciate it. I have read some about it. I bought some Bitcoin years ago just to see what it was and how it worked (I didn’t spend it yet so I guess I’m long Bitcoin). But I definitely don’t know everything there is to know.

Control meaning owned. If you own a Bitcoin you certainly do control that particular Bitcoin.

Believe me, I promise I do know how blockchain works so I don’t need help there.

In your example if I use Bitcoin I would be standing there waiting 10 minutes for the Bitcoin transaction to clear before they would give me my coffee. With current transactions it’s a matter seconds. While the traditional method doesn’t fully clear through the bank for a day or two (there are faster systems than “several days”) but who cares? It’s my time I care about. I don’t sit around refreshing my bank account app to see if something cleared. That’s already taken care of in the current system. So your example is a solution in search of a problem. That’s not very compelling.

owners control their coins of course. And if they want to use them? They must sell and give up their coins. If they want more they must buy just like everyone else. And they cannot exert influence over bitcoin the network and protocol. Which is different than proof of stake networks, and the current legacy system.

with regards to Starbucks. you have to look at it from both sides for one. The merchant would prefer finality and low fees. Read about lightning network, layer 2 on top of bitcoin. Or heck download a phone wallet (id recommend Muun) and I’ll send you some sats right now. It’s instant and final and virtually free. Which again is vastly different than and superior to the current system, though admittedly lightning has its own faults and has a ways to go before everyone could use it easily.

[orthodds]

Second point with regard to your example is it would be helpful to the banking institution to use blockchain tech to move money faster. I can see how it would be better than doing a wire. But why would they pay for Bitcoin when they can hire a couple engineers to create a blockchain to use? There is no reason they would spend ridiculous amounts on Bitcoin when a better version of that blockchain is easy to create. So in this situation there is no incentive for the customer to use Bitcoin. There is an incentive I think for the bank or financial institution to use blockchain of some type but there is no need for them to pay to play in the Bitcoin blockchain ecosystem.

The tech is useful for sure. Bidding up the price of blockchain tokens doesn’t seem to be a necessary feature of implementing blockchain tech.

[jacoavlu]

Second point with regard to your example is it would be helpful to the banking institution to use blockchain tech to move money faster. I can see how it would be better than doing a wire. But why would they pay for Bitcoin when they can hire a couple engineers to create a blockchain to use? There is no reason they would spend ridiculous amounts on Bitcoin when a better version of that blockchain is easy to create. So in this situation there is no incentive for the customer to use Bitcoin. There is an incentive I think for the bank or financial institution to use blockchain of some type but there is no need for them to pay to play in the Bitcoin blockchain ecosystem.

The tech is useful for sure. Bidding up the price of blockchain tokens doesn’t seem to be a necessary feature of implementing blockchain tech.

check your premises.

why should a bank need a blockchain to “move money faster”?

[orthodds]

check your premises.

why should a bank need a blockchain to “move money faster”?

Better question is why does anyone need to pay for a coin in order to benefit from blockchain tech? And what is the wisdom bidding up coin prices that end up benefiting a relatively small number of people?

I’m trying to figure out why anyone would “pay to play” when it comes to blockchain cryptography.

I haven’t heard an answer yet and you are an expert. If you can’t give a concise answer to this question what does that mean?

[jacoavlu]

Better question is why does anyone need to pay for a coin in order to benefit from blockchain tech? And what is the wisdom bidding up coin prices that end up benefiting a relatively small number of people?

I’m trying to figure out why anyone would “pay to play” when it comes to blockchain cryptography.

I haven’t heard an answer yet and you are an expert. If you can’t give a concise answer to this question what does that mean?

You don’t need to pay (other than a few cents transaction fee) if you just want to use the network to transact. I could send you dollars right now over the bitcoin network instantly. Dollars out of my bank account, dollars to your wallet, over the rails of the bitcoin network and using bitcoin in the middle to achieve settlement finality

“benefitting a relatively small number of people” again i would encourage you to check your premises

[orthodds]

You don’t need to pay (other than a few cents transaction fee) if you just want to use the network to transact. I could send you dollars right now over the bitcoin network instantly. Dollars out of my bank account, dollars to your wallet, over the rails of the bitcoin network and using bitcoin in the middle to achieve settlement finality

“benefitting a relatively small number of people” again i would encourage you to check your premises

So I don’t need to buy Bitcoin in order to use and benefit from the Bitcoin blockchain. So again, why would I pay to own Bitcoin?

Benefitting a relatively small number of people: besides the winklevoss twins, I’m thinking generally Bitcoin is owned by either cryptography folks who were in early or more recently it’s been bought up by people with extra cash laying around (like wealthy physicians) who think “I guess I don’t want to be wrong on this Bitcoin thing so I’ll buy some.” The massive increases in the price of Bitcoin don’t benefit your average person in the US let along the rest of the world. For a tech that is often characterized as “egalitarian” it falls far
short of that adjective.

Clearly banks are interested in using blockchain tech and there are obvious inefficiencies in the current system (too many steps involved, too many fees attached) of moving money around that stand to be improved.

So again, what is the concise rationale for buying Bitcoin?

[jacoavlu]

So again, what is the concise rationale for buying Bitcoin?

it’s digital money with a fixed supply and no central authority which can be used in a permissionless manner and if held correctly cannot be confiscated

[chucki]

Blockchains are slow, inefficient ledgers compared to databases such as AWS or Visa. Best utility of a blockchain is the bitcoin network which is decentralized to keep track of settlements in a sound money system. Not much efficiencies for banks (in the current fiat system) to use them at all. Centralized systems are much faster and more efficient so there's not much use case, if any for private blockchains. The whole concept of "blockchain not bitcoin" is a fallacy -- if you here anybody saying that, they have very little knowledge of cryptography or the space, in general.

[orthodds]

it’s digital money with a fixed supply and no central authority which can be used in a permissionless manner and if held correctly cannot be confiscated

This is a response I’ve seen before. Does this mean we are abandoning the “use case” reasons for paying for it? Is this basically the “digital gold” rationale?

[orthodds]

Blockchains are slow, inefficient ledgers compared to databases such as AWS or Visa. Best utility of a blockchain is the bitcoin network which is decentralized to keep track of settlements in a sound money system. Not much efficiencies for banks (in the current fiat system) to use them at all. Centralized systems are much faster and more efficient so there's not much use case, if any for private blockchains. The whole concept of "blockchain not bitcoin" is a fallacy -- if you here anybody saying that, they have very little knowledge of cryptography or the space, in general.

There is a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Try googling “blockchain use in banking and finance”

[jacoavlu]

This is a response I’ve seen before. Does this mean we are abandoning the “use case” reasons for paying for it? Is this basically the “digital gold” rationale?

Who said anything about abandoning use case? See our back and forth above as to why real world use is superior in several ways.