Post 78:
Maoraigh did not write. He quoted.Malibu Flyer.
Maoraigh. Apologies, The convenience of the text drag and quote is too great :) I will edit.
:e Turns out I can’t, it must have been up too long.
Frankly, given that we live in voracious states which already gobble up 40% or more of the value generated but their population, which because a large part is redistributive means that for the more productive citizens have to give 60%+ to the state in various guises, I trust the institutions about as far as I can throw a ton of bullion.
I am also certain that these same institutions are unlikely to give up the control they have, so the real threat to alternative means of exchange is actually coming from our own governments, and from behavioural factors such as people wanting to exchange bitcoin for stuff (including other currencies) rather than staying in it (or in other words, the speculative bubble bursting). And there is absolutely no doubt that bitcoin is in a speculative bubble, most people buy it not because they want it to exchange it for goods or services at its current value, they buy it to exchange it for goods and services at a future, higher value).
And for those who think we are somehow protected by constitutions etc should well remember that in the USA, it was prohibited for private individuals to own gold [with some exceptions for collectors and trade use] from 1933 to 1974.
The net target balance, e.g. is always (nearly) zero. If countries (more precisely national central banks) have “target debt”, then there is other countries that have matching credit.
Well, if people believe that the Target 2 money which German taxpayers are lending to the periphery will ever be repaid, they could argue that it is not diminishing the value of their money.
I suppose the same people would also argue that the ECB’s negative interest rates are not “taking away” peoples’ money.
Off_Field wrote:
I’m sure the Euro’s circulation growth rate was pretty high too in its first years of existence.
Well – no!
When the Euro came into existence, it was a direct replacement for other currencies that already have been there. So the introduction of Euro had very litte impact on M3.
Off_Field wrote:
Bitnodes gives an indication as to the global distribution of nodes. Far from the China majority some would try to have you believe.
Distribution of non mining nodes is largely irrelevant for what we discuss. Why? Give me 10 Mio. EUR and 2 weeks time and I will personally own the majority of non mining nodes.
Cobalt wrote:
Frankly, given that we live in voracious states which already gobble up 40% or more of the value generated but their population, which because a large part is redistributive means that for the more productive citizens have to give 60%+ to the state in various guises,
And which part of these 40-60% come from the monetary system? If you do not use bitcoin illegally to avoid taxes, it has no impact at all on what you have to contribute to society or not.
Cobalt wrote:
they buy it to exchange it for goods and services at a future, higher value).
Extremely unlikely! Most people seem to buy it to exchange it for exactly that real money in the future that they pretend to hate today.
At a fee per transaction of currently about 6 USD (has been as high as 60 USD already) it s quite unlikely that btc will ever be used “to exchange for goods and services” – esp. as the cost per transaction are substantially higher and as the part of this cost covered by newly mined btc will significantly drop in the not so distant future the fee per transaction is likely to reach 50 USD pretty soon again.
At 50 USD (even 6 USD) trx cost it’s not really fun to pay the evening beer at your local watering hole with it…
If you do not use bitcoin illegally to avoid taxes
Surely the primary use of BTC is to avoid tax, and assorted criminal activities.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Well – no!
No. You went from 0 Euro’s before introduction to lots. This is a big increase in the supply of Euros
Malibuflyer wrote:
Distribution of non mining nodes is largely irrelevant for what we discuss. Why? Give me 10 Mio. EUR and 2 weeks time and I will personally own the majority of non mining nodes.
It does make your argument about the CCP controling all the mining to mount a 51% attack look a bit silly. Also if you think you could add in > 51% of the nodes onto the network without it being noticed or measures being taken by others to combat thiis. There really is no room for discussion.
Malibuflyer wrote:
t s quite unlikely that btc will ever be used “to exchange for goods and services” – esp. as the cost per transaction are substantially higher and as the part of this cost covered by newly mined btc will significantly drop in the not so distant future the fee per transaction is likely to reach 50 USD pretty soon again.
At 50 USD (even 6 USD) trx cost it’s not really fun to pay the evening beer at your local watering hole with it…
It is now (or very shortly to be) Legal tender in El Salvador, it has and is used for regular transactions and reduces remittance fees they pay in dollars significantly. Lightning network gives a solution for faster fees at reduced transactions.
Don’t forget that you can also adjust your transaction fees to suit how quickly you wish the transaction to go through. Recently a chap moved $4.5b for a fee of $21.
Peter wrote:
Surely the primary use of BTC is to avoid tax, and assorted criminal activities.
I think this is FUD too, as being an open ledger it’s not very good for criminals.
My guess is that primarily it is used as a store of wealth / hedge against fiat for individuals and companies who don’t think the dollar is looking attractive at the moment attracted to it by its defined scarcity. Large hodlers from early on were probably more interested in the technology and it being decentralised and free from government interference. As big players and institutions get involved, Microstrategies, Tesla, Grayscale, Square. It will of course depend on region. I understand lots of African countries and south American countries are looking at it as a way to give more people access to banking facilities and low cost payments and transfers.
Off_Field wrote:
It does make your argument about the CCP controling all the mining to mount a 51% attack look a bit silly.
No – I always said it’s all about mining capacity and not about non mining nodes. You are the one who pretends non mining nodes have a significant say.
Off_Field wrote:
Also if you think you could add in > 51% of the nodes onto the network without it being noticed or measures being taken by others to combat thiis
There is no mechanism to prevent new nodes being added to the network. Everybody who wants to establish a node can do so.Off_Field wrote:
Don’t forget that you can also adjust your transaction fees to suit how quickly you wish the transaction to go through. Recently a chap moved $4.5b for a fee of $21.
Complete misunderstanding of the mechanism of transaction fees.
1. It’s not only about speed but more significantly about if the transaction is executed at all. There has not been a single transaction in the last 4 weeks that has been executed at less than 2 USD fee – and yes, there are loads of transactions with less fees offered in the backlog that just do not get executed.
2. The transaction fee is completely independent from the value of the transaction. If the same chap would have moved $4.5ct in btc value at the same time he would also have to pay these 21 USD…
Off_Field wrote:
Lightning network gives a solution for faster fees at reduced transactions.
Lightning network is not blockchain! It is a normal “banking” system that rides on the btc hype wave – just with the downside that it is completely unregulated. Very optimistically one could say that lightning is for bitcoin what western union is for normal currency.
Off_Field wrote:
You went from 0 Euro’s before introduction to lots. This is a big increase in the supply of Euros
Sorry, but simply not right – or only right if you do not look at monetary value but only on physical coins and notes. Looking at monetary value, it was a 1:1 exchange for already existing money. For every Euro they issued they at the very same time took 8.83ct in BEF, 31.955ct in DM, 20,312ct In FF, etc. out of circulation.
So a Euro note you hold in your hand is nothing different from a basket of DM, Franc, etc. notes painted in a uniform color. Not influence on money in circulation at all.
Off_Field wrote:
It is now (or very shortly to be) Legal tender in El Salvador,
El Salvador – really?
Off_Field wrote:
I think this is FUD too, as being an open ledger it’s not very good for criminals.
Yes, it is an open ledger – but with lower KyC requirements for “opening an account” than there has been for number accounts on the Bahamas 30 years ago. So yes, theoretically every transaction is public and theoretically one can trace every btc to its origins. But as long as it is quite simple to setup a network of literally thousands of “accounts” and then transfer money from one to another randomly in practice it is impossible to do that (beyond the even theoretic limitation that if you put one legal and one illegal btc on one account and then transfer these 2 btc in chunks to different other accounts you can not see what has been illegal).
But obviously all of the ransomware criminals and most of the illegal drug, weapon and human trafficking “businesses” are stupid as they use btc big time for their activities w/o knowing that it is “not very good” for them…
How come that practically all the IT scams involve a BTC payment for the ransom to unlock your system, etc?
If they are all traceable, are they being traced?
