p-townag said:

---

I haven't. Google search of "produce traceability" yielded little of interest. I'm now at the point of really enjoying watching you throughout this cycle. I'm going to check in periodically to see how you handle the bull run. Thanks for providing this entertainment.

---

You don't know about produce traceability and yet can't provide an industrial use for BTC. Do you even know what you own with a BTC, and why you own it?

tysker said:

---

p-townag said:

---

I haven't. Google search of "produce traceability" yielded little of interest. I'm now at the point of really enjoying watching you throughout this cycle. I'm going to check in periodically to see how you handle the bull run. Thanks for providing this entertainment.

---

You don't know about produce traceability and yet can't provide an industrial use for BTC. Do you even know what you own with a BTC, and why you own it?

---

Absolutely. Unchangeable, infinitely scarce, divisible, durable, unhackable store of value that can be transferred with final settlement within 30 mins. And that's the only use. And it's an extremely valuable use. We're just lucky in the US that we have the dollar (the best of all the bad inflationary currencies), so we don't immediately see that as a valuable utility. Those that live in countries with even more inflationary currencies immediately recognize the utility of Bitcoin.

I feel like you've confused blockchain with bitcoin.

TexasRebel said:

---

I feel like you've confused blockchain with bitcoin.

---

Bitcoin was created with a blockchain. Every other altcoin then tried to leverage the blockchain technology Bitcoin created. Blockchain is actually really inefficient. It's just the way Bitcoin, along with proof of work, solved the double spending problem.

p-townag said:

---

tysker said:

---

p-townag said:

---

I haven't. Google search of "produce traceability" yielded little of interest. I'm now at the point of really enjoying watching you throughout this cycle. I'm going to check in periodically to see how you handle the bull run. Thanks for providing this entertainment.

---

You don't know about produce traceability and yet can't provide an industrial use for BTC. Do you even know what you own with a BTC, and why you own it?

---

Absolutely. Unchangeable, infinitely scarce, divisible, durable, unhackable store of value that can be transferred with final settlement within 30 mins. And that's the only use. And it's an extremely valuable use. We're just lucky in the US that we have the dollar (the best of all the bad inflationary currencies), so we don't immediately see that as a valuable utility. Those that live in countries with even more inflationary currencies immediately recognize the utility of Bitcoin.

---

What is the industrial use?
In what way do the benefits of a frictionless, trustless network outweigh the costs safekeeping, audit, custodial, and security concerns caused by NYKNYC problems. From an enterprise,not personal, perspective.

tysker said:

---

p-townag said:

---

tysker said:

---

p-townag said:

---

I haven't. Google search of "produce traceability" yielded little of interest. I'm now at the point of really enjoying watching you throughout this cycle. I'm going to check in periodically to see how you handle the bull run. Thanks for providing this entertainment.

---

You don't know about produce traceability and yet can't provide an industrial use for BTC. Do you even know what you own with a BTC, and why you own it?

---

Absolutely. Unchangeable, infinitely scarce, divisible, durable, unhackable store of value that can be transferred with final settlement within 30 mins. And that's the only use. And it's an extremely valuable use. We're just lucky in the US that we have the dollar (the best of all the bad inflationary currencies), so we don't immediately see that as a valuable utility. Those that live in countries with even more inflationary currencies immediately recognize the utility of Bitcoin.

---

What is the industrial use?
In what way do the benefits of a frictionless, trustless network outweigh the costs safekeeping, audit, custodial, and security concerns caused by NYKNYC problems. From an enterprise,not personal, perspective.

---

Industrial use is irrelevant. Money (not currency, necessarily) does not require an industrial use. What industrial use did seashells or glass beads or rai stones serve?

p-townag said:

---

tysker said:

---

p-townag said:

---

tysker said:

---

p-townag said:

---

I haven't. Google search of "produce traceability" yielded little of interest. I'm now at the point of really enjoying watching you throughout this cycle. I'm going to check in periodically to see how you handle the bull run. Thanks for providing this entertainment.

---

You don't know about produce traceability and yet can't provide an industrial use for BTC. Do you even know what you own with a BTC, and why you own it?

---

Absolutely. Unchangeable, infinitely scarce, divisible, durable, unhackable store of value that can be transferred with final settlement within 30 mins. And that's the only use. And it's an extremely valuable use. We're just lucky in the US that we have the dollar (the best of all the bad inflationary currencies), so we don't immediately see that as a valuable utility. Those that live in countries with even more inflationary currencies immediately recognize the utility of Bitcoin.

---

What is the industrial use?
In what way do the benefits of a frictionless, trustless network outweigh the costs safekeeping, audit, custodial, and security concerns caused by NYKNYC problems. From an enterprise,not personal, perspective.

---

Industrial use is irrelevant. Money (not currency, necessarily) does not require an industrial use. What industrial use did seashells or glass beads or rai stones serve?

---

So it's not a commodity. OK, same question.
In what way do the benefits of a frictionless, trustless network outweigh the costs safekeeping, audit, custodial, and security concerns caused by NYKNYC problems?

Or does TANSTAAFL not apply?

Please use words instead of acronyms.

And commodities (gold for example) can be money.

Sorry its a reference to Heinlein's book The Moon is A Harsh Mistress: there ain't no such thing as a free lunch

Its a simple rephrasing of the economic concept that there will always be trade offs.

What are the costs of BTC? And in what way so those costs outweigh the benefits? Or is BTC the worlds first 'free lunch?'

tysker said:

---

Sorry its a reference to Heinlein's book The Moon is A Harsh Mistress. 'No such thing as a free lunch'

Its a simple rephrasing of the economic concept that there will always be trade offs.

What are the costs of BTC? And in what way so those costs outweigh the benefits? Or is BTC the worlds first 'free lunch?'

---

I think that's a great question. The cost is the energy required to maintain the network.

p-townag said:

---

tysker said:

---

Sorry its a reference to Heinlein's book The Moon is A Harsh Mistress. 'No such thing as a free lunch'

Its a simple rephrasing of the economic concept that there will always be trade offs.

What are the costs of BTC? And in what way so those costs outweigh the benefits? Or is BTC the worlds first 'free lunch?'

---

I think that's a great question. The cost is the energy required to maintain the network.

---

Is that the only one you know of or just the only you've been exposed to?

Seems likes there a lot more capital (human and physical) being used

tysker said:

---

p-townag said:

---

tysker said:

---

Sorry its a reference to Heinlein's book The Moon is A Harsh Mistress. 'No such thing as a free lunch'

Its a simple rephrasing of the economic concept that there will always be trade offs.

What are the costs of BTC? And in what way so those costs outweigh the benefits? Or is BTC the worlds first 'free lunch?'

---

I think that's a great question. The cost is the energy required to maintain the network.

---

Is that the only one you know of or just the only you've been exposed to?

Seems likes there a lot more capital (human and physical) being used

---

I mean Bitcoin is like a virus cockroach. It takes a little work to set up a node. And the miners have to employ capital and buy ASICS and compete for energy to mine…but other than trading fiat for Bitcoin that's about it. Is there anything specific you think I'm missing?

p-townag said:

---

tysker said:

---

p-townag said:

---

tysker said:

---

Sorry its a reference to Heinlein's book The Moon is A Harsh Mistress. 'No such thing as a free lunch'

Its a simple rephrasing of the economic concept that there will always be trade offs.

What are the costs of BTC? And in what way so those costs outweigh the benefits? Or is BTC the worlds first 'free lunch?'

---

I think that's a great question. The cost is the energy required to maintain the network.

---

Is that the only one you know of or just the only you've been exposed to?

Seems likes there a lot more capital (human and physical) being used

---

I mean Bitcoin is like a virus cockroach. It takes a little work to set up a node. And the miners have to employ capital and buy ASICS and compete for energy to mine…but other than trading fiat for Bitcoin that's about it. Is there anything specific you think I'm missing?

---

Yep all those costs that affect real world applications such as the (again) costs of safekeeping, audit, custodial, and security concerns caused by NYKNYC. These are real world problems and costs for business use. Is BTC really a better technology from a real world coat/benefit perspective?

tysker said:

---

p-townag said:

---

tysker said:

---

p-townag said:

---

tysker said:

---

Sorry its a reference to Heinlein's book The Moon is A Harsh Mistress. 'No such thing as a free lunch'

Its a simple rephrasing of the economic concept that there will always be trade offs.

What are the costs of BTC? And in what way so those costs outweigh the benefits? Or is BTC the worlds first 'free lunch?'

---

I think that's a great question. The cost is the energy required to maintain the network.

---

Is that the only one you know of or just the only you've been exposed to?

Seems likes there a lot more capital (human and physical) being used

---

I mean Bitcoin is like a virus cockroach. It takes a little work to set up a node. And the miners have to employ capital and buy ASICS and compete for energy to mine…but other than trading fiat for Bitcoin that's about it. Is there anything specific you think I'm missing?

---

Yep all those costs that affect real world applications such as the (again) costs of safekeeping, audit, custodial, and security concerns caused by NYKNYC. These are real world problems and costs for business use. Is BTC really a better technology from a real world coat/benefit perspective?

---

I think so. I think in the US it's a different cost/benefit analysis. But in the vast majority of the world, the benefits far outweigh the costs. Think of the unbanked in Africa. The people stuck with the Egyptian pound or the Argentinian peso. Yes, all the custodial issues are well worth it to be able to secure some amount of wealth immune to instant debasement.

But, even in the US, your wealth (unless you are smart enough and have enough resources to invest wisely) will go to zero as the value of the dollar continues to decline without exception. The benefit of having a store of value immune to that is well worth figuring out the custodial intricacies and the KYC security issues. And the not your keys not your coins…yeah you have to do some work. Personal responsibility matters.

BTC is:
1. A speculative investment (that I wish I had got in on early)
2. A fantasy payment mechanism of gamers and scifi fans - in those worlds everything is paid in ubiquitous credits

Incorrect, but understandable you'd think that way.

p-townag said:

---

tysker said:

---

p-townag said:

---

tysker said:

---

p-townag said:

---

tysker said:

---

Sorry its a reference to Heinlein's book The Moon is A Harsh Mistress. 'No such thing as a free lunch'

Its a simple rephrasing of the economic concept that there will always be trade offs.

What are the costs of BTC? And in what way so those costs outweigh the benefits? Or is BTC the worlds first 'free lunch?'

---

I think that's a great question. The cost is the energy required to maintain the network.

---

Is that the only one you know of or just the only you've been exposed to?

Seems likes there a lot more capital (human and physical) being used

---

I mean Bitcoin is like a virus cockroach. It takes a little work to set up a node. And the miners have to employ capital and buy ASICS and compete for energy to mine…but other than trading fiat for Bitcoin that's about it. Is there anything specific you think I'm missing?

---

Yep all those costs that affect real world applications such as the (again) costs of safekeeping, audit, custodial, and security concerns caused by NYKNYC. These are real world problems and costs for business use. Is BTC really a better technology from a real world coat/benefit perspective?

---

I think so. I think in the US it's a different cost/benefit analysis. But in the vast majority of the world, the benefits far outweigh the costs. Think of the unbanked in Africa. The people stuck with the Egyptian pound or the Argentinian peso. Yes, all the custodial issues are well worth it to be able to secure some amount of wealth immune to instant debasement.

But, even in the US, your wealth (unless you are smart enough and have enough resources to invest wisely) will go to zero as the value of the dollar continues to decline without exception. The benefit of having a store of value immune to that is well worth figuring out the custodial intricacies and the KYC security issues. And the not your keys not your coins…yeah you have to do some work. Personal responsibility matters.

---

How have the unbanked in Central America adopted BTC even when it was helicopter dropped into accounts in their name? Yes India and SE Asia are growth areas for BTC but I would argue the ongoing AML issues in places like VNM, PHL, MYS are just as much a factor. The nouveau riche in those markets want access to outside capital and BTC allows transmission away from their jurisdiction. I don't think there is too much confiscatory risk in those markets but the AML/KYC regimes currently result in lack of access outside capital thus making BTC a potential workaround. This is one reason why CHN made BTC illegal.

Imo our assets value is not going to Zero relative to purchasing power. The largest and most valuable asset most people have is their home. If housing prices go to zero then we have much bigger problems.

Personal responsibility is expensive. That is why we engage experts and representatives to be our voice and to assist in our protection. Individual responsibility surrounding BTC is relatively easy to define (basically cold wallets all the way down) but its a much more complicated and expensive task from a corporate or enterprise standpoint.

(Side question: how many of the BTC adopters in El Salvador used the transportability to easily cross themselves and their assets into the US illegally?)

tysker said:

---

p-townag said:

---

tysker said:

---

p-townag said:

---

tysker said:

---

p-townag said:

---

tysker said:

---

Sorry its a reference to Heinlein's book The Moon is A Harsh Mistress. 'No such thing as a free lunch'

Its a simple rephrasing of the economic concept that there will always be trade offs.

What are the costs of BTC? And in what way so those costs outweigh the benefits? Or is BTC the worlds first 'free lunch?'

---

I think that's a great question. The cost is the energy required to maintain the network.

---

Is that the only one you know of or just the only you've been exposed to?

Seems likes there a lot more capital (human and physical) being used

---

I mean Bitcoin is like a virus cockroach. It takes a little work to set up a node. And the miners have to employ capital and buy ASICS and compete for energy to mine…but other than trading fiat for Bitcoin that's about it. Is there anything specific you think I'm missing?

---

Yep all those costs that affect real world applications such as the (again) costs of safekeeping, audit, custodial, and security concerns caused by NYKNYC. These are real world problems and costs for business use. Is BTC really a better technology from a real world coat/benefit perspective?

---

I think so. I think in the US it's a different cost/benefit analysis. But in the vast majority of the world, the benefits far outweigh the costs. Think of the unbanked in Africa. The people stuck with the Egyptian pound or the Argentinian peso. Yes, all the custodial issues are well worth it to be able to secure some amount of wealth immune to instant debasement.

But, even in the US, your wealth (unless you are smart enough and have enough resources to invest wisely) will go to zero as the value of the dollar continues to decline without exception. The benefit of having a store of value immune to that is well worth figuring out the custodial intricacies and the KYC security issues. And the not your keys not your coins…yeah you have to do some work. Personal responsibility matters.

---

How have the unbanked in Central America adopted BTC even when it was helicopter dropped into accounts in their name? Yes India and SE Asia are growth areas for BTC but I would argue the ongoing AML issues in places like VNM, PHL, MYS are just as much a factor. The nouveau riche in those markets want access to outside capital and BTC allows transmission away from their jurisdiction. I don't think there is too much confiscatory risk in those markets but the AML/KYC regimes currently result in lack of access outside capital thus making BTC a potential workaround. This is one reason why CHN made BTC illegal.

Imo our assets value is not going to Zero relative to purchasing power. The largest and most valuable asset most people have is their home. If housing prices go to zero then we have much bigger problems.

Personal responsibility is expensive. That is why we engage experts and representatives to be our voice and to assist in our protection. Individual responsibility surrounding BTC is relatively easy to define (basically cold wallets all the way down) but its a much more complicated and expensive task from a corporate or enterprise standpoint.

(Side question: how many of the BTC adopters in El Salvador used the transportability to easily cross themselves and their assets into the US illegally?)

---

I don't have the stats, but to be honest, you could show me really high adoption or really low adoption, and neither would move the needle for me. We're still so incredibly early. Any adoption at all would be impressive.

I agree that the current financial system requires homes to be one of the main stores of value. The area where we'd likely disagree is whether or not that's a good or a bad thing. My argument is that having a home as a primary store of value is a bad thing. Homes are pricing out the low and middle classes.

With the new FASB rules, it's getting easier and easier to hold Bitcoin on the balance sheet of a major corporation. That will continue to get easier with the ETF and FASB momentum.

I'm not sure how owning Bitcoin allows someone to cross themselves to the US illegally, but I'm perfectly fine with transfer of wealth through Bitcoin across US/El Salvador lines.

Kraft Punk said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Explain why he's wrong. The volatility is off the charts. That is enough to avoid it as a "store of value".

Gold and silver have nowhere near that kind of volatility.

---

That's bc it's not a store of value


It's a nothing value whale game....


But if it pays for a bathroom remodel who am I to complain

---

I don't disagree. I've bought and sold a bunch of it. But I'm not putting a significant amount in it as a store of value and hedge against inflation.

I also don't agree with rebel about gold. The industrial value is insignificant as far as demand. And it's not really a hedge against inflation anymore.

Also, what happens when a vulnerability in sha256 encryption is found?

Logos Stick said:

---

Kraft Punk said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Explain why he's wrong. The volatility is off the charts. That is enough to avoid it as a "store of value".

Gold and silver have nowhere near that kind of volatility.

---

That's bc it's not a store of value


It's a nothing value whale game....


But if it pays for a bathroom remodel who am I to complain

---

I don't disagree. I've bought and sold a bunch of it. But I'm not putting a significant amount in it as a store of value and hedge against inflation.

I also don't agree with rebel about gold. The industrial value is insignificant as far as demand. And it's not really a hedge against inflation anymore.

---

Bitcoin is most definitely a store of value and protection against inflation. You can look at chart after chart of home prices going down vs Bitcoin, purchasing power of a dollar going down vs Bitcoin, gold going down against Bitcoin, etc, etc.

Yes there's volatility, but it's mostly volatility to the upside. Volatility does not preclude something as a store of value.

Say what?

TexasRebel said:

---

Say what?

---

Feel free to show data to back up your claim that I'm incorrect.

Quote:

---

Volatility does not preclude something as a store of value.

---

TexasRebel said:

---

Quote:

---

Volatility does not preclude something as a store of value.

---

---

Must be storing too much value for your taste.

p-townag said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Kraft Punk said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Explain why he's wrong. The volatility is off the charts. That is enough to avoid it as a "store of value".

Gold and silver have nowhere near that kind of volatility.

---

That's bc it's not a store of value


It's a nothing value whale game....


But if it pays for a bathroom remodel who am I to complain

---

I don't disagree. I've bought and sold a bunch of it. But I'm not putting a significant amount in it as a store of value and hedge against inflation.

I also don't agree with rebel about gold. The industrial value is insignificant as far as demand. And it's not really a hedge against inflation anymore.

---

Bitcoin is most definitely a store of value and protection against inflation. You can look at chart after chart of home prices going down vs Bitcoin, purchasing power of a dollar going down vs Bitcoin, gold going down against Bitcoin, etc, etc.

Yes there's volatility, but it's mostly volatility to the upside. Volatility does not preclude something as a store of value.

---

Volatility absolutely does "preclude" it. If it can be worth a fraction of what it was a week after investing in it, for example , it's not a store of value.

And no, it's not volatility only to the upside. Ridiculous assertion.

It provides no protection against inflation. That is simple math. The value dropped by 50% during a period of rising inflation.

Ridiculous baseless assertions.

Eta,if you believe it is, put your money in it. It's foolish ,but go for it. I don't think gold is a guaranteed inflation hedge anymore either, but I'd put my money there instead of Bitcoin , every day of the week.

Logos Stick said:

---

p-townag said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Kraft Punk said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Explain why he's wrong. The volatility is off the charts. That is enough to avoid it as a "store of value".

Gold and silver have nowhere near that kind of volatility.

---

That's bc it's not a store of value


It's a nothing value whale game....


But if it pays for a bathroom remodel who am I to complain

---

I don't disagree. I've bought and sold a bunch of it. But I'm not putting a significant amount in it as a store of value and hedge against inflation.

I also don't agree with rebel about gold. The industrial value is insignificant as far as demand. And it's not really a hedge against inflation anymore.

---

Bitcoin is most definitely a store of value and protection against inflation. You can look at chart after chart of home prices going down vs Bitcoin, purchasing power of a dollar going down vs Bitcoin, gold going down against Bitcoin, etc, etc.

Yes there's volatility, but it's mostly volatility to the upside. Volatility does not preclude something as a store of value.

---

Volatility absolutely does "preclude" it. If it can be worth a fraction of what it was a week after investing in it, for example , it's not a store of value.

And no, it's not volatility only to the upside. Ridiculous assertion.

It provides no protection against inflation. That is simple math. The value dropped by 50% during a period of rising inflation.

Ridiculous baseless assertions.

Eta,if you believe it is, put your money in it. It's foolish ,but go for it. I don't think gold is a guaranteed inflation hedge anymore either, but I'd put my money there instead of Bitcoin , every day of the week.

---

If you hand select one period of inflation and find a corresponding time when Bitcoin was down, then you'd be correct. If you take any four year period, you're incorrect. If you take it over the lifetime of the asset, you're very incorrect.

Most definitely "mostly to the upside." Simple math, as you say.

Poor unbanked people don't give a damn about Bitcoin except as a lottery ticket as they're being sold a lie that owning it will be their way out of poverty. It has no other use for them.

And a lot of poor don't have the intellect to manage their own wallets.

bmks270 said:

---

Poor unbanked people don't give a damn about Bitcoin except as a lottery ticket as they're being sold a lie that owning it will be their way out of poverty. It has no other use for them.

And a lot of poor don't have the intellect to manage their own wallets.

---

Just because you think it's a lie doesn't make it so.

Eesh. Ease up on the classism, pardner.

p-townag said:

---

Most definitely "mostly to the upside." Simple math, as you say.

---

Do you not think it's a bit strange that it's either right where it's supposed to be or bubbling to the surface?

p-townag said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

Poor unbanked people don't give a damn about Bitcoin except as a lottery ticket as they're being sold a lie that owning it will be their way out of poverty. It has no other use for them.

And a lot of poor don't have the intellect to manage their own wallets.

---

Just because you think it's a lie doesn't make it so.

Eesh. Ease up on the classism, pardner.

---

Here is another perspective.





Interesting insights here from a former Stripe engineer who is an expert in financial payment systems. He touches on Africa and the unbanked and the challenges surrounding the unbanked.

He dives into modern payment systems and why cryptocurrency doesn't solve most payment problems.

I provide this video because it comes from a perspective that I rarely see considered.

Thanks, I'm happy to see his perspective.

TexasRebel said:

---

p-townag said:

---

Most definitely "mostly to the upside." Simple math, as you say.

---

Do you not think it's a bit strange that it's either right where it's supposed to be or bubbling to the surface?

---

I don't know what you're asking.

Is bitcoin ever not on the top or bottom?