There's that too, which begs the question of the legitimacy of the market cap w/r to the actual float of available bitcoins, which is nowhere near 16.5M. Regardless, the point of the conversation was that people are not doing millions and billions of transacting for real money. The vast vast majority of large bitcoin transfers are not money transfers, they are crypto transfers. So even if an average person could get millions online to supposedly transfer millions easily, it's so rare so as not be even mentionable. The other guy also has to liquidate it and good luck with that.

Honestly tho the day Vitalik starts doing curls or shows interest in women or anything that isn't crypto is the day I short ethereum.

the son of a ***** said "HODL"

You thought only $250 per week was possible and thought it would take decades to load up a account and cash it out to be able to trade any significant amounts. I corrected you on that I was able to deposit 6 figures with a bank wire on the same regulated exchange you use with reputable banking within the same business day. trade it all. Cash it all out within a business day. You thought this would take years. There is no deposit limits on my bank wire options. Only limits how much you can cash out. Mine is over 6 figures per 24 hours. Can get this bumped up to $25million I see on the options. If you deposit that much. They would let you if you write them that you instantly want the option to send to your cold storage whatever you buy.You can't fathom people are bank wiring millions of dollars in/out of coinbase/gdax with ease. In the banking world, $100k is no different than a $1million or $10m when moving money around with bank wires. It's already cleared in your bank and everything is traceable by the government. Not dealing with cash with these amounts.

This is close - Cryptocurrencies (and pseudocryptocurrencies) are in the dot com bubble.

Lots of absolute dog **** out there that gets insane valuations (pets.com anyone). But some sleeping giants in the mix (AMZN being the big one). Amazon got premature high valuation and crashed. Hard. Several times. Did that mean that the Internet was a fad or that people were going to return to B&M shopping? No, it meant people jumped in expecting the world right away and got disappointed, some easy money bubbles dried up, and things came back to normal.



Bubble





Butnaaaaaaaaah

It makes me wonder how smart the guy is if he truly thinks banks are primarily to blame for the '08 economic crisis. If he is smart enough to create BTC I believe he more than likely does not believe banks are primarily to blame, but is saying it because a lot of people hear that and get fired up and want to try to get back at the banks and think BTC is a way to do it. Maybe I'm wrong and he is dumber than I think.

I think you can short BTC and even buy/sell options, but if someone wants to buy/sell options with long maturities I don't think that is an option currently.

Unless I am reading this incorrectly to trade on their site you need to:

have $10 million invested
OR
have $5 million invested that is hedging risk

Well Named's version of "I don't know but here are my thoughts" is more valuable than ten of the average "knowledgeable" dudes.

aye, more well named I don't know and less DoOrDoNot I know 100%, please

who and/or what do you think is primarily to blame?

Central banks cause inflationary bubbles and malinvestment. Banks in turn loaned out money to anyone and everyone even without any kind of check on it.

But remember, it wasn't the banks failure that was the issue. It was the banks being a systemic risk when they failed that they got bailouts.

Socializing the risks rather than letting those who took stupid actions get punished is the key here.

The thing is, Satoshi didn't design a system to replace banks. He wrote a system to replace the Central Bank.

Not sure if i am perfectly on the same page as your thinking but I agree in my own way. It is the narrative that would sell best when you are trying to bootstrap bitcoin, that it will "kill banks", but killing banks is a horrible and stupid idea. Banks are useful.

To cite a headline about bailing out banks as proof satoshi wanting to bring the banking system down is not a real argument. But if Satoshi said "hey this will help make the banking system better" it would be hard to sell it to most people.

Most of the bitcoiners look at bitcoin in hindsight and say "Yeah a money with a finite supply that governments can't control, I had that idea too. I dunno why I didn't just code it up."

But the approach to the problem is such that after 20 years of intense studies and attempts, no one had ever thought of approaching it how he did. It's amazing that he came at it from the direction he did. The magic of it is that in hindsight it looks like a college kid had an idea one night.

Yeah, banks loaned out money to everyone when they get their arms twisted by the government to give loans to be who they previously deemed unworthy. Why should we blame banks for following the orders of our government?

Please name the banks and car manufactures that got bailouts and didn't pay back the bailouts. And what about so many in the middle class who got bailouts and never re-paid them via cash for clunkers, first time home buyers $8k gift, etc? Why is nobody giving them or the car companies **** for their bailouts?

Between banks, car manufactures and the middle class it seems like the banks are the one in that group who deserve some slack for the bailouts, but somehow they catch 100% of the blow-back for taking bailouts.

Central banks are useful. They allow each nation to have control over their own respective economies. Bitcoin won't replace central banking. It will idealize their ability to govern their own money supplies.

So it seems to me that he offers an outline of two arguments. The first is that cryptocurrencies would gain in value if there's some systemic failure with the regular financial system, but that he thinks that's relatively unlikely. I agree with that, but it's not that interesting because it seems really unlikely to me.

The second argument, beginning around 1:40 or so is that if, in the long term, the value of a cryptocurrency grows at roughly the same rate as real GDP-per-capita, then crypto will be a valuable asset class to investors even if no-one uses it.

The problem there is that it's quite circular. Why would the value of a cryptocurrency grow with GDP if no-one is using it? I agree with the logic as he states it but it doesn't really address the uncertainty in valuation at all. It doesn't provide a reason to expect that premise to be true. To be fair to him, I get the impression that he's trying to allude to some argument for why the value would grow absent actual use, but that's the part that's actually interesting, although I'm also quite skeptical that a compelling argument of that form can be made.

It sounds almost like an argument for a fiat-store-of-value asset, which is, I suppose, at least an interesting idea. But the "fiat" part of it, i.e. that it works because everyone just agrees to treat it that way, is pretty hard to distinguish from the idea that in the long run it's just a fad (again, taking as an assumption that it has no utility; I doubt that it's true that it has no long-term utility...)

In any case, the argument that it might be valuable even if no-one uses it doesn't seem as likely to be reliable as an argument that predicts specific use cases and specific markets.

bitcoin doing pretty well despite Dow tanking again. seems bullish.

the fact that he thought austrian economics was the world a few years before that video should be pretty scary to people. austrian economics is complete bull****. it is like saying, i was a devout Christian a few year ago... it is good that you arent now, but i am still worried about what other crazy/dumb things you believe in and makes it harder to take you seriously as an authority.

seriously tho someone needs to buy Vitalik a gym membership

But there is no due date in crypto. You can just say “it’s coming soon” in perpetuity. And “it’s complicated”.

The competing ideologies are the austrian view and keynesian view. Both have valid views but both have limitations. Austians belief you only need a currency with a finite supply, or a preprogrammed supply. Keynesians recognize that you can spur an economic down turn by printing money which is something the austrian view cannot do. But austrians point out this often leads to an inability to "turn off the tap" and thus "central banking" is often said to be the cause of economic crisis rather than the cure (or that it is a short term fix at a long term loss).

The views can be resolved if it is understood the goal is not stability of purchasing power but rather international stability of currencies.

There are two views for the implications of bitcoin, first that it will become the one world currency and all central banks will die, and the second that central banks will start to inflation target bitcoin so that their issued currencies have a stable exchange rate versus it.

Both views lead to the same end which is international stability of money.

All of the bitcoiners are austrians and nearly none of them know how banks work or what they are for.

Not really. Neo-Classical economics is what is taught in most accredited universities.

Can you elaborate/correct please?

The neo-classical school of thought is more prevalent than Keynesian or neo-Keynesian school of thought today. Neo-classical school is a bit different from Keynesian because of the micro side. And from my experience in classrooms, the macro side seeks to improve upon the foundation of Keynes rather than just defer to his theories.

Crazy, racist, con artist Ron Paul reintroduced Austrian Economics to eager college aged white males in 2008 and we have been suffering ever since.

Unlike bitcoin, we can actually look back at history and see how stuff plays out over and over again. Which is why nobody takes A.E. seriously.

I mean to refer to the differing views on bitcoin. Bitcoiners have the view that central banks are evil while "central banks" are perplexed on why bitcoin will play a role in society (while holding to the axiom that they as central banks/bankers are critical to economic stability). Not sure its the same distinction?

edit: I call central banking proponents keynesians. Just a loose euphemism or something.

Fair enough with your edit.

Though I think the argument from me and some others is more on the lines of "how does bitcoin fit into the future?" I think it has some value because whether or not I agree or disagree with centralized money (I actually don't care either way and just find this to be an interesting experiment to watch) there seems to be a lot of people who think it is valuable. Faith in it as how most people view the dollar. We know dollars will always be able to buy something no matter if inflation or deflation occurs.

It's why I asked "how do you even figure out its value?" awhile back. Obviously when the hype train knocks the price up to $20k with what appears to be mostly a speculative market place I'll think it is in a bubble. But I misjudged bitcoin five years ago or so. It has proven to be resilient throughout it's life. Each time one of its bubbles pops there is a higher price than before the bubble occurred.

Right now I'm interested in seeing how bitcoins settles down in the short run and proceeds from there.

I don't really think of myself as a bull or bear on the topic when it comes to the long run. There has been many people who say it doesn't have value on the bear side, and I find myself saying "That isn't right because just look at it..."