This. When evaluating someone's claims, always take into consideration their background, career to evaluate for bias. This is the reason if, for eg, Spain plays against France in soccer finals, they won't put a world-class Spanish judge, however good he/she may be.
So, a meeting of all of the most fiat-currency dependent people in the world produces a message saying that a potential alternative is going to zero. Maybe it will, but BTC is v0.1 crypto-currency and it's death will make way for whatever crypto v1.0 looks like. Unfortunately for the establishment, thoroughly represented at Davos, crypto-currency is here to stay.
"I am much less interested in investing around bitcoin as a currency unit or a currency equivalent, or even the blockchain as an accounting ledger. I am thinking much more about the protocols. In other words, what is the underlying protocol going to do as a consequence of which, which tokens are valuable or not," Hutchins said.
> "I do believe it will go to zero. I think it's a great technology but I don't believe it's a currency. It's not based on anything," Jeff Schumacher, founder of BCG Digital Ventures, said during a CNBC-hosted panel in Davos, Switzerland.
I can't believe we are still arguing these incredibly rudimentary points. Let alone that these quotes still get press coverage. Really, you're talking about cryptocurrency on a panel at Davos and you still haven't taken the time to reflect upon the nature of money?
What does "It's not based on anything" even mean? What is a dollar "based on"?
You're probably right. But if I were to try and defend his statement, perhaps he means it's not based on factors such as convenience as a medium of exchange, or public confidence that it will have relatively stable value (so that it can serve as a medium of storing value).
The need for the citizens of the most powerful nation on earth to pay their taxes in it; a legal and regulatory framework to support it; and the military and diplomatic might of the US to support it.
So it's based on a concept, a loosely defined one at that. Cryptocurrency is based on a strictly defined mathematical concept. It isn't a huge leap between the two.
It has zero value, but the US government forces you to take it. "Do you mind to sell me that barrel of oil for this piece of paper? No? Oh that's great!"
Bitcoin has become useless thanks to its developers and the same parasitic "industry" around it. Yes it could very well go to zero. There are and will be other cryptocurrencies, though.
It's a coupon tradable against a portion of the future production of the entire US economy. As long as the country makes anything, and as long as the government is around, a dollar one owns is tradable for items produced there. For it to fail would take tremendous failure of likely the entire world economy, at which point all promises of future trade will be suspect. As such, it's quite stable for the foreseeable future.
What is a bitcoin based on? It's currently also tradable for goods to those offering to take BTC for goods directly (a tiny and shaky market), or more tradable to those willing to give dollars for BTC, which is bigger, but still tiny and shaky compared to a dollar itself.
BTC marketcap $62B USD, ~$5B daily trading volume. USD trades ~5T a dat, and likey does a few T more in business transactions/day.
This is a poor argument. Many real-life currencies had effectively "went to zero" via hyperinflation. I assume you meant US dollar, but whatever Zimbabwean dollar was based on was clearly not enough to support it.
Has anyone studied the rate at which bitcoin is lost forever? I imagine daily there's a wallet lost, HD destroyed, someone with private keys dying and btc permanently lost. Point is there is a much smaller supply of usable btc than what's actually reported in circulation. I wonder how that plays into the longevity of the project over time...
26 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 68.9 ms ] threadAnd technically if you were a BC miner who spent money to mine Bitcoin and it did go to 0, you could say the investment was worth less nothing.
Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club
And as long as there are zealots around, it won't.
> "Using Blockchain to build the next generation grid for electric vehicles. Business 4.0."
https://twitter.com/RMac18/status/1087679473535860737
1. Blockchain
2. Using approved partners for travel
No mention of considering taking the train or bus instead of the approved airlines.
What nonsense.
I can't believe we are still arguing these incredibly rudimentary points. Let alone that these quotes still get press coverage. Really, you're talking about cryptocurrency on a panel at Davos and you still haven't taken the time to reflect upon the nature of money?
What does "It's not based on anything" even mean? What is a dollar "based on"?
The need for the citizens of the most powerful nation on earth to pay their taxes in it; a legal and regulatory framework to support it; and the military and diplomatic might of the US to support it.
It has zero value, but the US government forces you to take it. "Do you mind to sell me that barrel of oil for this piece of paper? No? Oh that's great!"
Bitcoin has become useless thanks to its developers and the same parasitic "industry" around it. Yes it could very well go to zero. There are and will be other cryptocurrencies, though.
It's a coupon tradable against a portion of the future production of the entire US economy. As long as the country makes anything, and as long as the government is around, a dollar one owns is tradable for items produced there. For it to fail would take tremendous failure of likely the entire world economy, at which point all promises of future trade will be suspect. As such, it's quite stable for the foreseeable future.
What is a bitcoin based on? It's currently also tradable for goods to those offering to take BTC for goods directly (a tiny and shaky market), or more tradable to those willing to give dollars for BTC, which is bigger, but still tiny and shaky compared to a dollar itself.
BTC marketcap $62B USD, ~$5B daily trading volume. USD trades ~5T a dat, and likey does a few T more in business transactions/day.
Faith in the US government
This is a poor argument. Many real-life currencies had effectively "went to zero" via hyperinflation. I assume you meant US dollar, but whatever Zimbabwean dollar was based on was clearly not enough to support it.