• 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.
Happy Halloween to you too, @Rassah .

First off, nice dodge with that six months quip, because you definitely made some assumptions about me then backtracked when you realized you were wrong. Yeah, I'm fortunate than others right now, but I don't go around referring to the average working person as "just over broke" and disparage them since it's incredibly disrespectful.

There is such a thing as the dignity of work and it takes all types to keep the economy running.

I joined FA and FAF in 2018, so either you're misremembering, crazy, or both. I haven't been on Pheonixed Forums either since I also didn't hear about until 2018. My join date is listed too, which you clearly saw, so you also know this.

Personal stuff out of the way, Bitcoin only really started overperforming outside of the 2018 peak-and-crash in 2020, so let's not toast to it being a new new asset class just yet.

There are more than 4,700 Walmarts in the US and 11,000 worldwide, but just 200 Bitcoin ATMs. That isn't exactly a groundswell change or heavy investment in Bitcoin infrastructure on Walmart's part.

Speaking of Bitcoin infrastructure, El Salvador only accepted Bitcoin as legal tender because of heavy government investment in Bitcoin infrastructure in the country and even then there are still significant technical and economic issues with the system. Expanding the system in other countries, assuming they don't ban it outright, will require system buy-in from governments and businesses.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Ultimately it's difficult to see what advantages cryptocurrencies currently offer that would incentivise businesses to buy into them anyway @Miles Marsalis .
The huge swings in value, that an investor can take advantage of to turn a profit, aren't really compatible with the needs of having a stable value that most businesses require- hence why companies like Tesla reserve the right that, if you request a refund, they can return the money either in dollars or bitcoins based on the hour in which you made your transaction...whichever is lower.

El Salvador's specific case for using cryptocurrency is based on its economy being heavily reliant on remittances, so for a Western country that already has its own strong currency, there's not the same reason to buy-in.
For day-to-day Western consumers, as well, the prospect of having significant capital stored in a currency that is basically completely unregulated, and which doesn't have the same strict security and government guarantees as an established bank, is pretty iffy.

It kind of leaves me wondering what cryptocurrencies are actually for. Traditionally their decentralised nature is advertised as an advantage, but it's actually their greatest weakness, because it means if the exchange you use is hacked, or hosts a scam investment, that it's unlikely you will get any of your money back or that the exchange can be held to account in any meaningful way to prevent it from happening again.

The only thing they *do* have going for them is their 'tulipmania' style swings in value.
 

Miles Marsalis

The Last DJ.
Ultimately it's difficult to see what advantages cryptocurrencies currently offer that would incentivise businesses to buy into them anyway @Miles Marsalis .
The huge swings in value, that an investor can take advantage of to turn a profit, aren't really compatible with the needs of having a stable value that most businesses require- hence why companies like Tesla reserve the right that, if you request a refund, they can return the money either in dollars or bitcoins based on the hour in which you made your transaction...whichever is lower.

El Salvador's specific case for using cryptocurrency is based on its economy being heavily reliant on remittances, so for a Western country that already has its own strong currency, there's not the same reason to buy-in.
For day-to-day Western consumers, as well, the prospect of having significant capital stored in a currency that is basically completely unregulated, and which doesn't have the same strict security and government guarantees as an established bank, is pretty iffy.

It kind of leaves me wondering what cryptocurrencies are actually for. Traditionally their decentralised nature is advertised as an advantage, but it's actually their greatest weakness, because it means if the exchange you use is hacked, or hosts a scam investment, that it's unlikely you will get any of your money back or that the exchange can be held to account in any meaningful way to prevent it from happening again.

The only thing they *do* have going for them is their 'tulipmania' style swings in value.
You put it succinctly and I don't disagree with anything you've said here, though I'd add that stronger traditional currencies have benefit of being backed by their governments and are far more stable than cryptocurrencies. I'd also stress the relatively trusted and redundant nature of the current payment systems used in the developed world which obviates the need for Bitcoin's payment system, assuming you can find a business selling what you want that accepts Bitcoin.
 

Rassah

Well-Known Member
Yeah, I'm fortunate than others right now, but I don't go around referring to the average working person as "just over broke" and disparage them since it's incredibly disrespectful.

There is such a thing as the dignity of work and it takes all types to keep the economy running.
You missed the point. Just Over Broke isn't even my idea, and the issue isn't "you have a job, how droll" it's "you're entirely dependent on your job, where if you lose your job you're fucked, how terrible." I and my friends also have jobs or work all day, but the difference is we're not "just over broke." We saved and invested to the point that we're not financially dependent on jobs. The point is that majority of people have no financial education, don't know how to invest, or how to manage money, and thus are in a situation where they're trapped and dependent. Of course I would disparage that. That's a terrible situation to be in. And it's one you can get out of if you get some financial education and do things like properly manage money and invest.

I joined FA and FAF in 2018, so either you're misremembering, crazy, or both.
I misremembered and lumped you with the likes of Fallow and others who have been on this forum for years and make the same claims on a number of different topics besides Bitcoin. My mistake.

Personal stuff out of the way, Bitcoin only really started overperforming outside of the 2018 peak-and-crash in 2020, so let's not toast to it being a new new asset class just yet.
Also 2011, 2013, and 2017, with regards to performance. As I said, long term return on Bitcoin is 200% a year. I'm not the one claiming it's a new asset class, the world's biggest banks are.

There are more than 4,700 Walmarts in the US and 11,000 worldwide, but just 200 Bitcoin ATMs.
There are actually a few thousand Bitcoin ATMs around US. Check out coinatmradar.com. They're all over the place (I own one too). The 200 are just the Walmart ones. Specifically, it's Coinstar adding Bitcoin ATM support to their machines. And you're making the SAME MISTAKE AGAIN, saying "it's only 200, not exactly a groundswell," when THE WHOLE POINT IS GROWTH, and these 200 are just the beginning before they expand support to the other 11,000.

Look at the trends. Look at where things are going. That's how you invest and position yourself to do well in any economy. I'm genuinely curious, how do you function like that? Do you never make plans for tomorrow or the rest of the year, because you just assume things will be the same as they are now? Or is your lack of noticing trends only extend to Bitcoin, business, and investments? This meme reminded me of you

-4913762523489085906_121.jpg


Speaking of Bitcoin infrastructure, El Salvador only accepted Bitcoin as legal tender because of heavy government investment in Bitcoin infrastructure in the country
There was zero Bitcoin infrastructure in the country and zero government investment in Bitcoin infrastructure. El Salvador had an area where the locals adopted Bitcoin to save money and hassle on payments and to invest it in, but it wasn't related to government. The reason El Salvador adopted Bitcoin was because Nayib Bukele is a free market libertarian, believes Bitcoin will continue to go up in value so if everyone in El Salvador adopts it or even has some of it, everyone will become richer, and because El Salvador, like other Latin American and Caribbean countries, don't want to be tied to and restricted by the US dollar. I know because I'm working with El Salvador.

Yeah, their system was very ambitious and didn't scale in time because Bitcoin became WAY too popular WAY fast. Do you think technical problems like this can be fixed? Or does your weird quirk of not being able to see trends make you think that this system will have these same problems forever?

Expanding the system in other countries, assuming they don't ban it outright, will require system buy-in from governments and businesses.

Governments, no. Businesses, somewhat. The main requirement is for people themselves to have buy-in. If people continue to adopt it, even in countries where it's banned, businesses will be forced to adopt it to keep customers. Governments are irrelevant. Look at US, where it's not officially recognized, yet it's a place where tens of millions of people already own it, and where it's the easiest place to use and spend (after El Salvador). The reason people adopt it is pretty simple:
FB_IMG_1636145177305.jpg

P.S. Fallow is just repeating the same old crap he has been for years, which you obviously agree with, and that's why I thought you were part of the same old group. Value of USD in relation to turkey dropped 50% in just a year. Banks freeze accounts, and are now told to spy on everyone's financial activity if they have more than $600. So much for that government backing, and bye financial privacy. Incidentally all that spying isn't free. We will be forced to pay for it with higher fees. We, those educated about money, know 100% that dollars will continue to fall and that they're very unstable right now, and will be even less stable in the future. And we know 99.7% that bitcoin will continue to go up over the next 5 years. So, after you also take the time to learn the basics of how to hold and secure your own coins so you don't have to store them on exchanges, the choice is pretty simple.
 
Last edited:

Miles Marsalis

The Last DJ.
You missed the point. Just Over Broke isn't even my idea, and the issue isn't "you have a job, how droll" it's "you're entirely dependent on your job, where if you lose your job you're fucked, how terrible." I and my friends also have jobs or work all day, but the difference is we're not "just over broke." We saved and invested to the point that we're not financially dependent on jobs. The point is that majority of people have no financial education, don't know how to invest, or how to manage money, and thus are in a situation where they're trapped and dependent. Of course I would disparage that. That's a terrible situation to be in. And it's one you can get out of if you get some financial education and do things like properly manage money and invest.
We both know you didn't make the remarks you did from a place of educating.

That said, I do agree that many people aren't as up on personal finance as much as they should be and this can lead them to make poor financial decisions. That isn't up for dispute.

However, there are many people who do live paycheck to paycheck ... which means they can't really save or invest too much. There are also people who just enter the workforce and can't have significant savings ... because they just started working.

I figure you're well-off, in terms of real currency, but you're also, I'm assuming, at retirement age and at least have decades of working behind you. It makes sense you would have reserves in case of an emergency or if you needed stop working all together.

Just pointing that out.

I misremembered and lumped you with the likes of Fallow and others who have been on this forum for years and make the same claims on a number of different topics besides Bitcoin. My mistake.
This could've been easily avoided, but thank you, though I do feel you are mischaracterizing Fallow at least.

Also 2011, 2013, and 2017, with regards to performance. As I said, long term return on Bitcoin is 200% a year. I'm not the one claiming it's a new asset class, the world's biggest banks are.
You forget crashes that happened after those increases.

Strictly speaking, most of the big banks do not consider cryptocurrencies an asset; some dabble in it, but the general consensus is cryptocurrencies haven't meet key benchmarks to be categorized as stable, suitable investments of that nature.


There are actually a few thousand Bitcoin ATMs around US. Check out coinatmradar.com. They're all over the place (I own one too). The 200 are just the Walmart ones. Specifically, it's Coinstar adding Bitcoin ATM support to their machines. And you're making the SAME MISTAKE AGAIN, saying "it's only 200, not exactly a groundswell," when THE WHOLE POINT IS GROWTH, and these 200 are just the beginning before they expand support to the other 11,000.

Look at the trends. Look at where things are going. That's how you invest and position yourself to do well in any economy. I'm genuinely curious, how do you function like that? Do you never make plans for tomorrow or the rest of the year, because you just assume things will be the same as they are now? Or is your lack of noticing trends only extend to Bitcoin, business, and investments? This meme reminded me of you
I'd like to see more growth than that before saying Bitcoin is anywhere near the trend you say it is.

I do plan and save for the future, but I like investments with good track records, not just good promise. I bought a few shares of Amazon and Maersk at the beginning of last year and Telsa after the market fell in the spring, but those companies were reasonable investments given the context of global economy entering the pandemic and their performance, though I sold Telsa admittedly shortly before the stock split.

With Bitcoin's volatility and inherent problems, I don't see it outperforming the stock markets in the long term.

There was zero Bitcoin infrastructure in the country and zero government investment in Bitcoin infrastructure. El Salvador had an area where the locals adopted Bitcoin to save money and hassle on payments and to invest it in, but it wasn't related to government. The reason El Salvador adopted Bitcoin was because Nayib Bukele is a free market libertarian, believes Bitcoin will continue to go up in value so if everyone in El Salvador adopts it or even has some of it, everyone will become richer, and because El Salvador, like other Latin American and Caribbean countries, don't want to be tied to and restricted by the US dollar. I know because I'm working with El Salvador.
That is incorrect since the government bought 400 Bitcoins (totaling $21million at the time), it invested money in infrastructure related to Chivo, and it purchased an addition 150 Bitcoin (totaling about $7 million at the time) to stabilize the price of it on the day Bitcoin became legal tender there. All of which were substantial investments for the government, which is currently in heavy debt, so the government has been fairly hands on there, despite what you are saying.



Yeah, their system was very ambitious and didn't scale in time because Bitcoin became WAY too popular WAY fast. Do you think technical problems like this can be fixed? Or does your weird quirk of not being able to see trends make you think that this system will have these same problems forever?

I mean, it helped that the government incentivized Bitcoin wallet usage by offering $30 to each holder of Chivo. However, the jury is out on how popular Bitcoin is in El Salvador since only 12 percent of Salvadoran consumers have used the cryptocurrency, but 93 percent of companies surveyed reported receiving no payments in bitcoin during the first month of the rollout.

Governments, no. Businesses, somewhat. The main requirement is for people themselves to have buy-in. If people continue to adopt it, even in countries where it's banned, businesses will be forced to adopt it to keep customers. Governments are irrelevant. Look at US, where it's not officially recognized, yet it's a place where tens of millions of people already own it, and where it's the easiest place to use and spend (after El Salvador). The reason people adopt it is pretty simple:
If governments outright ban cryptocurrencies, their usage will be illegal, so individuals and businesses alike won't be using cryptocurrencies in that scenario. Government buy-in to cryptocurrencies is essential.

Businesses don't necessarily need to accept cryptocurrencies because since fiat currencies are fairly strong and stable while Bitcoin is very volatile, it makes more sense to forego Bitcoin in favor of accepting payments in traditional currencies. Businesses are particularly concerned that the frequent dips in the cryptocurrency markets could eat into their profits if they take and hold revenue in Bitcoin.
 

Miles Marsalis

The Last DJ.
Relevant news to this thread, the incoming mayor of new york requested 3 months of his salary in cryptocrurrency.
I heard. It's not even clear the city would be able to legally do that, given the price fluctuations of Bitcoin, laws regarding legal tender and wages, and the current scrutiny that unregistered cryprocurrency companies are under in the city.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
I heard. It's not even clear the city would be able to legally do that, given the price fluctuations of Bitcoin, laws regarding legal tender and wages, and the current scrutiny that unregistered cryprocurrency companies are under in the city.

Since he could just convert it himself after being paid, he must be asking in order to make a point of it.
 

shortwiw

New Member
Bitcoin is nothing new to most people. Even if they have not invested in this cryptocurrency, they have definitely heard that it is very expensive. I am one of those people who invests in bitcoin and understand how this system works. I'm comfortable with it because I have the right amount of knowledge. It is one of my primary weapons. I understand well what viral currency is made up of and therefore use reliable transaction paths. I am now talking about mycryptomixer.com, which helps me with this.
 
Last edited:

Rassah

Well-Known Member
However, there are many people who do live paycheck to paycheck ... which means they can't really save or invest too much. There are also people who just enter the workforce and can't have significant savings ... because they just started working.

Yep. Sucks for them, their only source of any wealth is just whatever they can manage to earn and hold onto before they must spend it. I don't get why people like you are fighting so hard to make even that little bit much more difficult for them, with falling value of wages and rising costs of living. But it doesn't matter, my side with our deflationary currency are winning, and there's nothing that can stop us.

FYI, I went from competent broke and almost homeless at 20 to retired at 34, and I'm just barely 40. So no, not that old, and didn't spend as much time getting there as you thought. Just took a lot of learning about money and investing.

Also 2011, 2013, and 2017, with regards to performance. As I said, long term return on Bitcoin is 200% a year. I'm not the one claiming it's a new asset class, the world's biggest banks are.
You forget crashes that happened after those increases.

No, that's with the crashes. With all the crashes and instability, long term return was and is 200% a year. Without crashes it would've been something like 500%.

Regarding your stock purchases, I thought I shared the Crack-up Boom video here. You really should watch it for your own benefit.

Government of El Salvador bought 400+ Bitcoin this September. El Salvador was using Bitcoin at Tunco Beach (aka Bitcoin Beach) for a year now. So, what I'm saying is fact, Bitcoin was adopted there way before any government infrastructure, and was used pretty regularly (Bitcoin lightning network wallets, instant transactions with almost zero fees). El Salvador government only hired to have obturator developed for the rest of the country recently, and for the reasons I said: to improve the lives of their citizens.
It didn't buy 150 Bitcoin to stabilize the price. That tiny amount doesn't affect the price at all. Remember, Elon Musk sold around 2,500 Bitcoin ($100mil) this Summer and no one ever knew. Hibbett bought that Bitcoin as an investment to keep in reserves, knowing it will go up and help it become richer too. It more than doubled that money by now.

If governments ban Bitcoin... actually they already did. Like I said before, Venezuela and a number of other countries banned Bitcoin. It didn't stop their use. Streisand effect meant people who didn't know about it looked into it and into why their oppressive government regimes are so afraid of it, and use actually went up. Banning Bitcoin, and actually enforcing that ban, are two different things. Sharing copyrighted files is banned too. When was the last time someone got busted and arrested for it?

Bitcoin still settles payments in 10 minutes. Less on Lightning Network. And that settlement costs pennies or less. Fiat settlement takes days or weeks. For credit cards it's months. And those cost a lot. For international business that's even worse. I needed to send $2k to Spain, and that required waiting to schedule an in person meet at my bank, 1.5 hours with phone calls so they can figure out what the exchange rate between $ and € is, signing a few docs, and a $75 fee. And dollar inflation is 6.5% or more now. Everyone is losing about 1% of their dollars every week, and it's getting worse.
Pretty soon I'll be laughing my ass off at all those who kept claiming inflationary currency that gets printed in massive numbers on a whim is the "stable" one compared to my immutable 21mil fixed currency.
 

Miles Marsalis

The Last DJ.
Yep. Sucks for them, their only source of any wealth is just whatever they can manage to earn and hold onto before they must spend it. I don't get why people like you are fighting so hard to make even that little bit much more difficult for them, with falling value of wages and rising costs of living. But it doesn't matter, my side with our deflationary currency are winning, and there's nothing that can stop us.
I mean, except the banning of Bitcoin, a stricter regulatory regime that the Bitcoin industry and market can't cope with, a lack of governmental and corporate buy-in, or the bubble nature of Bitcoin, among other things.

No, that's with the crashes. With all the crashes and instability, long term return was and is 200% a year. Without crashes it would've been something like 500%.
You're missing, or glossing over, the glaring fact that the crashes and instability of Bitcoin are major deterrents and detriments to it.

Government of El Salvador bought 400+ Bitcoin this September. El Salvador was using Bitcoin at Tunco Beach (aka Bitcoin Beach) for a year now. So, what I'm saying is fact, Bitcoin was adopted there way before any government infrastructure, and was used pretty regularly (Bitcoin lightning network wallets, instant transactions with almost zero fees). El Salvador government only hired to have obturator developed for the rest of the country recently, and for the reasons I said: to improve the lives of their citizens.
It didn't buy 150 Bitcoin to stabilize the price.
Actually the government did buy Bitcoin with the hopes of stabilizing the price ... and releasing press statements saying so along with the President tweeting himself that his government was doing so for that reason.

I'm thinking they know the reasoning behind their actions better than you.

More interestingly, there was supposed to be a summit lasting a couple days that Bukele convened to address the stability issues that Bitcoin still is plagued by as well.

If governments ban Bitcoin... actually they already did. Like I said before, Venezuela and a number of other countries banned Bitcoin. It didn't stop their use. Streisand effect meant people who didn't know about it looked into it and into why their oppressive government regimes are so afraid of it, and use actually went up. Banning Bitcoin, and actually enforcing that ban, are two different things. Sharing copyrighted files is banned too. When was the last time someone got busted and arrested for it?
If governments banned Bitcoin, it'd be very hard to operate any kind of Bitcoin economy given that governments would undoubtedly have serious enforcement of the ban and seize any Bitcoin mining facilities and exchanges. Furthermore, for governments tracking Bitcoin mining and even transactions would be trivial given the power consumption of mining and addresses being traceable through blockchain technology.

Bitcoin still settles payments in 10 minutes. Less on Lightning Network. And that settlement costs pennies or less. Fiat settlement takes days or weeks. For credit cards it's months. And those cost a lot. For international business that's even worse. I needed to send $2k to Spain, and that required waiting to schedule an in person meet at my bank, 1.5 hours with phone calls so they can figure out what the exchange rate between $ and € is, signing a few docs, and a $75 fee. And dollar inflation is 6.5% or more now. Everyone is losing about 1% of their dollars every week, and it's getting worse.
Pretty soon I'll be laughing my ass off at all those who kept claiming inflationary currency that gets printed in massive numbers on a whim is the "stable" one compared to my immutable 21mil fixed currency.
This is nuts, because most transactions in fiat currency are settled immediately given the sheer capacity of the global financial systems and most transactions post instantaneously at least, with them being settled within days. Credit card transactions take, at most, five days to be settled and provided you pay the bill on time, fees are minimal. International transactions are a mixed bag for large denominations, but usually take days at most to resolve, but are also reversible much of the time in cases of fraud. Even checks clear within days, accounting for mailing.

You should know all of above since you worked in finance, but you are obviously exaggerating the fees and time fiat currency transactions take to advance Bitcoin, which has far longer latency and far bigger fees per transaction. I'll also point out that 10 minutes is the average it takes to resolve a transaction, since a Bitcoin transaction can take much longer to be settled.

Compare this to the instant transaction resolution for debit and credit cards.

Also, the average fee for Bitcoin transactions is $59 dollars, compared to the lack of fees on most debit and credit accounts for transactions.

 

TyraWadman

The Brutally Honest Man-Child

Miles Marsalis

The Last DJ.
In fairness, the average fee does fluctuate with usage and processing time. In April of this year, the average transaction fee was $59.


Now it is currently $7, which is still kind of nuts when consider that for most transactions with debit and credit accounts there are no transaction fees.


But apparently this is the future of payment.
 

Rassah

Well-Known Member
I mean, except the banning of Bitcoin, a stricter regulatory regime that the Bitcoin industry and market can't cope with, a lack of governmental and corporate buy-in, or the bubble nature of Bitcoin, among other things.
May have been a concern in the past, but now that those government and corporate buy-in are there is no longer an issue. Let some government ban it. It won't affect it outside of that government.

You're missing, or glossing over, the glaring fact that the crashes and instability of Bitcoin are major deterrents and detriments to it.
Apparently they're not, since it just continued to grow in adoption and price.


That's your unfounded opinion. Your article doesn't support that claim. And since I was there and am continuing to work there, with very highly connected people, I as an authority on the matter am telling you that the government didn't buy it to stabilize the price, it bought it knowing that the price will go up later, "buying the dip" as it's called.

Moreover, that wasn't the point I was addressing. It was your thinking that Bitcoin started there because of government, but in fact it was used in Tunco Beach for almost a year before government got involved.

https://www.reuters.com/business/fi...yptocurrency-bitcoin-legal-tender-2021-09-07/
I'm thinking they know the reasoning behind their actions better than you.
See above. Also keep in mind that buying a measly $20 mil of Bitcoin won't even cause a blip on the market.

More interestingly, there was supposed to be a summit lasting a couple days
Latin American Bitcoin Conference? Happening now. Bukele just announced they're going to make a Bitcoin City with everything running on Bitcoin and no taxes other than 10% sales tax. I think he's being a bit overly ambitious...


If governments banned Bitcoin, it'd be very hard to operate any kind of Bitcoin economy...

Governments banned Facebook and Google. Do you find either hard to operate? Governments banned P2P file sharing of copyrighted materials. I don't find those particularly hard to operate either. You're greatly overestimating the power governments have over distributed internet technologies. You're also greatly underestimating people's desire to be free and not be exploited by governments and dictatorships. As I've said many times, governments that banned Bitcoin and Bitcoin exchanges only saw an increase in Bitcoin adoption and trade in their countries.

Furthermore, for governments tracking Bitcoin mining and even transactions would be trivial given the power consumption of mining and addresses being traceable through blockchain technology.
Bitcoin mining power doesn't have to be connected to anything. You can set up a hydro plant in the middle of nowhere in the Amazon, or capture and burn vented gas from oil fields in Siberia, where no infrastructure or civilization exists, and no one would know.

And no, addresses aren't exactly traceable through blockchain technology. It's difficult at least since every transaction creates new addresses. And with the Taproot upgrade that just came out, and Lightning Network that is already running, tracing addresses will be nearly impossible. Which is exactly what people actually want. People DON'T WANT the government tracking every transaction they make and monitoring all their money and wealth. Plus Taproot will increase efficiency and decrease transaction fees even more.

This is nuts, because most transactions in fiat currency are settled immediately

No, they're NOT. The ONLY fiat transaction that is settled immediately is you handing someone paper cash. Every other transaction that you believe is settled is actually the bank giving you a short term loan while they wait for the other bank to transfer that money to them. Typically that happens when banks settle among themselves every week or month. In some cases longer. For international transfers it's even worse.

Credit card transactions take, at most, five days to be settled
It's actually up to six months, not five days. Again, the bank can give you the loan and you can use that money after a few days, but for up to six months the money isn't actually yours, and credit cards can and have yanked that money back.


You should know all of above since you worked in finance,
Not just in finance but in banking. And I do know. And that's why I'm explaining how it works to you. It's also why I see Bitcoin as a vastly technologically superior system, like comparing the internet to the telegram.

Bitcoin, which has far longer latency and far bigger fees per transaction.

0 cents to 10 cents isn't bigger than bank fees, no.

I'll also point out that 10 minutes is the average it takes to resolve a transaction
Unless it's on Lightning Network, in which case it's instant.

This is another one of those "But this is a problem with Bitcoin and why it will never work" that was actually fixed, because open source technologies evolve and improve, and you should never assume that just because something isn't working now that it never will.


Also, the average fee for Bitcoin transactions is $59 dollars,

Where the hell did you get that number from? You can literally just look at the live feed of the Bitcoin network and blocks right here, and see that the fee is $0.08 (and that's on chain, since on Lightning it's maybe 1/10th of that)

And yeah, I was there actually using Bitcoin to pay for things in April too. The highest fee I paid then was $7. That's not the average, that's the highest. On Lightning Network it was still a penny or less. Your numbers and sources don't reflect reality, sorry. In your defense, they may have just included the highest fees that some large banks and exchanges paid to get their transactions approved RIGHT NOW, rather than the fees the average user would pay. It's no different from claiming that your average bank transfer fee is $50,000, because a few banks paid $250,000 transaction fees to move billions of dollars internationally.
 
Last edited:

Rassah

Well-Known Member
But, let's bring some, let's say "social causes and intents" into this. This copy/pasta of my post elsewhere is exactly why I'm fighting for Bitcoin, and think of those who support centrally printed inflationary fiat as evil:

You've probably been told that a little inflation is necessary. That deflation is terrible, causes people to hoard money knowing they can get cheaper prices tomorrow, and lack of inflation is what caused The Great Depression. You may even have been told that we need inflation to pay for all those nice government social programs.

And if you're on the left of the political spectrum, you are probably also very concerned about wealth inequality and how the rich seem to keep getting richer while the poor are no longer able to afford housing and food, now demanding a $15 or even a $25 min wage. But if asked why that's happening, you'll only answer "low taxes on the rich? Capitalism? "

It's actually a pretty simple process, called the Cantillon Effect.
1. New money gets printed.
2. That money is given to the well connected rich and corporations.
3. Those who receive it immediately use it to buy real assets (stocks, commodities, property).
4. The rich got richer, and the wealth got more concentrated.

Since more money was created, inflation causes the value of your money to drop and prices to go up. Since assets, commodities, and property was bought up, its supply on the market has decreased, causing their prices to go up even more. The state-connected rich get richer and everyone else gets double screwed. That's it. That's the whole "mystery" to why you're getting screwed.

And that's precisely what Bitcoin aims to fix by being a money that can't be printed and just be given to someone. All Bitcoin that got created had to be worked for (Bitcoin mining). So if you hate the concept of wealth inequality and hate that the rich are getting richer, you should be supporting Bitcoin. Not continuing to support the inflationary policies that, while providing social benefits to a few, just end up screwing everyone. Everyone who isn't the richest of the rich.
 

Miles Marsalis

The Last DJ.
That's your unfounded opinion. Your article doesn't support that claim. And since I was there and am continuing to work there, with very highly connected people, I as an authority on the matter am telling you that the government didn't buy it to stabilize the price, it bought it knowing that the price will go up later, "buying the dip" as it's called.

Moreover, that wasn't the point I was addressing. It was your thinking that Bitcoin started there because of government, but in fact it was used in Tunco Beach for almost a year before government got involved.
The government released an official statement saying they were doing so and the Bukele himself tweeted about it ... and both the article's author and I are sourcing them.

If you are over there working with government, you should know of the notice.

Furthermore, I was aware of Bitcoin Beach, which is hardly a scalable experiment for the whole country; the mass adoption of Bitcoin across the country as legal tender is definitely due to the government, as I've said.

Apparently they're not, since it just continued to grow in adoption and price.
I mean, the recent high growth Bitcoin has experienced doesn't wipe the previous bubbles and market crashes.

See above. Also keep in mind that buying a measly $20 mil of Bitcoin won't even cause a blip on the market.
The initial buy and the public announcement could drive a rally and convince skittish Bitcoin speculators to keep or reinvest their money in Bitcoin, which was the intent.

Latin American Bitcoin Conference? Happening now. Bukele just announced they're going to make a Bitcoin City with everything running on Bitcoin and no taxes other than 10% sales tax. I think he's being a bit overly ambitious...
I do too and it shows that maybe Bukele didn't think through the ramifications of adopting Bitcoin as legal tender and that he is the wrong person to be making unilateral economic policy of such magnitude. I don't see how a country so far in debt is going to supporting having a cryptocurrency as an alternative form of legal tender AND simultaneously subsidize entire city supporting Bitcoin infrastructure with no income tax, no corporate tax, and a 10% sales tax. Assuming that is true.

Bitcoin mining power doesn't have to be connected to anything. You can set up a hydro plant in the middle of nowhere in the Amazon, or capture and burn vented gas from oil fields in Siberia, where no infrastructure or civilization exists, and no one would know.
No one except the government officials you need to get building and licensing permits from in any country to build a energy production facilities in a remote locale, particularly on protected land like the Amazon rainforest or extremely scrutinized territory like Siberia. Or the construction firms and personnel you'd need to build said facilities in the first place. Or the employees running your super secret energy production facility for Bitcoin mining. Or their families. Or the various environment and intelligence agencies that regularly track the construction and operation of energy production facilities with little thing like satellite photography.

Yeah, though. No one will ever know.

Governments banned Facebook and Google. Do you find either hard to operate? Governments banned P2P file sharing of copyrighted materials. I don't find those particularly hard to operate either. You're greatly overestimating the power governments have over distributed internet technologies. You're also greatly underestimating people's desire to be free and not be exploited by governments and dictatorships. As I've said many times, governments that banned Bitcoin and Bitcoin exchanges only saw an increase in Bitcoin adoption and trade in their countries.
With P2P, there were small holdout countries where pirates were able to based their anti-copyright operations and it wasn't in every one of the major governments' interest to devote the resources to stop the copyright theft, particularly in China.

With cryptocurrencies, different economics come into play, because cryptocurrencies obviously undermine the tax base of a country and enable all manners of criminal activity to flourish through alternative financing.

That makes politicians sit up, along with the corporate and wealthy interests that don't want to shoulder a higher tax burden due cryptocurrencies siphoning money in the short term out of the tax base. There are also the social ills posed by cryptocurrencies, which economists have been warning about, particularly the bubble nature of the cryptocurrency markets.

Also, Bitcoin usage has dropped precipitously in China following the crackdown.

And no, addresses aren't exactly traceable through blockchain technology. It's difficult at least since every transaction creates new addresses. And with the Taproot upgrade that just came out, and Lightning Network that is already running, tracing addresses will be nearly impossible. Which is exactly what people actually want. People DON'T WANT the government tracking every transaction they make and monitoring all their money and wealth. Plus Taproot will increase efficiency and decrease transaction fees even more.
The FBI easily and regularly traces Bitcoin transaction involved in criminal activity; most of the difficultly they'd have would be in obtaining warrants rather anything technical. Other members of the intelligence community have greater capabilities than the FBI to such transactions should the need arise and can perform brute-force methods to trace transactions by location and using other elements of the blockchain.

No, they're NOT. The ONLY fiat transaction that is settled immediately is you handing someone paper cash. Every other transaction that you believe is settled is actually the bank giving you a short term loan while they wait for the other bank to transfer that money to them. Typically that happens when banks settle among themselves every week or month. In some cases longer. For international transfers it's even worse.
2-6 days is maybe the standard wait time for transactions to be settled by all parties these days and debit transactions are nearly instantaneous since the funds are extant. Some credit card transaction clear on the creditor/bank side at the end of the month, but that is for fraud protection reasons, as you should know. Some banks also extend overdraft protection, which still gets settle well within 72 hours.

For the consumer. however, the transaction is settled immediately if they have the funds and there is no wait time.

International wire transfers are a different story, but still don't take much time to settle.

It's actually up to six months, not five days. Again, the bank can give you the loan and you can use that money after a few days, but for up to six months the money isn't actually yours, and credit cards can and have yanked that money back.
For large cash transfers to your account, you may have to wait two days at most for the bank to verify the transaction, but the money is yours it clears. For credit card companies, they only decline the transaction if you can't pay the bill and they feel you will be unable to pay.

Unless it's on Lightning Network, in which case it's instant.

This is another one of those "But this is a problem with Bitcoin and why it will never work" that was actually fixed, because open source technologies evolve and improve, and you should never assume that just because something isn't working now that it never will.
The average transaction time on Lightning Network is 10 minutes, but who's counting.

Where the hell did you get that number from? You can literally just look at the live feed of the Bitcoin network and blocks right here, and see that the fee is $0.08 (and that's on chain, since on Lightning it's maybe 1/10th of that)
And yeah, I was there actually using Bitcoin to pay for things in April too. The highest fee I paid then was $7. That's not the average, that's the highest. On Lightning Network it was still a penny or less. Your numbers and sources don't reflect reality, sorry. In your defense, they may have just included the highest fees that some large banks and exchanges paid to get their transactions approved RIGHT NOW, rather than the fees the average user would pay. It's no different from claiming that your average bank transfer fee is $50,000, because a few banks paid $250,000 transaction fees to move billions of dollars internationally.
It's the average fee, Rassah. Individual fees could be lower or higher than the average, but on the average, the fee was $59 at the time. It's in the name.
 

MechaMegs

The Red Menace
Bitcoin.jpg
 

Raever

Chaotic Neutral Wreckage
I desperately wish to understand what the fuck I'm reading in this thread but the more links that are provided the more overwhelmed I'm becoming...you guys wouldn't happen to have a nice 5 minute break down video I could watch on a work break would ya? Just for the basics? Based on the polarizing opinions I'm a little disheartened when it comes to looking for a source on my own as it seems it's a very touchy subject for some folks.
 

Mambi

Fun loving kitty cat
I desperately wish to understand what the fuck I'm reading in this thread but the more links that are provided the more overwhelmed I'm becoming...you guys wouldn't happen to have a nice 5 minute break down video I could watch on a work break would ya? Just for the basics? Based on the polarizing opinions I'm a little disheartened when it comes to looking for a source on my own as it seems it's a very touchy subject for some folks.

I can summarize for you in a few sentences and a metaphor, and while I have no doubt others will disagree on the finer points, the broad strokes are valid:

All money just represents something, that's what gives it value. The gouvernments decide that <unit of money> = <value assigned> and they themselves stand by it, so the term "legal tender" means something useful. If someone tries to refuse your "dollars/yen/whatever" as invalid payment, they cannot. The gouvernment also stands behind the money to give it REAL value, and as long as they are in power that value is enforced, often at gunpoint or legal threats (try telling a cop your dollar bill is worth 100 when paying bail and you'll see just how seriously they take that statement!). That way the average person doesn't have to carry around pigs and plants to trade with people...if you have "money" you can trade it with someone else to get what you need, and they trade it with someone else to get what THEY need. It also makes it so retailers don't have to compute the worth of a chicken or a grapefruit when deciding what to charge everyone for things. This is standard commerce.

Bitcoin tries to get away from the gouvernment's controlling the money by deciding that a random thingie (the imaginary bitcoin, exists only virtually) is worth <x> and then keeping a public tracker to control the transactions so THEY control it instead (or at least semi-public control like open source). Notice though that it has NO PROTECTION AT ALL for the value, as the loss of a simple hard drive or the death of a person can throw the entire ledger into chaos, and the value becomes instantly worthless and irretrievable by anyone. Also you can only use it with people who ALSO decided to accept it...which I assure you most stores and services do not. but for those that want to try and sneak around money and gouvernment tracking it can be useful I guess, just like the diamond trade for drugs.

Basically metaphorically, they took Pokemon cards, arbitrarily decided they will never make any more, locked the value of the cards a a set rate, got 3 people to keep track of the trades on a website, then tried to get everyone to agree that Pokemon cards are better than money and you should accept them INSTEAD of money for things. Somehow they think this is better and safer and more secure. They are wrong.

Does this help any?
 

Raever

Chaotic Neutral Wreckage
I can summarize for you in a few sentences and a metaphor, and while I have no doubt others will disagree on the finer points, the broad strokes are valid:

All money just represents something, that's what gives it value. The gouvernments decide that <unit of money> = <value assigned> and they themselves stand by it, so the term "legal tender" means something useful. If someone tries to refuse your "dollars/yen/whatever" as invalid payment, they cannot. The gouvernment also stands behind the money to give it REAL value, and as long as they are in power that value is enforced, often at gunpoint or legal threats (try telling a cop your dollar bill is worth 100 when paying bail and you'll see just how seriously they take that statement!). That way the average person doesn't have to carry around pigs and plants to trade with people...if you have "money" you can trade it with someone else to get what you need, and they trade it with someone else to get what THEY need. It also makes it so retailers don't have to compute the worth of a chicken or a grapefruit when deciding what to charge everyone for things. This is standard commerce.

Bitcoin tries to get away from the gouvernment's controlling the money by deciding that a random thingie (the imaginary bitcoin, exists only virtually) is worth <x> and then keeping a public tracker to control the transactions so THEY control it instead (or at least semi-public control like open source). Notice though that it has NO PROTECTION AT ALL for the value, as the loss of a simple hard drive or the death of a person can throw the entire ledger into chaos, and the value becomes instantly worthless and irretrievable by anyone. Also you can only use it with people who ALSO decided to accept it...which I assure you most stores and services do not. but for those that want to try and sneak around money and gouvernment tracking it can be useful I guess, just like the diamond trade for drugs.

Basically metaphorically, they took Pokemon cards, arbitrarily decided they will never make any more, locked the value of the cards a a set rate, got 3 people to keep track of the trades on a website, then tried to get everyone to agree that Pokemon cards are better than money and you should accept them INSTEAD of money for things. Somehow they think this is better and safer and more secure. They are wrong.

Does this help any?

Whilst I'm sure the finer points can be researched on my own time, the metaphor and general explanation helped GREATLY so thank you.
 

Doddy Guy

New Member
I can summarize for you in a few sentences and a metaphor, and while I have no doubt others will disagree on the finer points, the broad strokes are valid:

All money just represents something, that's what gives it value. The gouvernments decide that <unit of money> = <value assigned> and they themselves stand by it, so the term "legal tender" means something useful. If someone tries to refuse your "dollars/yen/whatever" as invalid payment, they cannot. The gouvernment also stands behind the money to give it REAL value, and as long as they are in power that value is enforced, often at gunpoint or legal threats (try telling a cop your dollar bill is worth 100 when paying bail and you'll see just how seriously they take that statement!). That way the average person doesn't have to carry around pigs and plants to trade with people...if you have "money" you can trade it with someone else to get what you need, and they trade it with someone else to get what THEY need. It also makes it so retailers don't have to compute the worth of a chicken or a grapefruit when deciding what to charge everyone for things. This is standard commerce.

Bitcoin tries to get away from the gouvernment's controlling the money by deciding that a random thingie (the imaginary bitcoin, exists only virtually) is worth <x> and then keeping a public tracker to control the transactions so THEY control it instead (or at least semi-public control like open source). Notice though that it has NO PROTECTION AT ALL for the value, as the loss of a simple hard drive or the death of a person can throw the entire ledger into chaos, and the value becomes instantly worthless and irretrievable by anyone. Also you can only use it with people who ALSO decided to accept it...which I assure you most stores and services do not. but for those that want to try and sneak around money and gouvernment tracking it can be useful I guess, just like the diamond trade for drugs.

Basically metaphorically, they took Pokemon cards, arbitrarily decided they will never make any more, locked the value of the cards a a set rate, got 3 people to keep track of the trades on a website, then tried to get everyone to agree that Pokemon cards are better than money and you should accept them INSTEAD of money for things. Somehow they think this is better and safer and more secure. They are wrong. That is why I am using margex on that purpose.

Does this help any?
Nice post. Thanks for sharing! But I don't agree with "as the loss of a simple hard drive or the death of a person can throw the entire ledger into chaos, and the value becomes instantly worthless and irretrievable by anyone." because BTC isn't in SSD or HDD. BTC is in the seed phrase you have when creating the wallet. If you know (say, by heart) these 12 or 24 words then you have your money. And no one can take them from you in a legal way. No one can block your transaction. That is why BTC is the money of the future, my opinion. You can transfer 1 bl dollars in BTC and it will take several minutes and only 1 (one) dollar fee.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Tangential to this thread, there's a story in the News at the moment about a collective effort to raise Etherium cryptocurrency to purchase a privately-held copy of the US constitution.

The bid failed, so the collective decided to refund money to its supporters...

...but the block-chain processing fees to claim Etherium refunds are larger than most of the donors' contributions. The fees are currently running into hundreds of dollars.


Nice post. Thanks for sharing! But I don't agree with "as the loss of a simple hard drive or the death of a person can throw the entire ledger into chaos, and the value becomes instantly worthless and irretrievable by anyone." because BTC isn't in SSD or HDD. BTC is in the seed phrase you have when creating the wallet. If you know (say, by heart) these 12 or 24 words then you have your money. And no one can take them from you in a legal way. No one can block your transaction. That is why BTC is the money of the future, my opinion. You can transfer 1 bl dollars in BTC and it will take several minutes and only 1 (one) dollar fee.


There have been numerous stories in the news of people losing purported millions in bitcoins, because their access codes were stored on servers that were lost or accidentally thrown away.

James Howells lost 7500 bitcoins when he threw away a laptop hard-drive:

Stefan Thomas lost access to 7002 bitcoins when he forgot his passwords.
 
Last edited:

Mambi

Fun loving kitty cat
There have been numerous stories in the news of people losing purported millions in bitcoins, because their access codes were stored on servers that were lost or accidentally thrown away.

James Howells lost 7500 bitcoins when he threw away a laptop hard-drive:

Stefan Thomas lost access to 7002 bitcoins when he forgot his passwords.

Thank you, I was about to post those in response to @Doddy Guy but you beat me to it. <grin>

Meanwhile, I lost the password (PIN) to my account at the bank once. I just brought gouvernment ID and they gave me a new one. Because of that backing in the system, I had access to my money in ~10 minutes. WHO do you complain to if your bitcoin transaction malfunctions that can do anything? Big difference there...
 
Top