Bitcoin ETF's

[murraypaul]

Of course you are also ignoring that if the bitcoin miner needs a network connection, and there are no phone lines or cell towers, then they are probably going to pay for a starlink node.
Oh, but those economic facts don't agree with your argument do they.

Small African villages? Bitcoin miners are going to pick a small African village, set up their own power supply and Starlink nodes?

Sure, the bulk of mining is done in the USA currently. Much in Texas. But your claim that it is NOT done in elsewhere is provably wrong.

I didn't claim that no mining is done outside the US.
I do think that no significant amount of mining is done is remote African villages.

The reality is that almost all Bitcoin mining happens on the same power grids, using the same power, as everything else.

[murraypaul]

I think we are talking past each other.

You are saying that it is possible for Bitcoin miners to use new, innovative solutions to access energy that would otherwise not be valuable.

I agree that this is possible, and is being done on a small scale.

I am saying that in reality, there is no significant actual use of these solutions, and in fact almost all mining is done on regular power networks.

Do you agree with that?

[Urbandreamer]

I think we are talking past each other.

You are saying that it is possible for Bitcoin miners to use new, innovative solutions to access energy that would otherwise not be valuable.

I agree that this is possible, and is being done on a small scale.

I am saying that in reality, there is no significant actual use of these solutions, and in fact almost all mining is done on regular power networks.

Do you agree with that?

I did write a long reply, but decided that it would be taken the wrong way. I regard your last statement as being incomplete and subject to misinterpretation, but essentially not wrong. Regular networks are very good at moving electricity around.

Of course the use of the word "significant" may be an area of serious disagreement. I do agree that the bulk does not use stranded energy.

[Spet0789]

I cannot see any way for Bitcoin to be a good investment. It’s just bad at what it purports to be. It’s not a crypto currency. It’s at best a cryptocommodity. And it’s a disaster for the planet.

I always like to hear Bitcoin is a disaster for the planet. Compare it to banking and regular payment methods. Look at the innovative ways the energy is sourced. Look at all the alternative spin-off crypto-currency options resulting that are minimal impact. I think you'll find it is not that bad.

Looking purely as an investment opportunity as you mention you can't see it being good - if people had put $100 in when I first mentioned it ten years back, they could cash out today for over $40,000. Imagine doing that today, $100 for each of your young children or grandchildren. It will a great foundation for them.

I said Bitcoin is a disaster for the planet. Any PoW crypto is. Other PoS crypto not so. There are many cryptocurrencies that do a much better job than Bitcoin.

The fact that something has gone up in the past is no reason for it to continue to go up. In fact to some degree the opposite. You’d have made the same point about a Madoff investment the day before he was found out.

[Urbandreamer]

I said Bitcoin is a disaster for the planet. Any PoW crypto is. Other PoS crypto not so. There are many cryptocurrencies that do a much better job than Bitcoin.

So many things to talk about in that short statement!

There are better vegetables than broccoli!
Meaningless statement, as meaningless as crypto currencies doing a better job than XYZ example, unless you define how and what they do.

Right.....

So I'm going to make a few assumptions about your statement that may be incorrect. If you dispute them say so.

1) that you are talking a crypto currency is intended to be used as a form of money, not as a contract for example.
2) as it is intended to be money, just like fiat cash, effort/cost must be spent to prevent counterfeiting or arguably debasement.
3) that the only thing that counts for you is the costs/energy use of your money. Hence gold would be out because of costs and environmental impact.

OK, so why proof of work? Well, to date we have found no method as good at achieving security in a decentralized manner for digital currency.
Sure, some other crypto use proof of stake. Now remind me, how does that work? Well you grant validation/censorship and honesty to a small group who hold large amounts of the currency, by virtue of them holding a large amount. That is why it is called "proof of stake".
Proof of work applies a cost to validation/censorship or dishonesty.

So, your definition of "better" is the "money" that uses the least energy rather than is the most secure by nature of it's decentralization.

Dare I hazard a guess that you don't like your vegetables? Sorry I mean that you don't like any crypto at all.

Please prove me wrong and state what the PoS crypto is that you have chosen to buy.

Ps, for those lost on the difference in the TLA's (three letter acronyms, PoW and PoS) or who didn't know what they meant, here is a link to a good explanation, the pro's and con's of each. One could wish that Spet had defined the terms or provided a link.

https://www.businessinsider.com/persona ... ?r=US&IR=T

[Spet0789]

I said Bitcoin is a disaster for the planet. Any PoW crypto is. Other PoS crypto not so. There are many cryptocurrencies that do a much better job than Bitcoin.

So many things to talk about in that short statement!

There are better vegetables than broccoli!
Meaningless statement, as meaningless as crypto currencies doing a better job than XYZ example, unless you define how and what they do.

Right.....

So I'm going to make a few assumptions about your statement that may be incorrect. If you dispute them say so.

1) that you are talking a crypto currency is intended to be used as a form of money, not as a contract for example.
2) as it is intended to be money, just like fiat cash, effort/cost must be spent to prevent counterfeiting or arguably debasement.
3) that the only thing that counts for you is the costs/energy use of your money. Hence gold would be out because of costs and environmental impact.

OK, so why proof of work? Well, to date we have found no method as good at achieving security in a decentralized manner for digital currency.
Sure, some other crypto use proof of stake. Now remind me, how does that work? Well you grant validation/censorship and honesty to a small group who hold large amounts of the currency, by virtue of them holding a large amount. That is why it is called "proof of stake".
Proof of work applies a cost to validation/censorship or dishonesty.

So, your definition of "better" is the "money" that uses the least energy rather than is the most secure by nature of it's decentralization.

Dare I hazard a guess that you don't like your vegetables? Sorry I mean that you don't like any crypto at all.

Please prove me wrong and state what the PoS crypto is that you have chosen to buy.

Ps, for those lost on the difference in the TLA's (three letter acronyms, PoW and PoS) or who didn't know what they meant, here is a link to a good explanation, the pro's and con's of each. One could wish that Spet had defined the terms or provided a link.

https://www.businessinsider.com/persona ... ?r=US&IR=T

My point is very simple. Bitcoin is a bad cryptocurrency. To be a good one, transaction costs must fall, but they won’t.

IIRC, the cost of processing a single BTC transaction (which varies a lot) is around $1. It has gone over $50. This makes it unviable as a medium of exchange. Hence my comment that it’s more like a crypto commodity.

Apologies for not defining the terms, but I assumed some basic knowledge from you and an ability to google from others!

To your question, I have (profitably) held crypto though I do not currently. Mainly ETH but also others. I think that blockchain technology is fascinating and has the power to put highly successful companies ranging from PayPal and Visa to major exchanges out of business. But that doesn’t mean holding crypto as part of your asset allocation makes sense to me.

[Urbandreamer]

My point is very simple. Bitcoin is a bad cryptocurrency. To be a good one, transaction costs must fall, but they won’t.

IIRC, the cost of processing a single BTC transaction (which varies a lot) is around $1. This makes it unviable.

Apologies for not defining the terms, but I assumed some basic knowledge from you and an ability to google from others!

Again, it seems that you are trying to take the entire world and represent it on the head of a pin.

There are more cryptocurrencies than there are vegetables. They are different, as in NOT the same. They serve different purposes. Yet you claim that they must all function DIRECTLY for buying a pint of beer.

On chain bitcoin transactions costs, if you could be bothered reading the thread, are significantly more than $1.

Now as it happened I have personally bought beer with bitcoin using the lightning network in the UK. As you would know if you read the thread. The transaction cost was less than 1p.

I note that you still haven't identified your "better" crypto currency. Possibly you might provide an example of a POS (point of sale) terminal that functions with it so that it can be used by merchants. There by justifying your argument?

I'm going to assume that, as I could google "lightning pos terminal", that you can google your, "better crypto" pos terminal.

You know what, I believe that Mark Twain was right.
It simply isn't worth the effort of trying to identify the meat of your arguments.

[Spet0789]

My point is very simple. Bitcoin is a bad cryptocurrency. To be a good one, transaction costs must fall, but they won’t.

IIRC, the cost of processing a single BTC transaction (which varies a lot) is around $1. This makes it unviable.

Apologies for not defining the terms, but I assumed some basic knowledge from you and an ability to google from others!

Again, it seems that you are trying to take the entire world and represent it on the head of a pin.

There are more cryptocurrencies than there are vegetables. They are different, as in NOT the same. They serve different purposes. Yet you claim that they must all function DIRECTLY for buying a pint of beer.

On chain bitcoin transactions costs, if you could be bothered reading the thread, are significantly more than $1.

Now as it happened I have personally bought beer with bitcoin using the lightning network in the UK. As you would know if you read the thread. The transaction cost was less than 1p.

I note that you still haven't identified your "better" crypto currency. Possibly you might provide an example of a POS (point of sale) terminal that functions with it so that it can be used by merchants. There by justifying your argument?

I'm going to assume that, as I could google "lightning pos terminal", that you can google your, "better crypto" pos terminal.

You know what, I believe that Mark Twain was right.
It simply isn't worth the effort of trying to identify the meat of your arguments.

Are you being obtuse on purpose?

Yes, there are lots of cryptocurrencies. Yes, many are better than Bitcoin. That is precisely my point.

What I am saying is that Bitcoin is bad at being a cryptocurrency. So if you want to invest in crypto I don’t see Bitcoin as the right place to do it.

Any crypto asset that purports to be a currency must be usable for transactions.

[stevensfo]

Wow!

I didn't realise there were so many mugs!

https://99bitcoins.com/deadcoins/

What a shame they appeared after 'Only Fools and Horses'.

Can you imagine Del Boy with his criptpwo kurrencie? "Rodney, just keep pressing the Enter key, you plonker!"


Steve

[ignotus20]

Any crypto asset that purports to be a currency must be usable for transactions.

BTC is a currency only in the sense that cigarettes and phonecards are in prisons, or whisky was during the American war of independence. A more accurate description is that it's a digital asset without intrinsic value.

[Urbandreamer]

Any crypto asset that purports to be a currency must be usable for transactions.

BTC is a currency only in the sense that cigarettes and phonecards are in prisons, or whisky was during the American war of independence. A more accurate description is that it's a digital asset without intrinsic value.

It's a currency in the way that VISA and Mastercard are currencies and the pound is not, some of the time. Have you tried buying a pint in a city center pub with pounds?

I have in the past pointed out that I have used BTC to by shirts in Matalan, by using a VISA card. Also that I have bought beer using bitcoin over the lightning network. Your claims do not invalidate my personal experiences.

It might also be worth someone (possibly you) explaining what "intrinsic" value exists in the pound sterling. Where do they find more of it whenever the money supply increases? They certainly seem to have found plenty of it, whatever "it" is, over the last 4 years.

[ignotus20]

It's a currency in the way that VISA and Mastercard are currencies and the pound is not, some of the time. Have you tried buying a pint in a city center pub with pounds?

I have in the past pointed out that I have used BTC to by shirts in Matalan, by using a VISA card. Also that I have bought beer using bitcoin over the lightning network. Your claims do not invalidate my personal experiences.

It might also be worth someone (possibly you) explaining what "intrinsic" value exists in the pound sterling. Where do they find more of it whenever the money supply increases? They certainly seem to have found plenty of it, whatever "it" is, over the last 4 years.

A defining feature of currencies is that they have a central bank who set base interest rates, BTC does not (and I suspect there would be strong resistance if anyone ever tried to). One of the attributes of currencies is that the supply can be increased or reduced. Whether this is a good or bad idea is open to debate.

VISA and Mastercard don't issue their own currency. Transactions can only be carried out in the currencies they support. You also have to settle your bill in one of them. VISA and Mastercard don't support BTC.

I don't think I claimed that pound sterling (or any other fiat currency) has intrinsic value? One of a fiat currency's extrinsic value attributes, however, is high levels of liquidity, especially in the country where they were originally issued. BTC does not have this, apart from some fairly obscure locations like El Salvador. And even then, most El-Salvadorians prefer cash:

Despite bitcoin’s legal tender status and the large incentives to promote Chivo Wallet in El Salvador, the cryptocurrency was not adopted at large as a medium of exchange, and digital payments were scarce and concentrated.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.add2844

To your point, try buying a pint in BTC in a pub almost anywhere.

[Urbandreamer]

A defining feature of currencies is that they have a central bank who set base interest rates, BTC does not (and I suspect there would be strong resistance if anyone ever tried to). One of the attributes of currencies is that the supply can be increased or reduced. Whether this is a good or bad idea is open to debate.

NO it is NOT.

When Alfred the great defined the pound sterling as one pound weight of sterling silver (240 silver pennies), there was no central bank.
This state continued under the Plantagenent's, Stuarts, Tudors and House of Orange. Changing to being defined in gold as silver became easier to find.

The BoE started as a private bank, so according to you the pound was not a currency even then!

Silver, or later gold can not have the supply increased or reduced at the will of the state, though coins can be debased by adding base metal.
That is normally what is meant by "intrinsic" value and is the reason why the value of a sovereign is not £1.

Clearly you are claiming that the pound was not a currency until very late in it's existence. It wasn't until 1998 that the BoE became independent. Before that the "central bank" was not responsible for setting base rates.
Possibly I've misunderstood and you are claiming that the pound became a currency in 1931, when it ceased to have an "intrinsic" value and became subject to changes in supply. Though you did seem to imply that the lack of intrinsic value was one of bitcoins "faults" as otherwise there was no need to mention the fact.

I STRONGLY suggest that you study the history of money.

There are some good books on the subject that include bitcoin, but most books on the subject predate bitcoin's creation.
They will be just as good at correcting your misunderstandings on the subject of money and currency.

Start with that, before you consider the reasons why bitcoin might or might not make sense.

Ps, historically the things that we use for money must be difficult to obtain or create. Something that clearly, as you say rightly or wrongly, is not the case with modern fiat money. Currency and money are of course not the same thing. Arguably currency can't have an interest rate as it is a medium of exchange. I maintain that pound notes were currency before 1931. They had no intrinsic value, but the money was the gold that they represented, which did.

[ignotus20]

So we agree then, BTC and fiat currencies both have no intrinsic value, but you can't usually buy a pint of beer using BTC, whereas you generally can with the latter.

[Urbandreamer]

So we agree then, BTC and fiat currencies both have no intrinsic value, but you can't usually buy a pint of beer using BTC, whereas you generally can with the latter.

As I pointed out, you can't usually buy a pint of beer with the latter these days, destroying that argument.

FWIW, I'm going to a bitcoin meetup tonight in a city center pub. I'll be able to buy beer, but not with fiat currency. The pub only accepts cards.

Hence I can pay with any money that is dealt with by VISA, Mastercard, et-al. As I said, you can pay for things with BTC using those cards.

There is a good reason for this parliamentary debate, that does not relate to crypto.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/605030

[Bubblesofearth]

As I pointed out, you can't usually buy a pint of beer with the latter these days, destroying that argument.

I pay for most stuff these days with my visa debit card. When I do so the money is taken out of my bank account in pounds.

BoE

[Urbandreamer]

As I pointed out, you can't usually buy a pint of beer with the latter these days, destroying that argument.

I pay for most stuff these days with my visa debit card. When I do so the money is taken out of my bank account in pounds.

BoE

Yes, the money that you chose to spend is pounds. However is it currency when you use a card?
If so, then when the money taken from my account is BTC, obviously that must be a currency too.
Where is the difference?

The argument that I thought was being made was that BTC wasn't a currency, because it isn't accepted by the bar man. Hence if the bar man refuses pound notes and coins then by that argument they (pounds) are not currency either.

Note, it wasn't my argument. But the flaws are I think clear.

The problem I suspect is that people are confusing the word "money" with the word "currency".
The only "currency" accepted in this pub is credit or debit cards, but they accept pounds, Euro's, USD, BTC and all the rest if spent using such cards.

Ps, I also rarely use currency. Paying instead by card.

[Bubblesofearth]

Yes, the money that you chose to spend is pounds. However is it currency when you use a card?
If so, then when the money taken from my account is BTC, obviously that must be a currency too.
Where is the difference?

The argument that I thought was being made was that BTC wasn't a currency, because it isn't accepted by the bar man. Hence if the bar man refuses pound notes and coins then by that argument they (pounds) are not currency either.

Note, it wasn't my argument. But the flaws are I think clear.

The problem I suspect is that people are confusing the word "money" with the word "currency".
The only "currency" accepted in this pub is credit or debit cards, but they accept pounds, Euro's, USD, BTC and all the rest if spent using such cards.

Ps, I also rarely use currency. Paying instead by card.

The beer is priced and paid for in pounds. You can sell whatever you like to raise those pounds, gold, bitcoin, whatever. That doesn't make them a currency. Although that of course will depend on your definition of currency.

BoE

[Urbandreamer]

The beer is priced and paid for in pounds. You can sell whatever you like to raise those pounds, gold, bitcoin, whatever. That doesn't make them a currency. Although that of course will depend on your definition of currency.

BoE

Well I was using currency to mean medium of exchange (as I think was the person pointing out that you can't use BTC in the pub).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency

A currency[a] is a standardization of money in any form, in use or circulation as a medium of exchange, for example banknotes and coins.

as opposed to

A more general definition is that a currency is a system of money in common use within a specific environment over time, especially for people in a nation state.

Morning after report:

The pub still does not accept bank notes or coins as a medium of exchange, demanding digital payment.

I "paid" in two different ways, though the bar man and his till saw no difference.

1) Paid immediately by debit card, in bitcoin. All in cost 0.00014416 BTC.*
2) Paid by credit card (taking out a loan). All in cost £4.50.

Humm, rewind's me of the Add that I linked in my initial post on the thread.
https://twitter.com/hashdex/status/1743287176337482184

"The home of the Whopper is offering cash or credit"...... "I think it's pretty bad if you have to use a credit card when you go to a fast food restaurant"

I believe that the comment was about having to taking the loan out to buy a burger, everyone using currency (sorry $ bills) to pay at the time.
The advert is using the old footage to point out how attitudes have changed.

*Note that may become an expensive pint of beer if BTC goes up or the pound becomes less valuable. I seldom spend BTC, it's subject to Gresham's law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law

[Bubblesofearth]

I "paid" in two different ways, though the bar man and his till saw no difference.

1) Paid immediately by debit card, in bitcoin. All in cost 0.00014416 BTC.*

Presumably the pub want payment in sterling so at some point your bitcoin will have had to be converted, i.e. sold, into sterling?

So no different in principle to selling anything to raise the necessary sterling.

BoE