/biz/ - Business & Finance

they will submit

>>18816212
He looks like a hobo in that last one.

>>18816212
lel

The day schiff buys the corn is the day I sell. There will be no one left to sell to after him

Where can I find the Binance KYC leak?
Asking for reasons.

>>18816212

Even if Peter Schiff turns out to be wrong, he would have been wrong for the right reasons. His arguments against Bitcoin have always been reasonable--that it has no intrinsic value, that a better coin might just replace it, etc. Everybody likes to be a triumphalist after the fact. If Bitcoin had failed people would be saying "Haha, look at you, you thought a magic internet coin would make you rich--idiot." As if that was the foregone conclusion instead.

If you didn't get in early (when it was less than $3000, in other words a full three years ago) you have made nothing from Bitcoin as a long-term holder, since the price merely jumps up and down between $4000 and $10,000, whereas gold has gone up 33% in the same period, reliably, and without any such volatility.

>>18817247
cringe

>>18817247
Enjoy ur 33pc gainz I guess

>>18816212
Kek

>>18817048
He already bought it long ago, he still shits on it anyway

>>18817247

>a better coin might replace it

impossible, unless you can travel back in time. bitcoin's biggest selling point is the security of the network. 10 years of 99.99% runtime can not be invented by a new coin.

>>18817048
lol

>>18816212

>>18818621
nice cherry pick lets do this with golds ath date!!

>>18817247
>Even if 1+1 is not 4, it could have been wrong for the right reasons. The arguments for it have been reasonable... maybe when you put two things besides each other suddenly two more might pop up, maybe they replicate due to being close, etc. Everybody likes to be a triumphalist after the fact. If calculators had failed people would be saying "Haha, look at you, you thought a magic mathematical definition would remain valid--idiot." As if that was the foregone conclusion instead.

>>18818626
cope

>>18818643
you don't dare show us that?
it was in 2011 around $1900
bitcoin was sub $100 then

>>18818662
I don't even care about shiny rocks
keep coping though bagholder

>>18818666
like i said nice cherry pick
only the most retarded mongrels bought that top my average buys were sub 3000 eur bitcoin is a very fine store of value
meanwhile the gold i bought in 2013 didn't even double in price yet not counting inflation adjusted.
i just don't get where you idiots come from

>>18818710
the only legit comparaison is previous ath and now for both gold and btc, and gold is better than btc today ( less bagholder since its almost at ath and btc is at more than 50% down since ath)

>>18818626

Anybody who bought gold during any years except 2011 and 2012 has made a considerable amount of money. Anybody who did not buy Bitcoin before 3 years ago has made absolutely nothing, because they have no way knowing that the price won't keep bouncing between $3000 and $10,000, and are probably hodling for the long-term. If Bitcoin doesn't break well above $20,000, and hold there this year, it is a dead project. It can't survive another year of doing nothing, especially at a time like this.

>>18817247
fuck off schiff

>>18818666
>i-i-i-i don't care
>took the time to make >>18818621
OWNED, KIKE FILTH

>>18818873
that is also a cherry pick a double cherry pick.
if you counted how many days were where you would be better off buying gold than bitcoin the past 10 years if you sold today it would be like 400 days in 10 years.
so... little under 90% of the time you would have been miles better off buying bitcoin.

>>18818627

Predicting what society itself will do, which is extremely complicated and irrational, is nothing like a simple mathematical equation; this analogy is asinine.

>>18818626

Anybody who bought gold during any years except 2011 and 2012 has made a considerable amount of money. Anybody who did not buy Bitcoin before 3 years ago has made absolutely nothing, because they have no way knowing that the price won't keep eternally bouncing between $3000 and $10,000, and are probably hodling for the long-term. If Bitcoin doesn't break well above $20,000, and hold there this year, it is a dead project. It can't survive another year of doing nothing, especially at a financial time like this.

>>18817398

Unless you were one of the lucky people to buy in before mid-2017 you have no reliable gains. Not unless you cash out right now, which you won't. In fact it is very possible that you are still down considerably, since many people bought above $10,000--at $15,000, or even $20,000. Nobody who owns gold is holding a bag like that. At worst, they bought at the ATH of $1900 and are $200 down on their investment. 95% of gold-holders are up right now.

>>18818937
KEEP HODLING BRETHREN
THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST BITCOIN UTOPIA IS AT HAND
HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODL

>>18818873
now here is a little help this chart tells you when to buy bitcoin and when not to buy it.
yes buy below the blue line only sell above the blue line if you want.
most of those days where bitcoin performed worse than gold the price was above the power law line.

>>18818947
cope

>>18817247
>since the price merely jumps up and down between $4000 and $10,000, whereas gold has gone up 33% in the same period,
>the price merely doubled whereas gold has gone up not even a third of BTC
Good argument

>>18819436

Well done for leaving out the words "you have made nothing from Bitcoin as a long-term holder."

>>18819452
Bitcoin is well above $4000 so yeah, I did. And you realize there's this thing where you can sell securities and buy them again, too? It's not illegal or anything.
In fact you haven't "made" anything from gold if you're just sitting on it. But even if you think that's smart, BTC blows it out of the water as a "long term hold".

>>18819499

If you really believe in Bitcoin, why sell it when it goes up and risk missing those imminent 500 percent gains in case it surges further? Just goes to show you don't really believe in it, it's only for speculation and gambling.

>>18819584
I don't see what's that to do with which has been the more lucrative investment. Unless you're not here to make money, you're here to pontificate about some gold based ideology. In which case, what a waste of time.
But, once again, since the concept seems confusing to you, you can sell and buy securities more than once. Quite the system really.

>>18819584
>it's only for speculation and gambling
and this will not really change until the current financial system still works to an acceptable degree.
and despite what faggots like to rave about it still works.
nothing gets adoption without need. and nobody needs bitcoin until they are betrayed by their own government and their own financial system.

>>18819626
also the best indication that you NEED bitcoin is when they ban it in your country. but of course that will be too late. it's like a bug out bag. it's just dead weight until shit hits the fan when it can save your life. well bitcoin is not as bad because it does increase in value over time by design. so altho potentially it can go to zero the expected returns are pretty fucking good even including risks.

>>18818954
literally assuming this log scale tends to 1mill.

The absolute state of these math illiterate retards

>>18817565
Same, Bitcoin price is too high, imo.

>>18819968
>tends to 1mill
what makes you say that? i'm confused. it goes to infinity.

>>18820065
well it's an approximation for now it will be adjusted over time is what i mean.

>>18820096
if i was putting a hard cap on the price i would put it at $10 billion at that point bitcoin took over all money on earth. but it's unrealistic as fuck. at best we can hope for is a 10% adoption. so like $1 billion a coin. but of course the economy grows over time this will need constant adjustment.
it's good enough for now.

>>18817247
Good luck talking reason here. I want to be sold on BTC but I just can't.
It's shit as a currency because of how long, cumbersome, expensive, and slow transactions are. It also is incredibly volatile.
It's shit as a storage of wealth because it doesn't have any intrinsic value.
It's shit as an investment because it doesn't produce anything, it's just hype and speculation.
A lot of people hyping up BTC are doing it out of FOMO
>well what if goes to $10,000 or $20,000 or this article said it will be worth $200,000 in 5 years
Anytime I watch a debate between someone is pro BTC and someone who is against it, the person against always better and more logical arguments. The person for it basically just cycles between "nah bro trust me" and "all currencies are based on trust" ignoring that the USD is backed by the US govt in that it is used here every day. Until the government takes taxes in BTC it's got nothing behind it and no utility other than buying drugs.
Everyone looks like a genius in a bull market.
What is the most compelling argument for BTC? It seems like such a pump and dump scam.

>>18817398
Every BTC 'investor' thinks they're going to be a millionaire getting a 500-1,000% return. There's never a logical reason for how they're going to get there other than an expectation that someone else is going to want to pay more for it at a later date than what it's worth despite the fact it's utility isn't going to improve. That is the most obvious sign of a bubble.

>>18818710
The fact that gold didn't double in price is exactly what makes it a better store of wealth. You don't want a store of wealth to be jumping all over the place. You want it to have a fairly stable uptrend.

>>18820016
It's either too high at any price or it's too low at any price. It's either going to 0 or it's going to $1mil. Maybe I just convinced myself to put $1,000 in just for shits.

>>18820257
>Anytime I watch a debate between someone is pro BTC and someone who is against it, the person against always better and more logical arguments.
that's just your bias talking most likely but there are a lot of retards bullish on btc without understanding it or for the wrong reasons. and they are not afraid to give voice to their shitty opinions.

>>18820257
>What is the most compelling argument for BTC?
if you don't understand bitcoins value proposition by now there will be no convincing you of anything.
but basically it's the only way to own value in a truly private manner. as in your ownership does not depend on goodwill of others or any authority. every other ownership you have is trustful and permissioned or easily confiscated in case of gold money and property.

and for the "not backed by anything" bullshit argument? it's impossible to replicate bitcoins value proposition with a backed asset. as all such backing is custodial and trustful in nature.

>>18818621
Based. Bitcoin is going down to zero. Gold will triple.

he is kinda right tho. And from a technical and economical perspective, bitcoin is flawed. No matter what maximalists say

>>18817902
wrong. Not many people cares about security without smart contracts anyway

>>18819610

I know that, when I wake up in the morning, my gold won't have crashed down. It's stable. Secure. It goes up at a good pace. You have to be constantly worrying--"Should I sell my Bitcoin today, should I buy back," always trying to speculate and game the market.

>>18819626
if fiat would collapse, bitcoin would collapse even harder. Who are u fooling. If fiat collapsed, society would collapse add there would be mass riots and worldwide hunger. No one would give a fuck about your internet money then. Crime would be so high, that if you had any bitcoin you would get tortued for it with no police force to help you.

>>18820257

Thanks for this post, you have described what I have tended to find as well. There are clearly some highly intelligent people who support Bitcoin, but most of the pumpers tend to be smug and hyperactive children. As you say, "Everyone looks like a genius in a bull market." I have a small amount of exposure to Bitcoin just in case it _does_ turn out to be the next system of money, but anybody who says they _know_ that it will be for a fact is lying. It is literally impossible to know that. That's why most of my wealth is in gold: Bitcoin is speculative, gold is a sure thing.

>>18819729
no, it doesn´t increase its value over time by design u brainlet. Having a supply cap is stupid as fuck, and it will never work as money or a store of value. USELESS

>>18820124
yeah, cuz that would work very well if bitcoin was the only money. Yeez, the TPS wpould be like 0,0001

>>18820540
It was basically flat 15-19. If you call something that barely beats inflation a good investment I don't think I can help you. Sure gold is a nice store of value if you enjoy shiny things and don't want to actually make money but let's not pretend it's a sound investment.

>>18820618

We'll see what happens over the next year or two. That will settle the question between gold and Bitcoin once and for all. If crypto fails during an economic collapse, it is done forever.

I bought my gold at $1000. I've doubled my money.

Gold is good. Bitcoin is better. Bitcoin has less supply inflation that gold and is easier to transact. Gold market is over $10 trillion. So its still 100x bigger than bitcoin. That gives bitcoin a price target of around $1,000,000 when it catches up to gold, let alone passes gold and replaces fiat currencies.

>>18820651
delusional cope

>>18820442
many other crypto currencies can do that, and will do that better in the future. Owning physical gold is also priate, more private than btc actually, which is not private at all. You could aslo store your wealth privately in diamonds, silver, platinum, rare items etc. All those are better than bitcoin for this use case. And I am pro crypto and have pretty good knowledge on the tech.

>>18820651
Supply inflation doesn´t mean much when it has no incentric value as Peter Schiff has pointed out. Having a max cap is bad economics. It is not suited as a currency and not as a store of value, and not for business and utilzed security, therefore it has no use case that is not already covered better by something else. Furthermore, bitcoin can´t work without block rewards.

>>18818942
>one of the lucky people to buy in before mid-2017
>lucky
>before mid-2017
nigga are you high
bitcoin has been a staple of online culture since 2011
i'm the latest of laggards who never saw intrinsic value in it nor has any interest in speculation, yet even i bought some in late 2016
then bought much more in early 2017 when mainstream media started covering ethereum
literally nobody bought in crypto after mid-2017 except normalfags

>>18820577
You realise that there have been plenty of currency collapses in our history? Yet we are still here, just as wealthy as ever.

>>18820694
>Supply inflation doesn´t mean much when it has no incentric value as Peter Schiff has pointed out.

Bitcoin does have intrinsic value as a trust-less, public ledger. But even if it didn't have intrinsic value, there is a reason you aren't just saying value, intrinsic value isn't the only type of value something can have.

>It is not suited as a currency and not as a store of value, and not for business and utilzed security,

Why? A max cap is great as a store of value, because your share of the pie doesn't get deflated. The only reason we currently use a deflationary currency is because its easier to implemented (deflationary would require some type of wealth tax, hard to implement) and printing money is an easy way to tax people. It has nothing to do with actual economics.

>>18820651

You're assuming that Bitcoin would will either replace or seriously compete with precious metals. Why would it? If we already have one store of value, why do we need another? It is very possible that crypto will be subsidiary to gold, not superior to it. Crypto will monopolize private transactions, gold will be used for everything else.

Even Bank of America is saying that gold will go to $3000 soon. That's double its all time high. For Bitcoin to do that, it would have to go to $40,000. Do you really think that Bitcoin will get to $40,000 and stabilize there? It can't even reach $10,000 now without suffering mass liquidation. Many intelligent analysts even say that gold will go to $5000. Will Bitcoin be able to build a new floor at $80,000, and so compete with this? I find that highly unlikely. There would be the biggest sell-off and crash in history until the next pump and dump.

When the stock market crashed, Bitcoin went down 70%. Gold held its own. That tells you something.

>>18820651

You're assuming that Bitcoin will either replace or seriously compete with precious metals. Why would it? If we already have one store of value, why do we need another? It is very possible that crypto will be subsidiary to gold, not superior to it. Crypto will monopolize private transactions, gold will be used for everything else.

Even Bank of America is saying that gold will go to $3000 soon. That's double its all time high. For Bitcoin to do that, it would have to go to $40,000. Do you really think that Bitcoin will get to $40,000 and stabilize there? It can't even reach $10,000 now without suffering mass liquidation. Many intelligent analysts even say that gold will go to $5000. Will Bitcoin be able to build a new floor at $80,000, and so compete with this? I find that highly unlikely. There would be the biggest sell-off and crash in history until the next pump and dump. It already happened before: $20,000 to $3000. Gold never did anything like that.

When the stock market crashed, Bitcoin went down 70%. Gold held its own. That tells you something about speculation versus true value. When push came to shove, Bitcoin holders ran away and sold off. They couldn't hold their nerve.

>>18820813
I mean
The only reason we currently use an iflationary currency is because its easier to implement (deflationary would require some type of wealth tax, hard to implement) and printing money is an easy way to tax people. It has nothing to do with actual economics.

What is more important is risk free return. So in a deflationary currency, you'd have some sort of wealth tax eating at you to get to you produce. In an inflationary currency that wealth tax is inflation. Bitcoin is not inflationary or deflationary, its has a fixed supply which is the best model.

He's right about the dollar sucking

He's right about gold and silver being undervalued

He's wrong about crypto

>>18817247

based

>>18820839
>You're assuming that Bitcoin will either replace or seriously compete with precious metals. Why would it? If we already have one store of value, why do we need another? It is very possible that crypto will be subsidiary to gold, not superior to it. Crypto will monopolize private transactions, gold will be used for everything else.

Because bitcoin is a better gold. Bitcoin is is easier to transfer, MUCH easier to safety store, and has less supply inflation so its a better store of value.

>For Bitcoin to do that, it would have to go to $40,000. Do you really think that Bitcoin will get to $40,000 and stabilize there?

Like I said, bitcoin market cap is 1/100th of gold. So you are asking how can bitcoin maintain 4/100ths of gold's marketcap? It could easily.

>When the stock market crashed, Bitcoin went down 70%. Gold held its own. That tells you something about speculation versus true value. When push came to shove, Bitcoin holders ran away and sold off. They couldn't hold their nerve.

bitcoin is back above where it was before the stock market crash.. Its a hundred times smaller market right now than gold let alone the stock market. Its going to be more volatile in the mean time. But you can use that to your advantage to buy cheap. Buying bitcoin at $4k in march, that was a god send.

>>18817247
>he would have been wrong for the right reasons

AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH

Bend the knee.

>>18817247
>his arguments are logical

Are they? They have no predictive power. If he's actually right eventually it will be out of luck. Bitcoin's death has been predicted over 350 times.

https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoin-obituaries/

Would you listen to someone who's been wrong that many times on the off chance that they'll eventually be right for once? There must be some fundamental flaw in the doomer's reasoning. Wrong calls like that don't just happen.

>>18820257
have fun with your logical reasons while we buy lambos

>>18820404
Not really. I watched a debate between Peter Schiff and Anthony Pompliano and I have $0 in gold and I will put $0 in gold because I don't like gold as an investment and I prefer income producing assets like dividend paying stocks.
I've been trying to get as much info on BTC as I can to make an informed decision. Like, I want to bullieve but the case isn't very compelling. I'll probably jump in anyway just to gain the exposure. I still think it's completely speculative though.

>>18820442
It does depend on having a wallet to store the coin in. It also depends on an internet connection and electricity. Gold is physical and has intrinsic value. Bitcoin is just numbers on a computer. It's also incredibly volatile.

>>18820741
Surviving a collapse as humanity vs surviving a collapse as an individual are very different things. Anytime you have a collapse it's not going to be easy.

>>18820813
Such as?

>>18816212
jej

>>18820887

>Because bitcoin is a better gold. Bitcoin is is easier to transfer, MUCH easier to safety store, and has less supply inflation so its a better store of value.

Bitcoin is also extremely volatile, which makes it highly questionable as a store of value. Perhaps in part because it is so easy to liquidate. It crashes even faster than stocks, because there are no circuit-breakers. It is undeniable that gold is stable, and that this is a property it has which Bitcoin does not. Again, we know that nothing could ever replace gold, which has a long history and intrinsic properties, whereas another crypto might replace Bitcoin. We know that gold will be valuable in 100 years; anybody who said they knew this of Bitcoin would be a fool.

>Buying bitcoin at $4k in march, that was a god send.

People say this every time the price crashes--"buy the dip" etc. etc. But then it never breaches that $10,000 point and stays high. It just crashes down again. And again. And again. Because people buy it to speculate, to buy low and sell high, not because they really believe in the project.

>>18820937

You're assuming that millions more people are going to buy into Bitcoin and give you this opportunity. That any sane person would see Bitcoin at $20,000 again and think "Hm, well, it crashed down 90% before, but I'll take the risk this time, what could go wrong?"

>>18821003
bitcoin is a store of value.

>>18817247
Crypto bagholders btfo

>>18820648
Well, I hope you continue doubling your money anon. I've bought my first BTC at 2.2k not even three years ago so I'm not complaining either.

>>18820981

The volatility of the btc / fiat markets is due to the size of the asset class, it has nothing to do with bitcoin. In fact, most commodities are much, much more volatile related to their market than bitcoin. For example, oil. And I'd say gold, is more volatile than BTC. In march gold dropped over 10%, which shed over a trillion dollars of value off gold, that is more than 10 times bitcoin's entire market cap.

>People say this every time the price crashes--"buy the dip" etc. etc. But then it never breaches that $10,000 point and stays high. It just crashes down again. And again. And again. Because people buy it to speculate, to buy low and sell high, not because they really believe in the project.

Over the long term though, bitcoin has been the best performing asset class in the last 10 years and its still growing. The fact that you even think under $10k is low, when it was a pipe dream of the most bullish of bitcoin bulls just 3-4 years ago, shows how much it has growth.

>>18818937
indeed

>>18820961

Look up what "intrinsic" means. For example, US dollars have no intrinsic value, they only have value indirectly as a medium of exchange. Something doesn't have to have intrinsic value to have value. In fact I'd say most of the money you spend are on things in life don't have very much intrinsic value.

But I am also saying bitcoin does have intrinsic value because its was designed specifically for its purpose as trust-less public ledger. Its not just some metal that happened to be rare and easy to identify. Bitcoin was purpose built. But I guess it just comes down to your definition of intrinsic, because its somewhat arbitrary. Especially when you are comparing it to other things that have no intrinsic value like USD.

That is the real question, why would bitcoin need to have intrinsic value (not saying it doesn't) to be worth a lot of USD which definitely doesn't have intrinsic value (its just paper).

>>18820741
yeahm small currecncies, not big ones like the us dollar. Things are also a lot different in this modern world, the entire financial structure is completely different. Terrible comparison. If the Us dollar collapsed, the world would pretty much collapse

>>18821169
USD don't have intrinsic value but they do have utility value in that you need them to do things like pay taxes so therefore it's how we get paid, it's how pay for things, it's how we transact. They're the only currency accepted by the US govt which means a whole lot.
We also don't use USD a long term stores of wealth.No one is really investing in the USD but you still need them to live day to day life in this current iteration of society. BTC isn't needed for transaction. BTC is actually terrible for transactions.

>>18821158
Now let's look at BTC's all time high to now

>>18820813
other cryptos do the trustless, publxic ledger part better though. No a max cap is not great as a store of value. it creates too much volatility. Only low iq people fall for the max cam meme. A good economic system needs new money circulating and entering the system. There needs also ideally to not be a high variance in the circulating supply, beacuse that leads to a high variance in price. Bitcoin has both. And it leads to hoarding, which is not good of something that has a known max cap. Gold has an unknown max supply which is a good thing.

>>18821251
>BTC is actually terrible for transactions.
it's about a hundred to thousand times better than a bank wire for large middle class sums. as for real wealth infinitely better.

>>18821068
What a stupid fucking post. This is like saying that because jewgle lost 2% it's more volatile than a penny stock that lost 50% because billions were lost from jewgle whilst only millions were lost in the penny stock. Get the fuck off my board.

Has anyone been more JUST?

>>18821261
i agree with a lot in that post, bitcoin is not good for money. it just a better gold than gold ever was.
but
>other cryptos do the trustless, publxic ledger part better
that's bollocks sorry. it's just not true.

>>18820841
wrong. It has everything to do with economics
>econ major here. Fixed supply is one of the worst models. Most experts agree on this. Satoshi didint have elite knowledge of economics and thats fine.

>>18820887
less supply inflation doesnt make it a better store of value. Just stop already. What you are saying is completely wrong. Bitcoin is not really safer to store already. i would bet more people have lost their private key, than people have lost gold in their homes, % wise.

>>18820887
Gold is jsut as easy to transfer almost. There are companies where you can trasfer your ownership of physical gold to another person in a minute.

>>18821068

From mid-February to mid-March, Bitcoin dropped over 50%. Even silver didn't crash that low (only 40%). Gold, as you say, dropped a mere 10%. The nominal amount of value lost, as opposed to the percentage, doesn't matter to me, the private investor. If I had put $100,000 in gold prior to the crash, I'd have been down by only a little; if I had put $100,000 into Bitcoin, I'd have temporarily lost most of my money. Bitcoin, just like stocks, is only recovering now because of greed and an increased risk-appetite.

>Over the long term though, bitcoin has been the best performing asset class in the last 10 years and its still growing.

Definitely it was the best-performing asset if you got in during the early stages--if you bought at exactly the right time, and sold at exactly the right time. I imagine only a fraction of people really did this. Many people, for example, would have bought at $1000 and sold at $200, and likewise in the case of other crashes. Many who bought at $2000 would not have sold at $20,000, and might even have ridden out the subsequent crash to the bottom, and so made only modest gains.

Remember, gold is up tenfold since the year 2000. If you have masses of money to throw about, yes, you can gamble on Bitcoin and enjoy that luxury, or if you got in early, you can sit around and comfortably make extravagant predictions about where it is going, because you feel safe in having got in at a low price. But when you start to think about it as an investment from the point of view of a normal person with a modest amount of money, what is he really going to buy once the hyperinflation starts? A highly volatile, speculative internet coin, which has a constant history of crashing to the ground, or gold? I simply can't imagine him looking at a $20,000 price-tag and thinking "Well, it crashed down 90% before, but to hell with it, I'm getting in."

>>18820931
it´s 100% sure that bitcoin will die, they just go the timing wrong. Can any of you bitcoin fags explain to me how bitcoin will work without block rewards? Oh thats right, you can´t

>>18821251

You are explaining why the dollar has value, not arguing that it doesn't, bitcoin will have value for the same reason. And it will be easily transactable in the future through off chain / side chain solutions and as an anchor of trust for other systems. But bitcoin doesn't need to touch USD. If bitcoin replace USD, wow, we are talking about the equivalent value of hundreds of million of today's dollars per bitcoin. I'm just looking forward to when bitcoin competes with gold, which would value bitcoin in the 100k to 1mil range.

>>18821261

There is no alt coins that comes close to bitcoin's time tested security, or is as trusted or distributed as bitcoin. Alts coins are also becoming incentivized to tie into bitcoin, becoming more like a side chain of bitcoin, to use bitcoin's existing level of security, than to try to build out their own network with 1/1000th the security.

I don't really understand why you think a fixed supply is more volatile than something with a variable supply. Its counter intuitive.

>A good economic system needs new money circulating and entering the system.

lol what?

>>18821293

I'm comparing volatility to market size. Bitcoin is not inherently more volatile for its market size, than other commodities, if anything its less. But volatility of bitcoin's fiat pairings has nothing to do with bitcoin. That's just the nature of financial markets. As bitcoin grows it will become less volatile.

>>18817048

He isn't dumb, he holds in case it does go up a lot

>>18821311
okay, bitcoin is the most trustless, I know that. But other cryptos are better and faster ledgers, which makes them better by my standard

>>18816212
Legit question for all you butt-coin faggots;
Why do you trust an imaginary currency that only exists on the internet, an internet that the government can turn off like it's a lightswitch when they feel like it?

>>18821312

So you're an "economics major" with elite knowledge of economics? Explain how an supply inflation or deflation of currency on its own has anything to do with economics? What matters is inflation relative to the existing availability of risk free interest. Bitcoin is actually a better system than the current fiat model here, where interest rates are artificially manipulated which can encourage allocation of capital to less productive enterprise.

>>18821423
Those side/off chain solutions is what will kill bitcoin. Pushing transaction off main chain is terrible for the overall network cost and security. People will do transactions on the side chain, where it ids faster and lower fees. There will no longer be a reason to use the main chain anymore. The ones that are left using the main chain will be paying for the security of the entire network.

>>18821490
>Explain how an supply inflation or deflation of currency on its own has anything to do with economics?
Inflation is effectively a tax on all value stored in a currency. Deflations is the opposite, so effectivly gibs.
Inflation incourages debt and deflation encourages savings, and both economies around them, because the volume on a single loan is static while the the value of the volume is dynamic/subjective, this makes loans cheaper/more expansive and saving less/more valueble.

>>18821519
>Pushing transaction off main chain is terrible for the overall network cost and security.

No, it reduces network cost and increases security.

>People will do transactions on the side chain, where it ids faster and lower fees.

That's the point.

>There will no longer be a reason to use the main chain anymore.

Except the main chain is required for that system to work...

>The ones that are left using the main chain will be paying for the security of the entire network.

No, the power of the network is just much more efficiently allocated to secure a more minimal set of information.

>>18821570
the people using main chain will pay for the security of the entire network which leads to a tragedy of the commons situation. People transacting on main chain will pick up the tab for everybody and that will drive almost all traffick away from main chain, which is bad

>>18821569

What you're saying is only true in an academic, hypothetical economy with 0% interest rates. In order for a currency to be deflationary, there would have to be a destruction of currency. Could be through a wealth tax. So the interest rates in such an economy would have to be negative, encouraging investment.

What matters is inflation relative to risk free return. Not just the supply of the currency on its own.

So in the case of bitcoin, with a fixed supply, deflation will occur at the rate of productivity growth. So people will only be incentivized to invest in things that are more productive than the current productively growth. This is actually MORE efficient than our current fiat model. Where interest rates are manipulated, and people are incentivized to invest in anything that generates more returns than an arbitrary nominal rate, even if it reallocates capital from things that are more productive.

Unfortunately, there is reason to expect that the demand for transactions
will fall to very low levels. People are likely to make use of off-chain transaction
mechanisms via trusted third parties, particularly for small amounts, in order
to alleviate the need to wait for confirmations. Payment processors may only
need to clear with each other infrequently.
This scenario is not only economically likely, it seems necessary given the
relatively low transaction rate supported by Bitcoin. Since blockchain transaction will have to compete with off-chain transaction, the amount spent on
transactions will approach its cost, which, given modern infrastructure, should
be close to zero.
Attempting to impose minimum transaction fees may only exacerbate the
problem and cause users to rely on off-chain transaction more. As the amount
paid in transaction fees collapses, so will the miner’s revenues, and so will the
cost of executing a 51% attack. To put it in a nutshell, the security of a proofof-work blockchain suffers from a commons problem[9]. Core developer Mike
Hearn has suggested the use of special transactions to subsidize mining using a
pledge type of fund raising[10]. A robust currency should not need to rely on
charity to operate securely.
Proof-of-stake fixes these bad incentives by aligning the incentives of the
miners and stakeholders: by very definition, the miners are the stakeholders,
and are thus interested in keeping the transaction costs low. At the same time,
because proof-of-stake mining is not based on destruction of resources, the transaction cost (whether direct fees or indirect inflation) are entirely captured by
miners, who can cover their operating costs without having to compete through
wealth destruction.

>>18817247
Lol ya but meme magic, unironically

>>18821657

Think about it like this. The main chain has certain hash rate, which can be used to secure any number of transactions, but at the cost of security. The less transactions you have, the more security you have. So if you have a side chain that can limit the number of on chain transactions, then you have increased security. The cost per on chain transaction would probably go up. So the miners will make the same amount of money. But the side chain enables a huge amount of transactions so cost per transaction decreases. In the end its just a more efficient way of doing things.

>>18821735
no, it´s not. There will not be enough rewards to go around

Which operating system is the most stable and safest for cryptocurrencies like BTC and Monero?

Transaction fees alone will most likely not be enough to provide enough incentive to mine. Hash rate will fall and there will be less security. Most experts have agreed on this, and I can link to academic papers written by proffesors that go into the topic.

>>18821864
Lets see the papers then.

>>18821668
>What you're saying is only true in an academic, hypothetical economy with 0% interest rates. In order for a currency to be deflationary, there would have to be a destruction of currency.
You fix too much on intrest rates, they are not important for inflation, all that matters is the effective money supply. For deflation to accrue the money supply has to just grow slower than the the economy.
>So the interest rates in such an economy would have to be negative, encouraging investment.
Right, they would be, because the value of the static volume of the loan increases with time.
>What matters is inflation relative to risk free return. Not just the supply of the currency on its own.
Can you eloborate?
>So in the case of bitcoin, with a fixed supply, deflation will occur at the rate of productivity growth.So people will only be incentivized to invest in things that are more productive than the current productively growth. This is actually MORE efficient than our current fiat model.
Right but the same can be achieved with a deflationary Fiat-currency, but the bitcoin has the advantage that there is no such one in wide circulation.
>Where interest rates are manipulated, and people are incentivized to invest in anything that generates more returns than an arbitrary nominal rate, even if it reallocates capital from things that are more productive.
Yes it encourages debt through inflation, and debt is inherently never risk free.

>>18821769
>>18821864

Transaction fees will be very high, but the only on chain transactions will be anchors to side chains. There could be a billion transactions on a side chain, anchored by a few on chain tx. So the on chain tx could have a very high fee, while every individual side chain tx would be low fee. Each side chain can be designed to have different performance / security trade offs depending on the application.

>>18821900
When do you pay back the debt?

>>18817247
You're correct. So many people on this board are full of hubris.

>>18821915
yes, in the year 2140

>>18816212
why does it look shopped

>>18821878
Here, written by proffesors form Princeton university

https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~arvindn/publications/mining_CCS.pdf

On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward

>>18821900

Interest rates a critical to inflation, one is meaningless without the other. If inflation is 100% a year, but risk free interest is 100% a year. Then you loose nothing by holding cash in a bank account.

>>18817247
Almost all of his arguments against bitcoin apply to gold. The only one that doesn't is that you cant hold a bitcoin in your hands or make jewelry/circuits. But bitcoin has so many other advantages it doesn't even matter.

>>18821915
it wouldn´t be enough. Very few, or no one would use the main chain, because they would pick up the tab for all the free loaders. And I´m not just talking about a btc side chain like lightung network. I´m talking about third party services, which there are plenty of already, and many more to come. I´m talking about stuff like tbtc and the ability to trasfer bitcoins through blockchains like Fantom. No one will use the bitcoin mainchain, so there will be nothing to pay the miners. Which will lead to a downward spiral.

>>18821942
A good blockchain should not have to depend on charity to work. The people doing on chain transactions will be doing charity for all the freeloaders. Thats not gonna work long term

>>18821970
Intrest rates only reflect inflation/deflation. There can't be a 100% risk free intrest without massive inflation.

>>18821925
What debt?

>>18822104
Any and all debt, when will it be paid back.

>>18817247
The same bad argument was used 4 years ago. Except $3k was something like $100, $10k was $500, etc.

It has intrinsic value, making a better coin is not so easy as bitcoin has a 10 year track record and the story of its benevolent anonymous creator that took no personal gain. Even if a another coin did surpass it, bitcoin still would retain collector's value as the first cryptocurrency in history.

Tldr no sympathy for smarty pants nocoiners.

>>18822079

That is my point, inflation or interest rates are meaningless on their own, what matters is inflation relative to interest rates. This is in response to people saying a fixed supply currently is bad, or implying that inflation is required for a currency.

It doesn´t really matter much that the block rewards won´t disseapear until 2150 or whatever. The effects will be seen much earlier than that. When the majoity of people relaize that they are invested in a dying system, they will sell. Most people are stupid though, so they haven´t realized that bitcoin can´t work without block rewards, but one day this information will be more widely known to the public, which will lead to one massive sell off after another.

>>18822022

Volatility is the Bitcoin-killer. Gold consistently rises, and, even when it gets into a bubble once every twenty or thirty years, as in 1980 or 2011, you have time to get out. Bitcoin drops 50% overnight. People don't have confidence in Bitcoin. They get out just as quickly as they get in.

When gold goes to $2000, that will be something to get truly excited about. Somebody who buys today will know that his 15% gains are lasting. Bitcoin gains leave you as quickly as they come.

There is no reason for a person not to use gold as a store of value, and crypto simply as a subsidiary investment for making quick or anonymous exchanges. I can use any crypto token for that, like Monero. I don't need Bitcoin.

>>18822136
Then we agree. I just say that nothing like a wealth tax is required for a deflationary currency, just that money supply growth is lower than economic growth. When the fed stops printing money and the economy grows than we have deflation.

>>18822115
There will allways be some debt...

"Bitcoin provides two incentives for miners: block rewards and transaction fees. The former accounts for the vast majority of miner revenues at the beginning of the system, but it is expected to transition to the latter as the block rewards dwindle. There has been an implicit belief that whether miners are paid by block rewards or transaction fees does not affect the security of the block chain. We show that this is not the case. Our key insight is that with only transaction fees, the variance of the block reward is very high due to the exponentially distributed block arrival time, and it becomes attractive to fork a "wealthy" block to "steal" the rewards therein. We show that this results in an equilibrium with undesirable properties for Bitcoin's security and performance, and even non-equilibria in some circumstances. We also revisit selfish mining and show that it can be made profitable for a miner with an arbitrarily low hash power share, and who is arbitrarily poorly connected within the network. Our results are derived from theoretical analysis and confirmed by a new Bitcoin mining simulator that may be of independent interest. We discuss the troubling implications of our results for Bitcoin's future security and draw lessons for the design of new cryptocurrencies."

>>18822150

All you're doing is making a good argument for buying Bitcoin when its $1,000,000 and much less volatile. Bitcoin is 1/100th the market cap of gold right now. The volatility is due to the size of the asset class, not the underlying asset.

>>18822199

A wealth tax is just one way to implement a deflationary currency. Yeah, supply growth of the currency just has to be less than the supply growth of goods and services for inflation to occur. That's why people think of bitcoin as deflationary, even though the supply will slightly increase over the next 150 years.

The problem with the fed is that the government massively underestimates inflation with the CPI. So right now interest rates are much lower than inflation. This encourages debt for things that don't increase productivity, just produce a nominal profit.

>>18822294

>All you're doing is making a good argument for buying Bitcoin when its $1,000,000 and much less volatile. Bitcoin is 1/100th the market cap of gold right now. The volatility is due to the size of the asset class, not the underlying asset.

You are presuming that Bitcoin will achieve the market-cap of gold. But why would it? It only appeals to speculators, libertarians, people without an easy way to buy gold, and people living under tyrannical governments. Gold is already the "first-mover" as a store of value; that's why Bitcoin will always be volatile, because it has not replaced, and probably will not replace that function. It has certain advantages, but storing value is not one of them. It goes up, but it doesn't stay up. Nor is it likely to go up much more. When the price rises to $20,000 nobody will have the stomach to buy it; your average person will never see Bitcoin as safe enough to take the plunge, after what happened last time. It will remain niche, and a subsidiary complement to gold at best, because not enough normies will dare to drive the price up.

>>18822294
Bitcoin would likely still be much more volatile than gold if it had the same market cap. It´s just as much about the underlying asset as it is about size.

>>18817247
>early (when it was less than $3000

On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward

https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~arvindn/publications/mining_CCS.pdf

>>18821349
pff still not getting it huh? not your keys not your crpyto. not in your physical possession not your gold. paper gold is sure liquid. it's just not gold it's a security.

>>18821464
very easy to improve performance if you give up from any of the core tenets.

>>18821349
>are companies where you can trasfer your ownership of physical gold to another person in a minute.
Those companies have less gold than their customers "own"(the company owes them). They are banks.

On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward

https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~arvindn/publications/mining_CCS.pdf

Every time I bring up this paper or other academic papers written on bitcoin. Bitcoin maximalists just ignore it and dismiss it as rubbish without even reading it. Really tells you something about the bitcoin community.

>>18822418
Very few people actually care about that at all. I feel more safe with my gold in a trusted credible organization, than I do with keeping track of private keys or wallets. I own crypto myself, so I´m no hater. Muh private keys is kinda become a meme tho.

>>18822409

If this is true then crypto is truly dead. If Bitcoin fails, all crypto fails, as the alt-coins show.

>>18822409
>>18822550

Because people don't have time to read it. What is the tldr version? Why can't transaction fees just replace the block reward? Gold doesn't have "rewards" for transacting, but it hasn't collapsed in value.

>>18822370

Why would it be more volatile? Its more volatile now because its 1/100th the size of gold, its just easier to move the market. You could argue that bitcoin will be less distributed than gold, but that is a hard argument to make since most of the world's gold supply is stored by central banks. I think bitcoin will be much more distributed than gold and so will be less volatile when it surpasses gold's market size.

>>18822294
>Bitcoin is 1/100th the market cap of gold right now
so you telling me a digital coin who can fall 50% in a single a day and manipulated by every exchange and whales. and it's going die eventually(when miner aren't making enough ) going have the same value as gold who's been a store of value since ever.


in fact one tweet from a trump can destroy bitcoin:
>"bitcoin will be banned, american money should go into our stocks not some chinese owned coin"
and that's it you kiss bitcoin goodbye

they only reason (((they))) allow it exist because they're making so much money from the goys

>>18822550
>I feel more safe with my gold in a trusted credible organization, than I do with keeping track of private keys or wallets.
and they called me a boomer... hah suit yourself
i said everything i think about this here >>18819626

>>18818627

I just realized that one good answer to this objection is that the same instincts which stopped the Peter Schiffs of the world from profiting from the Bitcoin bubble also kept them out of the Dotcom and Housing bubbles. Hence Peter Schiff never _gained_ money on anything silly, but he never _lost_ money on anything silly. Whereas Bitcoin adrenaline-lovers would have been more likely to fall for both of those bubbles. That is why it is good to be wrong for the right reasons. Somebody who gambles, literally gambles, their entire fortune, and makes a million dollars, is an example of being right for the wrong reasons. Schiff has made steady, consistent gains in gold and gold stocks (10x over 20 years) and is now worth $70 million; you really can't argue with that.

>>18816212
>Metals AND Crypto

>>18822782

Smaller markets are easier to manipulate. Once bitcoin is larger, that argument is moot. What you are saying is that bitcoin would be a good buy if it was $1,000,000. I agree, it will be a better investment than gold at $1,000,000. Its an even better investment now.

Trump tweeting about bitcoin, good or bad, would be bullish for bitcoin just due to being in the news.

>>18822728
Well, every bitcoin investor should read it. Don´t they want to know what they are investing into? If they have put money into they should make the time imo. Really tells you what kinda people the majority of bitcoin people are. They like to pretand they know most tings about bitcoin, but they really don´t.
The tldr version is also long, since they make a bunch of points, so I´m not gonna bother with that on a saturday night.

It would be more volatile becasue it is purely specualtion among other things. Also just history and psychology shows that big price swings are expected which will likely become a self fufilling prophecy

>>18822728

>Gold doesn't have "rewards" for transacting, but it hasn't collapsed in value.

Bitcoin only exists because of the network of miners. No incentive means no miners. Gold simply exists.

>>18822980

I just don't get why a block reward, instead of transaction fees is required. There is no gold created for storing and securing gold. There is certainly a cost to vaults, guards, physical space, secure transport, etc. to store and transact gold. But there is no gold created in the process. Gold is created when mining but that has nothing to do with supporting the transaction of gold. The cost to maintain the bitcoin network is comparable to the cost needed to store and transport gold. I don't get why a block reward is needed.

>>18823082

And gold has to be stored, guarded, transported in secure trucks, plus requires a massive network of physical brick and mortar dealers to distribute, all that cost way more than maintaining the bitcoin network.

>>18823095
the block reward is the main reward, and transaction costs simply will not be able to pay the miners enough. I´m out of here, spent too much time on this. Read more about it and you will find out that it´s correct and that most experts agree. Proof of stake is just the better system

>>18823244

Pay the miners enough for what? I guess you just don't understand how bitcoin mining works. There is no required hash rate for bitcoin to operate.

>>18823114

I buy and sell gold and silver every day without paying a penny more in commission fees than I do on CoinBase. BullionVault charges me 0.10%, GoldMoney charges 0.50%. I can even send as little as one gram of gold to another GoldMoney user, or use a GoldMoney credit card to buy and sell things. Secure vaults virtually never get robbed. It wouldn't surprise me if far less gold gets robbed nowadays than Bitcoin does; there are dozens of incidents of the latter, from Mt Gox onwards. I feel safer having my gold in Switzerland or Singapore in an insured vault than I do having my password on a hard-drive that might corrupt, or keeping it on a piece of paper in my own house, which might get robbed or burned down.

Bitcoin requires immense resources to maintain, nothing like what you need to store and transfer gold. It needs the computing power of a nation-state.

>>18823351

Bitcoin doesn't "require" any minimum level of computing power. That is a misconception. I suggest reading about how bitcoin mining works.

>>18823351

Also, you are talking about goldmoney, bullionvault, no gold is actually moving, you are just changing account values. That's like saying coinbase transfers between coinbase accounts are moving bitcoin.

>>18819499
>that 2011 dump
reminds me so much of that jp morgan silver buyout that caused so much of silvers worth to tank

Where's the best place to buy
BTC and what's the best wallet / place to store it?

>>18821423
>off chain / side chain
I want to know more

>>18823610

My savings in GoldMoney and BullionVault are mostly in real bars with genuine bar numbers, and with real weights and refiners. They are registered in my name. The websites could go down tomorrow, and I could still go and collect them.

Ownership of the allocated (non-segregated) bullion is based on old legal principles enshrined in common law. As BullionVault says, "it is owned outright by an investor and is stored, under a safekeeping or custody arrangement, in a professional bullion vault. It is the property of the investor."

*

Under English law, it's the Sale of Goods Act 1994 which confirms ownership rights in this situation. The Act came about because of common practice in the commercial world, not least the oil industry. There, several owners would have an interest in crude oil being shipped by tanker, but their individual "barrels" were co-mingled. Common sense said this should work just fine, but until the legislation, this invited problems in the event of shipping loss or the carrier's insolvency, because the ability to own an undivided interest in bulk goods was not formally recognized.

As the updated edition of English law's standard reference text puts it, commercial practice "led to amendments to the Sale of Goods Act so that the pre-paying buyer of an *undivided share* of an *identified bulk* could acquire a *property interest* in common with others prior to ascertainment." Indeed, /Proprietary Rights and Insolvency in Sales Transactions/ by Professor Sir Roy Goode (2009), edited by Simon Mills QC, acknowledges interviews with and a close study of BullionVault, since it offers a new forms of investment, enabling retail investors to invest in the precious metals markets by purchasing the commodity itself, but without the inconvenience and cost associated with taking possession.

The innovation "relies upon the ability to buy and sell a part-interest in an undivided share of an identified bulk" - and that ability is enshrined in law.

*

>>18817048
Underrated kek

>>18823739

That is no different from coinbase saying some address of theirs has X number of "your" bitcoins, then when you transfer it to another coinbase account, coinbase just says those X bitcoins they control are now someone else's. You have delegated ownership. Its not comparable to an actual change of ownership which would be similar to a bitcoin transaction, that complete transfers full control over the bitcoins.

My point is centralized exchanges like coinbase can exchange bitcoin just like goldmoney, etc, which having to do on chain transactions. I'm talking about actual change of ownership of gold, which costs far more than bitcoin. And there is no "block reward" comparable for gold.

As block reward goes down, total transaction fees will just go up to compensate. Transaction fees, per transaction, will be reduced through scalability, either through off chain / side chain or increasing on chain capacity as computing power goes up, or likely a combination of both.

You are not taking into account bitcoin easily doing tens of thousands of transactions per second in the future, so even though they have very small fees individually, a lot of money is available to the miners to secure the network. No block reward will be needed.

>>18823867

I don't know enough about crypto to say for certain, but an enormous number of people simply use Coinbase to store their Bitcoin, don't they? So a Bitcoin world, in practice, would be no more secure than a GoldMoney world. At least on GoldMoney, I can instantly register a bar (as little as three ounces in weight) and know that it _is_ mine. If I sensed that the company was about to go under, I would do exactly this with all my allocated bullion.

With respect to transaction fees compensating for low rewards for Bitcoin miners, I can't speak to that. The other Anon said that the fees won't be high enough, but I don't know enough about technology to comment on it.

>>18823964

The point of crypto is to eventually not have to use centralized entities like coinbase.

>>18817247
Most retarded post I’ve ever read.

>>18824087

I don't think normies will ever get on board with that. If that is the expected outcome, then that is a strong argument against crypto succeeding. It needs to be as easy as using a website like Facebook or Amazon, or it won't reach mass adoption.

>>18820257
>most compelling argument
Nobody can take my money. It’s in my head now. I have my seed memorized. I can cross borders with millions and then send an anonymous tx back across the world with xmr. You’re fucking retarded if you can’t see this.

>>18823701

Think of a separate blockchain, but one that in simple terms has a bitcoin address and controls a certain number of bitcoins. That separate block chain is the side chain. Within that side chain it could have some tokens to represent the bitcoins it controls on the bitcoin chain. So people could trade bitcoins indirectly on the side chain without having to do any transactions on the bitcoin chain.

The side chain would have a way for people to "cash out" their tokens then the side chain would send them their bitcoins on the main chain. And vice verse, there would be a way for people to send the chain bitcoins, and receive tokens on the chain to trade.

Think of wrapped BTC (wbtc) but a decentralized version of this. Cross chain solutions like cosmos are trying to do this.

The side chain can use pos, or any other consensus and tech, essentially optimize for transaction rate at the cost of security. But the security does not need to be as high, because the "reward" for compromising the chain is only the amount of bitcoins the chain controls, so the security vs the value of the network is similar.

>>18824163

I have the username and password to my GoldMoney account memorized and, unless Switzerland suddenly breaks with centuries of tradition, my gold is always going to be safe in a vault, ready for use at any time, no matter what borders I cross.

>>18824142

Well, there is nothing stopping them from using coinbase, and it will still increase the value of bitcoin for adoption to happen on centralized platforms.

But eventually the goal is exactly what you said, to have a decentralized solution as easy to use as facebook / amazon. But its not a requirement for bitcoin to go up in value. But having bitcoin replace a major fiat currency is the loong term end game for crypto with bitcoin reaching values in the hundreds of millions of todays dollars. A more realistic expectation is bitcoin becoming more like gold in the next few years as a store of value.

>>18823867
It´s not as simple as that at all. I suggest you Read the paper before you say anytihing more on the subject.

>>18823867
And you can´t just change the computing power so that on chain capacity increases. How would that be done?

I engourage everyone that might want to invest in bitcoin do their own research, and read both sides of the argument. Don´t just listen to the moon boys because they dont even know what the´re talking about.

>>18824163
thats cool and all. But someone can just torture you until you gave up the seed. It has already happened to a few bitcoin owners

>>18824583

Yes, this is true. Whereas nobody can torture you to get your gold out of an overseas vault.

>>18824187
This exact thing you are talking about is broken down in the paper, and they suggest many reasons to why that approach would be very problematic.

>>18824406
>>18824466
>>18824690

I haven't read your paper, its like 50 pages long. But If I get the gist its talking about what happens when the transaction fees because a much higher proportion of the block reward than the block subsidy. This won't happen for like 100 years at least. So even if you're right, its something that will bitcoin will have to figure out long after all of us are dead.

>>18824636
No such thing as a safe asset. BOTTOM line is that proof of work and Bitcoin is fundamentally flawed, and they will fail. Ask any of the smartest people in crypto without a bias, and they will admit it. Stop taking bitcoin hodlers words as gospel. More and more devs I talk to say that bitcoin will be a thing in the past and better tech will take over. The sentiment in the crypto sphere is slowly changing. New coins are on they way in, and bitcoin is on its way out. It will be a collectible in the future tho, and probably worth 1-3k$, but not much more than that.

>>18824832

I wasn't speaking ironically, I've been arguing against Bitcoin in this thread. I was literally saying that one advantage which gold has over Bitcoin is that nobody can torture you for your gold; if it's in a vault then it's in a vault, and no password can give them access to it.

>>18824832

New crytpo tech will be built on top of bitcoin, with bitcoin as the base layer. the source of trust / security. Bitcoin will remain king of crypto, its the most time tested, trusted, and secure crypto.