• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

How many furries know what Bitcoin is?

Do you know what Bitcoin is?

  • Yes.

  • I have heard of it but don't really know much.

  • Isn't it like, a dark web thing?

  • Never heard of it.


Results are only viewable after voting.

Miles Marsalis

The Last DJ.
Money laundering, not at all. Bitcoin is just too risky to use for money laundering. I'm assuming you understand what money laundering is? Where you cover the source of your money by setting up a business and paying yourself, making it look like that business is the source of your money, not some other illicit activity? Imagine having to set up a Bitcoin business and claiming you're earning a lot of Bitcoin by paying yourself Bitcoin. Such a Bitcoin business alone will attract attention. But, yeah, you can look for the data yourself. Bitcoin money laundering is tiny. Cash and big banks are kings for that. Tax evasion? Absolutely. That's the whole point of it being sovereign currency. But, that doesn't apply to El Salvador. There's no tax on Bitcoin trades. It's just money there.
As for "strict reporting requirements in the developed world," that's not a thing. It's strict reporting requirements in hyper paranoid fascist USA that is terrified about terrorism, people moving large amounts of money without US tracking it (even if done by foreigners), and countries moving away from USD standard, especially for trading oil. US is f'in nuts with regards to what it demands and how it forces other countries to comply. And other countries really hate US for it. As they should. So fuck'em. As I said, with this, countries can finally fight against emperialist and fascism by being their own sovereign countries for a change.
I mean, this "fascist" country took you and your family in when you were fleeing communism and 9/11 was real thing, so maybe you mind want to tamp down the rhetoric, eh?

More on point, money laundering can and is done with Bitcoin since criminals can hold cryptocurrencies without divulging their identity, which allows them to move money through front and legitimate Bitcoin businesses to wash it and Bitcoin mixing makes the process even easier. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are used by criminal groups for payment methods in ransomware attacks because they can remain anonymous and cash out their ransom proceeds for hard currency. Major exchanges have also been complicit in this.

"Elliptic estimates that between 2011 and 2019, major exchanges helped cash out between 60 per cent to 80 per cent of bitcoin transactions from known bad actors."
 

Rassah

Well-Known Member
Someone is once again demonstrating his cluelessness on this subject by posting an article that uses Alex de Vries as a source As I've showed before, anything that uses him as a source can and should be dismissed outright. When people wilfully ignore or dismiss information from experts in a field, they just come out looking dumb ("tulips"? Still? XD). Or worse, unknowingly end up supporting fascism and oppression of poor people in poor countries, despite claiming to support the opposite.
The reason he and people like him are getting anger and not solutions to the problems he brought up is because those problems don't exist in the first place.
 

Miles Marsalis

The Last DJ.
Someone is once again demonstrating his cluelessness on this subject by posting an article that uses Alex de Vries as a source As I've showed before, anything that uses him as a source can and should be dismissed outright. When people wilfully ignore or dismiss information from experts in a field, they just come out looking dumb ("tulips"? Still? XD). Or worse, unknowingly end up supporting fascism and oppression of poor people in poor countries, despite claiming to support the opposite.
The reason he and people like him are getting anger and not solutions to the problems he brought up is because those problems don't exist in the first place.
You're kind of disregarding that there are people here who know what they are talking about and are not markedly against Bitcoin, but still have serious reservations about Bitcoin's future and sustainability.

Without getting too political, and we shouldn't be since we're talking about the nature and profitability of Bitcoin and politics should not factor into investment decisions except in terms of risk assessment, Nayib Bukele pushed the Bitcoin Law through against wishes of almost 70% of the public and was responsible for intimidating his legislature over increasing his security powers and funding by sending in armed soldiers during their vote, an event which most in the international community called an attempt coup.

Perhaps you are not on the side of angels here, Rassah.

That aside, your experience with the technology side of the Bitcoin industry should tell you that Bitcoin mining is computing-intensive and the hardware used for it has a finite lifespan before it needs to be replaced. 1.29 years isn't far-fetched when you consider that 3 to 5 years is the normal replacement for server hardware for far less computing-intensive work. And we're not even talking about obsolescence and the fact that legitimate financial institutions often every 2 years keep an edge. So this really shouldn't be unbelievable to you, given your experience.

Bitcoin mining generates of a lot of e-waste and all of that e-waste isn't recyclable.

Also, remember that the e-waste isn't the only problem, but the increase needed in manufacturing supply to meet the added demand for Bitcoin mining for hundreds of thousands graphics cards and other computing hardware means addition resources need to be procured. That means these resources need to be sourced and mined.

GPUs are mainly silicon, but also contain tiny amounts of copper, gold, silver, platinum, irridium, and other rare earth elements.

If you know anything about mining and I feel you do, mining raw metals is pretty much the dirtiest major industry out there. Even worse, not all of the metals get recovered as not all of it gets recycled, and even the ones that do, bear in mind that recycling electronics often means burning the electronics and having small children sift through the incredibly toxic garbage. Then there's the issue that much of these metals are finite, hence the name rare earth metals, and that using up all of the rubidium we have on crunching fake numbers for Bitcoin mining could be a real problem in the future.
 

Miles Marsalis

The Last DJ.
Isn't Cobalt one of them? It rings a bell.
This is something my ex or Fallowfox would know better, but while cobalt is rare, it's not a rare earth metal. However, it's extremely important to technological manufacturing and sourcing new mines is something that would find investment. There have also been low-intensity conflicts over mines as well.
 

Rassah

Well-Known Member
There is also wage gap between those who do graduate from university and those who do not.
Those with history, English, communication, and even accounting degree earn $30k. Apprenticeship jobs in HVAC, plumbing, and construction earn $60k and up. It's relative. Some universities also suck. And you can tell that finance degrees are insufficient, because a majority of bankers still don't understand Bitcoin simply because they don't understand what money is.

I think you are not in a position to question Nobel laureates like Paul Krugman on economic matters or Bitcoin.
Yaka might not be but I am. Krugman is an idiot. A celebrity who even has entire economic blogs dedicated to debunking him. I started to realize how and why he was wrong before I even finished by bachelor's. He's even more clueless when it comes to Bitcoin.

You keep bringing up Venezuela, but its hyperinflation crisis isn't really germane to profitability prospects of Bitcoin and the relative strength of the US dollar, which is backed by the full strength and credit of the US government as well as the robustness of US economy.
Bolivar was backed by the full faith and credit if the richest country in South America, as well as its robust economy. US economy is on an irreversible downward trend, and faith in its credit is waning around the world (foreign countries continue to dump it). Especially with all the newly printed trillions. At this point it's just a matter of time. The reason so many people are bringing up Venezuela is because US is making the same economic mistakes that caused Venezuela to fall.


The gold standard is unrealistic because of the lack of enough gold back the value of all the US dollars.
This is dumb and you with your econ degree should know better. You know that the value of everything is relative. If we went to the gold standard, the value of gold will simply rise to meet demand. I heard the claim that "Bitcoin can't replace the dollar because there are only 21 million bitcoins for everyone" too, but Bitcoin is very divisible, and so is gold.

gold standard doesn't necessarily prevent inflation from happening, to name a few reasons. See the inflation that occurred after the California Gold Rush expanded the money supply
Yeah, that's why Bitcoin is considered a superior currency even to gold.

Only people who don't understand economics advocate for the gold standard;
This is false too. Only people who subscribe to the flawed Keynesian theory and the things that were based on it are against the gold standard. Keynes's theory ended up shown to be flawed, so we ended up with almost a century of economic hand wringing to try to fix it and make it "fit" the desired outcome, which is largely what "modern economic theory" is about. But it's a theory that gives governments the excuse to print money for themselves and enrich those at the top, so obviously it's the one that those at the top will push the most. People who understand economics and know the centuries of history of money obviously still support a fixed money supply, like gold.

Yeah, I know what long-term terms means, but you're not answering the question of why it wouldn't be wise to have a threshold to cut your losses and maybe buy back Bitcoin when it picks up again.
Two reasons:
1) You can't predict the market.
2) It's a technology that is going through adoption, not just plain business growth. So it's impossible to tell which rise up in price is just another bell curve where it will come back down, and which one is it surpassing some threshold where it completes the S curve and simply plateaus. Or even replaces the currency you "cash out" into, making your "cash out" quickly become worthless.
Only thing we know is that it will reach that level of adoption eventually, so you might as well just hold.


Experienced, responsible investors tend to not ride out losses, but rather sell at a certain point when the stock price or Bitcoin price dips below a certain threshold and buy when the price is on the rise again.
That's day traders or technical investors. 75% of those fail to even keep up with the market. Actual experienced investors, like Buffet and large institutions and investment banks, buy based on the fundamentals of the investment, and ignore the short term price movements. Aside from Buffet, that's what those large institutions and investment banks (and even some foreign pension plans and foreign governments) are doing now, just buying and holding.
Please don't trade stocks by trying to time tops and bottoms. You'll lose so badly...


Also, Bitcoin faces major bans and regulation in China and India as well as increased regulatory scrutiny here in the States for financial reporting and taxation.
That's fine. That's a loss for China, India, and US, not for Bitcoin or those who use and invest in it. China banned most of the internet. Who is hurt, those around the world using the internet, or Chinese?


It's not written in stone that Bitcoin will keep expanding, especially other cryptocurrencies, particularly government-backed cryptocurrencies, could outcompete Bitcoin and fix the existing flaws it has.
Government-backed cryptocurrencies can't compete. They're not different from government digital currencies we all use today, so they have no competitive advantage over Bitcoin. Those other copycat cryptos don't either. If your interested in economics, economic history of money, and how that relates to Bitcoin and its guaranteed takeover, I can recommend a fascinating book.
 

Rassah

Well-Known Member
it may be wise to not accept the figures the rep gave you as gospel,
It was a government rep in charge of communications. He would know.

especially since it conflicts with the report you provided here yesterday.
It doesn't conflict. The report says 150% connected cell phone usage. Even if every single person who owned a cell phone owned two, that's 75% of people connected. Obviously most people own just one (they're not that rich there). It also says 66% of the population has social media. Not everyone has social media accounts either. Mostly it's just for email. Either way it's higher than the 33% you claimed, and I would rather believe the guy who is in charge of tracking these stats for his 90% number.

The underlying issue here is that the internet infrastructure is going to underwrite both the mobile and Bitcoin transaction infrastructure and it seems as though El Salvador's government hasn't made those public investments yet, according to the report you provided.
As I said, Bitcoin requires minimal infrastructure. Theirs is more than sufficient. And if it's not, they just continue to use paper today cash until things improve. It's not an issue.
Actually, now that I think about it, there's an incentive for foreigners to come in and expand their internet infrastructure further. Those Chivo ATMs were created and rolled out by foreign company, so they would have an incentive to set up a better internet connection, and even provide free wifi access to those who want to use them.



If you wish to know how Bitcoin or its various applications can be hacked, just ask me, don't @ me with stupid articles. In short, Bitcoin can't be hacked, but computers and phones that store it can. That doesn't mean Bitcoin has a security flaw. If your computer or phone is hacked, hackers can just as easily steal your banking and identity info and empty your banks too. But nobody seems to claim "the dollar can be hacked"...

Cryptocurrency wallets are vulnerable as well too, though.

Not very. Over the last decade we have hardened them quite a bit. There's also the risk/reward issue. Hackers hacking a bank may spend thousands of dollars to steal hundreds of millions. But hackers spending thousands to hack a wallet may get a few hundred. When money is distributed among so many individuals, it gets rid of the large "honeypot" incentive. Then there's also hardware wallets which are unhackable because they never even connect to the internet...

Also, I'm rolling some of my replies to your quotes for the sake of brevity, but Binance is the largest cryptocurrency exchange in the world. I think its nearest competitor has a trading volume of about a fifth of what of Binance has, so if Binance is has had security issues and they can afford the best cybersecurity with the business they do and yet are falling short, that doesn't bode well for the industry.
I didn't know Binance was the largest. I think that may be due to their use of Tether stablecoin, that they're also getting in trouble for. They're certainly not one that all the big business and investors use or trust. But that they're biggest also means they have more insurance to cover losses too. Incidentally, that's been a thing for years now too. Like FDIC you have in banks, large crypto exchanges are also insured.
 

Miles Marsalis

The Last DJ.
Those with history, English, communication, and even accounting degree earn $30k. Apprenticeship jobs in HVAC, plumbing, and construction earn $60k and up. It's relative. Some universities also suck. And you can tell that finance degrees are insufficient, because a majority of bankers still don't understand Bitcoin simply because they don't understand what money is.
This kind of a canard, since knowing economics, you should know the correct way to phrase frame the wage gap is among people in the same profession and same industry, college graduates tend to make more than those without college degrees, partly because those with degrees have potentially more mobility in the company and college debt to pay off. Trade school and apprentice opportunities are often mentioned as substitutes to a college education and those graduates often make more those who did not go through those programs, provided those who did not can get licensed.

The reason a majority of bankers haven't jumped on the Bitcoin bandwagon because there is still significant concern about the long-term prospects of the industry and Bitcoin is less regulated than the legitimate financial system with far less safeguards.
Yaka might not be but I am. Krugman is an idiot. A celebrity who even has entire economic blogs dedicated to debunking him. I started to realize how and why he was wrong before I even finished by bachelor's. He's even more clueless when it comes to Bitcoin.
Yakamaru definitely isn't, but Paul Krugman is literally won the Nobel Prize in Economics. I don't want to minimize your accomplishments, but I'm going go with vast majority of economists out there and say he has more authority on economics and Bitcoin's future than you.

His body of work and career speaks for itself.
Bolivar was backed by the full faith and credit if the richest country in South America, as well as its robust economy. US economy is on an irreversible downward trend, and faith in its credit is waning around the world (foreign countries continue to dump it). Especially with all the newly printed trillions. At this point it's just a matter of time. The reason so many people are bringing up Venezuela is because US is making the same economic mistakes that caused Venezuela to fall.
The US has a diversified economy and its currency is traded and held in reserve around the world by countries to hedge against economic and financial risk.

Venezuela's economy was primarily dependent on oil exports and the US as its largest partner. Since US energy industry has significantly lessened the need for Venezuelan oil exports and there are strained diplomatic relations and sanctions between our two governments, the Venezuelan economy has taken a serious hit, though its has been in decline for awhile. Add the expropriation and mismanagement of nationalized assets in the country and the hyperinflation the Chavez and Maduro administrations created and you have the mess Venezuela is currently in.

As for the irreversible downward you referencing, this summer the Dow Jones hit its highest point.


This is during an ongoing pandemic.

The long-term is in our favor.

This is false too. Only people who subscribe to the flawed Keynesian theory and the things that were based on it are against the gold standard. Keynes's theory ended up shown to be flawed, so we ended up with almost a century of economic hand wringing to try to fix it and make it "fit" the desired outcome, which is largely what "modern economic theory" is about. But it's a theory that gives governments the excuse to print money for themselves and enrich those at the top, so obviously it's the one that those at the top will push the most. People who understand economics and know the centuries of history of money obviously still support a fixed money supply, like gold.
I mean, I can only say you are lying about the field because the vast majority of economists, whether they supply-side or Keynesian economists, recognize the Austrian school as an fringe or heterodox school of economic thought.

Like, this isn't just me saying this; it's accepted consensus.

Furthermore, Milton Friedman, ironically for the libertarians out there, argued that the gold standard was a major factor in causing the Great Depression, contributing to the contraction of the money supply in 1929-1933. Friedman's argument is now conventional wisdom among economists and historians across a variety of schools of thought, though there is minor disagreement on just how big a role gold played in the Depression.

You're misrepresenting our field.
 

Miles Marsalis

The Last DJ.
This is dumb and you with your econ degree should know better. You know that the value of everything is relative. If we went to the gold standard, the value of gold will simply rise to meet demand. I heard the claim that "Bitcoin can't replace the dollar because there are only 21 million bitcoins for everyone" too, but Bitcoin is very divisible, and so is gold.
In our last talk about this, I explained that the largest problem in returning to the gold standard is that there is not enough gold in the world to cover the quantity of currency presently in existence. To put it another way, even if the US were somehow able to purchase the world's entire gold stocks, which is an impossible, there would still be nowhere near enough gold to cover the total value of dollars in existence. It is estimated that the total amount of gold that has been mined in the world is equal to about 142,000 metric tons. Assuming a price of $50,000 per kilogram, corresponding to around $1550 per troy ounce, that equals about 7 trillion dollars, which you know is not enough to cover all circulating money and deposits in the United States, let alone the entire world. A return to the gold standard would require a massive devaluation of the US dollar, which in turn in the exact scenario advocates of returning to the golden standard are trying to prevent.

Remember this only applies to the US. If all the world's other countries were simultaneously trying to do the same thing as us then this problem would be even worse. In addition, if the US were to follow the policy of buying the world's gold as outlined above then a large number of the actual dollars would have ended up overseas and the US would have the metal. Presumably, the US would then have to create more dollars for internal use, which would definitely not be a counter-inflationary policy.

To put a cherry on top of this, consider that gold has gained several industrial uses in the last century that we didn't have to contend with before, particularly in the tech industry and some medical uses, as well as traditional uses in jewelry. The ensuing hyper-deflation of a return to the gold standard would collapse the jewelry industry and the tech industry as the extensive use of gold interconnects in chip packaging would send component prices through the roof.

But you should know this.
 

Miles Marsalis

The Last DJ.
I didn't know Binance was the largest. I think that may be due to their use of Tether stablecoin, that they're also getting in trouble for. They're certainly not one that all the big business and investors use or trust. But that they're biggest also means they have more insurance to cover losses too. Incidentally, that's been a thing for years now too. Like FDIC you have in banks, large crypto exchanges are also insured.
The FDIC insures denominations in US dollars, not Bitcoin, so if your wallet and exchange is hacked, which I've been saying repeatedly are the vulnerabilities in the Bitcoin transaction infrastructure, you're out that money.

That being said, how do you not know they are the largest exchange? You work in the industry and it's common knowledge among those in financial industry that Binance dominates the exchange.
 

Miles Marsalis

The Last DJ.
Two reasons:
1) You can't predict the market.
2) It's a technology that is going through adoption, not just plain business growth. So it's impossible to tell which rise up in price is just another bell curve where it will come back down, and which one is it surpassing some threshold where it completes the S curve and simply plateaus. Or even replaces the currency you "cash out" into, making your "cash out" quickly become worthless.
Only thing we know is that it will reach that level of adoption eventually, so you might as well just hold.
1.) It's less about predicting the market and more planning out ahead of time what the maximum amount of loss you're willing to tolerate is. You don't necessarily have to repurchase the stock if seem to be on the rise, but you can definitely take precautions to keep from losing too much; this is why we have orders on exchanges.

2.) Again, you can decide what price threshold you will sell at if the price of Bitcoin plunges below in order to keep losses acceptable. There are also plenty of technologies that failed to catch on and even if cryptocurrencies catch on, there is no guarantee that Bitcoin will be most viable cryptocurrency in a world with government-backed cryptocurrencies, particularly US- and EU-issued ones.
That's day traders or technical investors. 75% of those fail to even keep up with the market. Actual experienced investors, like Buffet and large institutions and investment banks, buy based on the fundamentals of the investment, and ignore the short term price movements. Aside from Buffet, that's what those large institutions and investment banks (and even some foreign pension plans and foreign governments) are doing now, just buying and holding.
Please don't trade stocks by trying to time tops and bottoms. You'll lose so badly...
There is a different between large individual and institutional investors who can ride out and afford to lose in market instabilities and most investors who rather not lose that money and maintain some liquidity. I would say that it is smart regularly determine how much of your investment and profit you are willing to lose if the stock price goes down. I'm less concerned about losing out on further profit if I pull my money out early and stock price rises than if I keep my money in and lose a significant portion of my investment.

I believe in cautious investment.
 

Rassah

Well-Known Member
I mean, this "fascist" country took you and your family in when you were fleeing communism and 9/11 was real thing, so maybe you mind want to tamp down the rhetoric, eh?
Sure. And then it changed. Countries do that. It used 9/11 as an excuse to expand actual fascism, with domestic spying, propaganda and misinformation campaigns, etc. At this point the Soviet "if you suspect your friends and family of being enemies of the state, please report on them to the KGB" is a thing that is being pushed here too. So I and others are running because we know what comes next.

More on point, money laundering can and is done with Bitcoin since criminals can hold cryptocurrencies without divulging their identity, which allows them to move money through front and legitimate Bitcoin businesses to wash it and Bitcoin mixing makes the process even easier.
Technically that's more concealing, but that's good. Governments have no business spying on people's personal finances. Still, as I said, Bitcoin accounts for I think something like 3% of criminal activity.

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are used by criminal groups for payment methods in ransomware attacks because they can remain anonymous and cash out their ransom proceeds for hard currency. Major exchanges have also been complicit in this.
Ransomers also take wires and money orders. And as you probably saw, one of those ransom payments was largely recovered because that Bitcoin transaction ended up being tracked to an exchange.
You're kind of disregarding that there are people here who know what they are talking about and are not markedly against Bitcoin, but still have serious reservations about Bitcoin's future and sustainability.
Not with regards to him. He doesn't know shit. He's still comparing it to a tulip bubble ROFL!

Without getting too political, ..., Nayib Bukele pushed the Bitcoin Law through against wishes of almost 70% of the public ...

Bitcoin is by its nature political, because it's a technology that resists political force - financial censorship - just like internet itself is political, because it circumvents censorship of speech. Resisting oppression has always been a political thing.
With Bukele, as I said it's a complicated situation. While what you said is true and is troubling, you have to consider it against the backdrop that the government he took over was one of the most corrupt governments in Latin America, in a country with one of the highest crime rates in the world, with those corrupt people in power fighting very hard to stay in power. And what he did with regards to bitcoin is effectively to force an option of financial freedom on people, which is the opposite of a dictatorial move.
As the people I talked to there said, it's concerning, but it's something we have to wait and see where it goes.
Bitcoin mining is computing-intensive and the hardware used for it has a finite lifespan before it needs to be replaced. 1.29 years isn't far-fetched
Average miner lasts about 3 years.
Bitcoin mining generates of a lot of e-waste and all of that e-waste isn't recyclable.
Relatively not that much actually. Smartphones, and data centers we use for useless videos and social media posts, and most other things we just take for granted make even more. Only reason people are upset is because they don't understand the value that Bitcoin mining provides.
the added demand for Bitcoin mining for hundreds of thousands graphics cards and other computing hardware means addition resources need to be procured.
Bitcoin doesn't use GPUs at all. Miners use basic chips for ASICs and whatever goes into regular servers to manage them.

Then there's the issue that much of these metals are finite, hence the name rare earth metals, and that using up all of the rubidium we have on crunching fake numbers for Bitcoin mining could be a real problem in the future.
It's not fake numbers, it's a very valuable service to secure literally billions in wealth and trillions of dollars a month in transactions on a global financial system.

The reason a majority of bankers haven't jumped on the Bitcoin bandwagon because there is still significant concern about the long-term prospects of the industry and Bitcoin is less regulated than the legitimate financial system with far less safeguards.

No, it's because, based on what they are saying, it seems that the majority of bankers genuinely, and ironically, don't understand money: its purpose of and its core aspects. They just understand how to move money around and how to lend and manage it. That's it.

Yakamaru definitely isn't, but Paul Krugman is literally won the Nobel Prize in Economics. I don't want to minimize your accomplishments, but I'm going go with vast majority of economists out there and say he has more authority on economics and Bitcoin's future than you.
He did win. A long time ago. In an unrelated field. And he's been terribly wrong about lots of things since. He still believes the ridiculous "broken windows" fallacy. He's a great example of what happens when someone is praised too much, gets too big of a head, and stops learning. He's a joke to those who aren't starstruck by his celebrity.
Feel free to go with the vast majority of economists who have zero education in money and Bitcoin, but it's basically like going with the majority opinion of dentists when you're looking for advice on cancer. You're not listening to those who specialize on the topic, just to those who have a general understanding of something tangentially related. Few economists go beyond basic school education to learn economic history and money, and there's lots of incentives for them NOT to.

The US has a diversified economy and its currency is traded and held in reserve around the world by countries to hedge against economic and financial risk.
And US economy is dying, with indistries diversifying overseas. The reserve status is dying too, with foreign countries dumping dollars and treasuries, and trying to switch to other currencies, much to the ire of US and its military. That's what El Salvador and a few other Latin countries are doing with their attempt to switch to Bitcoin. As countries stop being afraid of US's military and oppression, they're getting more bold in attempting to throw the dollar chains off.

Venezuela's economy was primarily dependent on oil exports and the US as its largest partner. Since US energy industry has significantly lessened the need for Venezuelan oil exports and there are strained diplomatic relations and sanctions between our two governments, ........
You pretty much missed the entire reason sanctions were eventually imposed, why inflation happened, why things ended up in the hands of those who mismanaged them, and why wealth left the country causing the final she total collapse. Since you don't know, you wouldn't know what that has to do with US economic trends.


As for the irreversible downward you referencing, this summer the Dow Jones hit its highest point.

This is during an ongoing pandemic.

The long-term is in our favor.
Yeah, that's NOT a good signal, that's a BAD signal. That's a loss in confidence in the dollar, and it's a huge risk for the market. Watch this when you have a chance


I mean, I can only say you are lying about the field because the vast majority of economists, whether they supply-side or Keynesian economists, recognize the Austrian school as an fringe or heterodox school of economic though.
You mean the vast majority of economists who are trained by the "let us print more money" government schools agree that money supply should not be fixed.
It's funny that the Austrian school is considered "fringe" when it, or its tenents, have been the main school of economic thought all throughout human history right up until Keynes came up with his cooky ideas just a century ago, started a new school, and then started to call everyone else "fringe." And Austrian school isn't the only group that favors sound monetary policy and rejects economic central planning.

Furthermore, Milton Friedman, ironically for the libertarians out there, argued that the gold standard was a major factor in causing the Great Depression,
Milton Friedman is irrelevant, was wrong, and is even considered a strawman. Someone who is supposed to represent opposition, for the "mainstream" to attack, even though he didn't retirement opposition. He's not the main Austrian or the main counter to Keynesianism. He was wrong on the Great Depression too, as are many "popular" economic ideas about it.
 

Rassah

Well-Known Member
In our last talk about this, I explained that the largest problem in returning to the gold standard is that there is not enough gold in the world to cover the quantity of currency presently in existence. To put it another way, even if the US were somehow able to purchase the world's entire gold stocks, which is an impossible, there would still be nowhere near enough gold to cover the total value of dollars in existence. It is estimated that the total amount of gold that has been mined in the world is equal to about 142,000 metric tons. Assuming a price of $50,000 per kilogram, corresponding to around $1550 per troy ounce, that equals about 7 trillion dollars, which you know is not enough to cover all circulating money and deposits in the United States, let alone the entire world. A return to the gold standard would require a massive devaluation of the US dollar, which in turn in the exact scenario advocates of returning to the golden standard are trying to prevent.

Remember this only applies to the US. If all the world's other countries were simultaneously trying to do the same thing as us then this problem would be even worse. In addition, if the US were to follow the policy of buying the world's gold as outlined above then a large number of the actual dollars would have ended up overseas and the US would have the metal. Presumably, the US would then have to create more dollars for internal use, which would definitely not be a counter-inflationary policy.

To put a cherry on top of this, consider that gold has gained several industrial uses in the last century that we didn't have to contend with before, particularly in the tech industry and some medical uses, as well as traditional uses in jewelry. The ensuing hyper-deflation of a return to the gold standard would collapse the jewelry industry and the tech industry as the extensive use of gold interconnects in chip packaging would send component prices through the roof.

But you should know this.
Seriously, why are you not able to wrap your head around this? "Assuming a price of $50,000 per kilogram, corresponding to around $1550 per troy ounce," what will happen is that as dollars are bought up to back the new US dollar gold reserve currency, that $1550 per troy ounce will climb to $2000, $20,000, $200,000, and up, to whatever value an ounce of gold would have to be to cover the entire worth of all the dollars. If there were only 50 ounces of gold in the entire world, and all of the US dollars in circulation were worth $200 trillion, that would just mean that each ounce of gold would end up being worth $4 trillion. The price of gold isn't fixed, value is relative to something else. True, it wouldn't be possible to just take the current worthless paper and claim it's backed by gold. The treasury would have to release new paper that corresponds to a fixed amount of gold, likely a tiny fraction of an ounce. But as the treasury keeps buying up gold to issue more and more of these new gold backed dollars, the value of that gold will simply go up, to the point that it can encompass the value of the entire us dollar base, with the value of gold backed dollars going up as well. Which is fine, since we can just use dollars that represent ever smaller fractions of ounces of gold. Hell, you can run the entire world's economy on just a single ounce of gold if you just subdivide it enough.
In short, yes, it would be logistically difficult, but the problem of "there's not enough gold" is non-existent in a world where all values are relative. And, thankfully, that's not even necessary anymore. People are voluntarily switching from unbacked inflationary fiat to hard money asset currency. One that WILL cause a massive devaluation of the dollar, but that at least doesn't have any secondary uses like industrial ones that can mess with its valuation.
 

Rassah

Well-Known Member
The FDIC insures denominations in US dollars, not Bitcoin, so if your wallet and exchange is hacked, which I've been saying repeatedly are the vulnerabilities in the Bitcoin transaction infrastructure, you're out that money.

That being said, how do you not know they are the largest exchange? You work in the industry and it's common knowledge among those in financial industry that Binance dominates the exchange.

Bitcoin exchanges don't use FDIC. They use their own insurance. So if you lose 10 Bitcoin, you will get 10 Bitcoin, unless insurance takes too long to pay out during a period when Bitcoin goes up too rapidly and the exchange takes too long to buy that Bitcoin back.

I did not know they're the largest exchange because they're not the ones that large investors, institutions, and businesses use, and because, as I said, they have a reputation of "not to be trusted," so most people I know avoid them. Also I deal with Bitcoin, not "shitcoins," Binance seems to mostly deal in shitcoins, including Tether, and I guess I didn't realize jost how big the shitcoin market got in the last year. If you want to deal with Bitcoin, I still recommend Gemini, Kraken, Bitstamp, Coinbase (pro), or a few others, NOT Binance. Binance is so bad that apparently it's not even used as a source of current Bitcoin prices for things that need them. (Like price tracking apps, Bitcoin ATMs, etc).
 

Rassah

Well-Known Member
1.) It's less about predicting the market and more planning out ahead of time what the maximum amount of loss you're willing to tolerate is. You don't necessarily have to repurchase the stock if seem to be on the rise, but you can definitely take precautions to keep from losing too much; this is why we have orders on exchanges.
One of the people in my Bitcoin Furs telegram group thought that way. He put in a stop loss order at $30,000, so that if Bitcoin touches that price, he automatically sells to limit the "maximum amount of loss" as you say. Bitcoin "flash crashed" touching $30,000, liquidating his positions, and then bounced right back to $35,000, before continuing to climb back to $40,000. Needless to say, he's not doing that anymore. I had a similar situation when Bitcoin crashed to $3600 last year before popping back up. So even though it sounds like a good idea - Just sell if it gets too low to limit your loses - in practice it's still gambling that can lose you money.


2.) Again, you can decide what price threshold you will sell at if the price of Bitcoin plunges below in order to keep losses acceptable. There are also plenty of technologies that failed to catch on and even if cryptocurrencies catch on, there is no guarantee that Bitcoin will be most viable cryptocurrency in a world with government-backed cryptocurrencies, particularly US- and EU-issued ones.
Again, government backed currencies have a MASSIVE MAJOR HUGE INSURMOUNTABLE FLAW that Bitcoin solves, which is a large part of what gives Bitcoin all of its value: it's not government-backed. How can a government-backes currency solve the issue of government-backing? Until someone figures that out, Bitcoin is not threatened by those.

There is a different between large individual and institutional investors who can ride out and afford to lose in market instabilities and most investors who rather not lose that money and maintain some liquidity.
Yep. We call them "institutional investors" and "retail investors." Used to be that retain investors dominated. As of a year ago, institutional investors dominate, and dwarf retail investors. If retail investors are smart, they would keep their money in Bitcoin same as institutional investors, knowing that institutional ones aren't going to just dump it every time it dips. As for liquidity, if you want liquidity, holding bitcoin is your best option. Dollars in a bank account aren't as liquid as Bitcoin.


I would say that it is smart regularly determine how much of your investment and profit you are willing to lose if the stock price goes down. I'm less concerned about losing out on further profit if I pull my money out early and stock price rises than if I keep my money in and lose a significant portion of my investment.

I believe in cautious investment.

You're conflating an investment that involves "taking a risk to earn a profit," with an investment of "hedging risk in one vs hedging risk in another." In other words, you're not trying to earn wealth by risking USD to buy Bitcoin, you're picking a place to store wealth to minimize loss of that wealth. Like, people don't buy gold because they think it will make them rich, they buy it because they think keeping it in dollars will lose their wealth. It just happens that dollars have fallen tremendously compared to Bitcoin.
I believe in cautious investment too. That's why I'm almost 100% in Bitcoin. Stocks and dollars are just way too much of a risk.
 
Last edited:

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Something like 15% of the posts in this thread are a user attempting to evade a block I put in place on them.
Continue discussing the subjects by all means, but like, this is the seventh or eighth time and it is getting silly.

Personally I think this thread has deviated way into 'pointless political discussion' territory anyway, because people are already accusing one another of promoting fascism.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?

pilgrimfromoblivion

DEEP IN THE JEANS SHE'S WEARING
Banned
Yes, that's true.

digital 'mining' activities used to be most concentrated in China, but recently they have migrated to countries such as Kazakhstan and the Unites States.
Ah. This is most likely gonna be a hit for Bitcoin value. Well, Bitcoin investors sure are optimistic, if nothing else.
 

Yakamaru

Autumn wolf
Yes, that's true.

digital 'mining' activities used to be most concentrated in China, but recently they have migrated to countries such as Kazakhstan and the Unites States.
This coming from a country that rations toilet paper and have limited video game time to 3 hours a week. Welcome to the most Totalitarian place on Earth. I wouldn't take cues from this shitty country even if you paid me.
 

MechaMegs

The Red Menace
Down 10k in half a month. I would be so happy to have something that volatile as my currency

AbandonedAggravatingBoilweevil-size_restricted.gif
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
This coming from a country that rations toilet paper and have limited video game time to 3 hours a week. Welcome to the most Totalitarian place on Earth. I wouldn't take cues from this shitty country even if you paid me.

I agree that China's decisions here are poor; I'm not endorsing their approach.
 

Yakamaru

Autumn wolf
I agree that China's decisions here are poor; I'm not endorsing their approach.
Aye, glad we agree. The miners will simply move elsewhere. China is banning things left and right and is a clear sign of a nation in decline.
 
Top