A deflationary society is scary to think about, but I believe we are headed there already. All technology that isn't completely controlled by the government is already deflationary. As time progresses, technology becomes more and more affordable for the masses, letting you replace the need for extra hands. So you have people getting replaced out of the job force by technology, and then the government devalues your money on top of that by constantly printing more cash. A deflationary system at least maintains your wealth and encourages to the masses to save, not spend. Still a bunch of issues we would need to figure out though.

This is a pretty interesting discussion on the topic, if you have the time.

Adverse Event said:

---

Bitcoin doesn't need saving, in fact left to it's own devices bitcoin creates more bitcoin maximalists everyday as more people get scammed by ****coinery.

As AdminErrors has stated over and over. Maturity is earned through blood and sweat not milk and honey.

---

I still think cleaning up the space is necessary for normal investor protection. If there's a management team, expectation of profit, lending/yield, and/or initial offering, disclosures should be required just like any other security. That will help Bitcoin mature.

Does Bitcoin NEED regulation to mature in the long run? Maybe not. But given the current environment, I think it's helpful.

Adverse Event said:

---

OilManAg91 said:

---

What's the fundamental difference between bitcoin and tulips in the 1630's…serious question.

---

What length of time did tulip mania actually occur? 3- 5 years…sound familiar
Is tulipmania far more story telling than reality? It's history…don't understand your question
What percentage of the global population participated in "tulipmania"? Doesn't matter…market mania is not dependent on market size
What percentage of global wealth was involved in tulipmania? See above answer
How were tulips used to avoid/usurp overbearing government economic policy? Interesting point, but not sure it is relevant
How much hashrate did the world'slargest super-tulip-computer create? Again, interesting point but not sure it is relevant .
Were tulips in 1630s using SHA-256? Definitely irrelevant
How did tulips change the energy policy of cities and countries? The effect on energy policy at this point is infinitesimally small so don't see this as a relevant point
Which governments converted to a Tulip standard for their currency? Only whacked out, bankrupt, corrupt governments have converted so this is not a plus for bitcoin.


Answering one or 3 of these questions might get your mind right, if it needs righting of course.

---

See my comments above. I am an agnostic on bitcoin, and trying to understand its durability as an investment. At the current status it appears to have more of the characteristics of a mania than an legitimate store of value, but again I am open to the argument in which case I would invest and hope to make a boat load of money. Or maybe this is still a good time to short…

Deluxe said:

---

Adverse Event said:

---

Bitcoin doesn't need saving, in fact left to it's own devices bitcoin creates more bitcoin maximalists everyday as more people get scammed by ****coinery.

As AdminErrors has stated over and over. Maturity is earned through blood and sweat not milk and honey.

---

I still think cleaning up the space is necessary for normal investor protection. If there's a management team, expectation of profit, lending/yield, and/or initial offering, disclosures should be required just like any other security. That will help Bitcoin mature.

Does Bitcoin NEED regulation to mature in the long run? Maybe not. But given the current environment, I think it's helpful.

---

Imo, bitcoin is mature.

People are immature, and when they finally recognize their immaturity they begin taking steps towards responsibility.

I'm not opposing these measures, just explaining that none of this "helps" bitcoin. The cleanup destroys the experience of gaining maturity to the folks who need the wakeup call the worst.

It's like WALL-E and the fat people in floating chairs chugging soda. WALL-E knocks a few people off their chairs, then they begin recognize their capabilities are more than bottomless consumers.

Sometimes you have to put your chips down and get burned to understand. I think the one thing we all agree on is that a person should have the personal Liberty to spend their dirty fiat on whatever coin they want to.

There is no inherent and sustainable baseline of value. One thing good bugs are ALWAYS correct about is some measure of inherent value.
Second
FedFov can step in and decimate Bitcoin et al. in less than a week - and legitimately. Crypto is the currency of the "black market" (and yes, I despise FedGov).

Sell. This is a confidence trick.

Blockchain is different.

This is a technology, and a method. Not a supposed store of value based on agreement and confidence.

Take your crypto desire and invest here.

Here's the difference regarding Amazon:
- loss leading with a purpose, driven by technology and market capture, followed by continuous price hikes
- gigantic bureaucratic capture, including buying the most influential newspaper in the world

Bitcoin doing this?

Final point:
Bitcoin tends to be derided on this board because posters here actually understand store of value: confidence is not enough.

A sustainable store of value requires 1 of 2 situations
- universal desirability
- reserve currency / military power / strong debt market

Redstone said:

---

Final point:
Bitcoin tends to be derided on this board because posters here actually understand store of value: confidence is not enough.

A sustainable store of value requires 1 of 2 situations
- universal desirability
- reserve currency / military power / strong debt market

---

It is my opinion that your opinion is biased heavily by recent history. Bitcoin is backed by proof of work. Dollar is backed by proof of war.

Redstone said:

---

Blockchain is different.

This is a technology, and a method. Not a supposed store of value based on agreement and confidence.

Take your crypto desire and invest here.

---

Blockchain as a technology is little more than a database. On this topic I recommend listening to Andreas Antonopolis in this talk:

Redstone said:

---

Here's the difference regarding Amazon:
- loss leading with a purpose, driven by technology and market capture, followed by continuous price hikes
- gigantic bureaucratic capture, including buying the most influential newspaper in the world

Bitcoin doing this?

---

Bitcoin is a form of money, not a security. The analogy is simply one of volatility but I agree they are vastly different assets. In the long run, one is likely to be priced in the other.

Adverse Event said:

---

There's only one bitcoin network. Regardless of any future affinity scammers.

---

If it is identical technology and they call it a bitcoin network, why is it not?

Then it would by definition be the same network.

Same code and same consensus rules equals same network. Change the rules and you get a new network. Been done many times.

Same

exp said:

---

Then it would by definition be the same network.

Same code and same consensus rules equals same network. Change the rules and you get a new network. Been done many times.

---

The underlying question that I still struggle with is if the new network that functions in the exact same manner under the same rules is started today, what are the attributes of the existing bitcoin network that make it special? The only one I can think of is that it was the first and is already in place