Bitcoin (1 Viewer)

[JohnfrmClevelan]

The vast majority of stocks are at least tied to tangible assets that exist in the real world.

I do also think that Wall Street is basically a scam where people move money in a circle and take a bit of it whenever it passes by them… but it is the system that we have and have to live with it until something better comes along.

But, aside from dividends, stocks really aren't tied to tangible assets in a meaningful way. Really, it's only the liquidation value of the underlying company, and if it gets to the point of liquidation, the stock is going to be worthless.

The advantage stocks have is that they are well established and legal. The nightmare scenario for crypto is if the government decides that the drawbacks (tax evasion, other illicit activities, etc.) are more trouble than it's worth, and just declares crypto illegal. And I can't think of any positives, as far as the government is concerned. Crypto is just a pain in the government's ass.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

The point is that the value is completely illusory.

Subjective. I and many others believe it is worth over 103K per BTC today.

At the end of the day that doesn’t actually matter until we get another series of Binance type crashes.

I have lived through every drawdown in the only asset that trades in an actual free worldwide market. Bring the crashes. I will buy more.

I know all about it.

I can tell.

A fixed amount doesn’t make it a better “currency”… which is fine since it is not really a currency.

You keep saying that and we wil not ever agree. But it is the best store of value the Earth has seen... just very volitile as it is bootstrapping thus the amazing oppourtunity in the shorter term speculative horizon.

Proof of work requires a ton of electricity… like a small nation’s worth.

Fine. I want that. And will store my value in an asset that is VERY VERY VERY hard and expensive to produce. You can put yours in paper.

If energy costs continue up… the cost of simply maintaining it also goes up.

So will Bitcoin's value since it is based on that. The basic of the Bitcoin price is it's value at the margins of production. As time goes on this will continue to rise parabiolically.

Also... it's a whole other and longer discussion. But ultimately Bitcoin is driving the production of green energy, using stranded energy, and providing reasons to develop areas of the world that are underserved even though they have vast resources for things like hydroelectric energy.

Plus since Bitcoin is terrible at handling transactions in a timely manner… the energy costs of that increase as more and more people use it.

Bitcoin is NOT terrible at handing transactions in a timely manner. I can send any amount of money anywhere in the world and there will be final settlement in generally under an hour. How long would it take you to get $1,000,000 to someone in Tibet?

If you mean final settlement at the grocery store for $21.37 worth or a $4.36 starbucks purchase... Yes. Bitcoin CAN do this using its second layer networks light lighting. With final settlement in seconds (think VISA... that is a second layer network for FedWire) but we will need to see that be implimented at PoS locations. I do not think this will happen until businesses are convinced it is a viable Store of Value first though. Again... thus the current speculative oppourtunity. Steak N Shake is going to give it ago soon though. No idea how successful it will be.

Those costs can definitely drag on it’s value over time.

What costs?

Is there any other sort of security that demands such high energy costs while being backed by basically nothing ?

Bitcoin is not a security. Legally is is a commodity. You can say all you like about this but what you say does not matter. The US government has declared it not to be a security. The ETFs might be securities? I do not know. And bitcoin is backed by energy. You were just complaining about that above. You cannot have it both ways.

It is used as an illustration as to how crypto as a whole can be compromised and then the people who control the large parts of it change reality to their advantage.

^^^ Gobbeldygook. I can't refute nonsense.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

LOL. The content is described in the headline. Lots of criminal activity with crypto. $50B plus!

Oh noes! What percentage is that of the 19 TRILLION it processed in total last year?

It's not even a drop in the bucket. And How many USD were used in crime in the last year do you figure?

Its a projection. You are really desperate to pretend criminal activity, like ransomware, is totally just a side effect of a wonderful product that.... does something for some people somehow.

Not desprarte for anything. The FACT is anyone can use a tool. You can build a house with a nail gun or you can murder someone with one. Just because criminals use Bitcoin does not mean Bitcoin is bad. it measns CRIMINALS are bad.

Just because the volume of bitcoin transactions have skyrocketed doesnt mean that crime is minimal or decreasing. Its pretty significant and is getting bigger every year.

No. The fact that crime in which bitcoin is used is a minimal percent of it's total use is what means it is a minimal percent of it's total use.

In other words 1=1. Is that dumbed down enough for you? Probably not.

And it's not getting biger every year. You only read the headline. Look at the graph.

Its like saying the cyanide in the water isnt that bad because its only a small percent of it.

Bitcoin, and honest people who hold it have nothing to do with crime. And the percent of people using it for crime is extremely tiny. And it has nothing to do with our dirty water supplies. Your analogy is stupid.

Me too. I dont gamble on goofy stuff. I could have bought bitcoin back in 2012 or so - I knew about it, but passed. And I really dont regret it.

Good for you... picking a random date in the middle of 2012 would be something like this:



So 1k invested in 2012 would only have yeilded a LITLLE over 12 million bucks.

Congrats on avoiding that.

 

[Visbek]

It is simplistic because that is not all it does.

Oh, whatever.

You've already told us how you bought a bunch of BTC early, and basically hit the lottery. You didn't jump in when BTC was already $60,000 or $90,000 or $100,000. It's nearly impossible for anyone to legally replicate your gains.

I.e. you're hopelessly biased by your own holdings and luck.

It's obvious to many people that crypto is just a gigantic scam, whose advocates will say whatever they think will bring in more suckers.

It's backed by nothing.
Its value can drop any minute, based on nothing. And yes, we've seen that happen multiple times.
It performs no functions that can't be done more efficiently via conventional means.
The "decentralization" is a lie, because it's too complex to work without exchanges and other middle men.
There's almost no regulation. What little regulation exists is confusing, easy to avoid, and unable to stop massive frauds like FTX.
It's rife with fraud and theft. Even 10 year olds have successfully executed rug pulls and gotten away with it.
There's no deposit insurance.
There's no protection against theft.
It's easily manipulated by whales.
Contrary to your own claims, it's enormously vulnerable, as it relies on blockchains, miners, exchanges, wallets that are difficult to secure, and encryption keys that are easy to lose.
Last but not least, it utterly fails at its original goal as a currency.

The fact that the Trump clan is all in on crypto is really all anyone should need to know.

Crypto is just the latest in a long line of bubbles and scams. And that doesn't change just because so far, you've lucked out and haven't lost your encryption keys, or gotten robbed.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

Oh, whatever.

You've already told us how you bought a bunch of BTC early, and basically hit the lottery. You didn't jump in when BTC was already $60,000 or $90,000 or $100,000. It's nearly impossible for anyone to legally replicate your gains.

I.e. you're hopelessly biased by your own holdings and luck.

It's obvious to many people that crypto is just a gigantic scam, whose advocates will say whatever they think will bring in more suckers.

It's backed by nothing.
Its value can drop any minute, based on nothing. And yes, we've seen that happen multiple times.
It performs no functions that can't be done more efficiently via conventional means.
The "decentralization" is a lie, because it's too complex to work without exchanges and other middle men.
There's almost no regulation. What little regulation exists is confusing, easy to avoid, and unable to stop massive frauds like FTX.
It's rife with fraud and theft. Even 10 year olds have successfully executed rug pulls and gotten away with it.
There's no deposit insurance.
There's no protection against theft.
It's easily manipulated by whales.
Contrary to your own claims, it's enormously vulnerable, as it relies on blockchains, miners, exchanges, wallets that are difficult to secure, and encryption keys that are easy to lose.
Last but not least, it utterly fails at its original goal as a currency.

The fact that the Trump clan is all in on crypto is really all anyone should need to know.

Crypto is just the latest in a long line of bubbles and scams. And that doesn't change just because so far, you've lucked out and haven't lost your encryption keys, or gotten robbed.

I did buy along the way. I've bought ALL along the way. The last really, really big purchase I did was right when COVID hit sometime in mid March of 2020, I think. I bought a lot then. It was a good purchase.

But I continue to purchase more every single month.

So I am the greater fool, right?

And I'm honestly not trying to brag about my success with Bitcoin. And please note, I will not talk about any other "cryptocurrencies" because almost all of them are scams. Honestly, you're right about that.

I'm just tired of hearing people deride what will inevitably be the future of hard money just because they don't understand it.

On this forum that means arguments and belittling each other because that's what people do here. They don't care whether or not someone has feelings. They just want to make them look stupid because they are on the other side. That's what we do here, right?

And I think if you'll read some of the things that I've posted, you'll see that I'm not really trying to do that. I'm trying to show people what I believe is actually true.

Could I be wrong? Of course. I could be fabulously wrong and super lucky and just did what I did because I happened to bumble myself into the right decision along the way. So if that's what it is, I hope you don't follow any of my thoughts.

And, altruistically, I kind of hope that the occasional person might think, well, what the heck? Why don't I toss a couple hundred at this and see what it's like in six, eight years? Because I believe with all my heart, it will be one of the best investments they could possibly make.

Obviously not financial advice.

 

[Econ4every1]

Are you against cash for the same reason?

No.

Sorry, but the existence of bad actors doesn't justify restricting everyone else.

The entirety of the legal system is predicated on exactly that.

If crypto were untraceable, how do they even know access is being sold that way?

OMG, you can't be this dumb. That or you think you're talking to an idiot.

Ummm, because people have tried to trace it and can't?

Crypto is about shifting power from centralized coercion to a voluntary system.

Libertarian Utopia.

Distributed coercion masquerading as "choice".

More faceplam please.

 

[aociswundumho]

The President is selling access to himself and the Whitehouse though crypto, and no one knows who will be purchasing the President because it can't be traced and,

If crypto were untraceable, how do they even know access is being sold that way?

OMG, you can't be this dumb. That or you think you're talking to an idiot.

Ummm, because people have tried to trace it and can't?

It seems you're having trouble following your own argument. You made the claim that Trump is "selling access", and in the same sentence stated that "it can't be traced".

 

[Econ4every1]

It seems you're having trouble following your own argument. You made the claim that Trump is "selling access".

He is because he literally said he is.

and in the same sentence stated that "it can't be traced".

Correct, because he is selling that access in a form of payment that can't be traced.

I don't need to "see" radiation to know it's there. I don't need to trace accounts, to know they cannot be traced.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

OMG, you can't be this dumb. That or you think you're talking to an idiot.

Ummm, because people have tried to trace it and can't?

Hmm. You evidently are uninformed.

Most "crypto" as well as Bitcoin is ENTIRELY traceable.

Here is a random example out of one of the last blocks:



And we can see where the sender sent her money from, and to where.

In this case we can see she sent most of it to the money to the bc1qca6 address and a little change to the 3D1og address.

Bitcoin is a COMPLETELY open visible ledger. Anyone can see your transaction. And will a little forensics you can know who sent it, and who received the outputs.

I have mentioned in this thread before, this is a great boon to law enforcement. They would MUCH rather you pay with tracable Bitcoin than cash... Or perhaps something cryptographically more sophisticated like Monero.

I also want to say... this nearly $25 THOUSAND DOLLAR transaction could have been sent from anywhere on earth... TO anywhere on Earth for a total of 18 cents. And it was finalized and spendable in a whole 7 seconds. This is admittedly quick for the base layer... It could have taken a whole 10 minutes... or even a hour (yawn) but the lightning protocol is even faster.

Wake up. Bitcoin is going to swallow a LARGE amount of value.

It's all just math.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

Would you look at that? Bitcoin is the sixth most valuable asset by market cap in the entire world. Bigger than Google. And it might just overtake Amazon if it can manage another couple hundred billion.

Of course it is volatile... as everybody says and yes indeed it could fall... Quite a bit. Is been a rough ride for is long timers. It could fall a LOT in the short term. It's kind of the price you pay for the gain as you could make.

But I am betting it will overtake Amazon... and Gold.


But if it makes you uncomfortable, I'd say just keep ignoring it.

 

[Threegoofs]

Hmm. You evidently are uninformed.

Most "crypto" as well as Bitcoin is ENTIRELY traceable.

Here is a random example out of one of the last blocks:

View attachment 67569919
View attachment 67569920
And we can see where the sender sent her money from, and to where.

In this case we can see she sent most of it to the money to the bc1qca6 address and a little change to the 3D1og address.

Bitcoin is a COMPLETELY open visible ledger. Anyone can see your transaction. And will a little forensics you can know who sent it, and who received the outputs.

I have mentioned in this thread before, this is a great boon to law enforcement. They would MUCH rather you pay with tracable Bitcoin than cash... Or perhaps something cryptographically more sophisticated like Monero.

I also want to say... this nearly $25 THOUSAND DOLLAR transaction could have been sent from anywhere on earth... TO anywhere on Earth for a total of 18 cents. And it was finalized and spendable in a whole 7 seconds. This is admittedly quick for the base layer... It could have taken a whole 10 minutes... or even a hour (yawn) but the lightning protocol is even faster.

Wake up. Bitcoin is going to swallow a LARGE amount of value.

It's all just math.

LOL

That’s why it’s used almost exclusively in ransomware.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

LOL

That’s why it’s used almost exclusively in ransomware.

Because it is easily traceable?

Are you tripling or even quadrupling down on your idiotic claim that criminals use Bitcoin because it is "anonymous" and untraceable?.

Because it most certainly isn't.

I am not entirely sure about you yet... but MOST criminals are not all that smart. I would not use them as a benchmark for cleverness.

Are you like them? I am starting to wonder.

"Ransomware groups’ use of cryptocurrency for ransom payments “is beneficial to ransomware investigations because cryptocurrency blockchains are transparent, and with the right tools, law enforcement can follow the money on the blockchain to better understand and disrupt the organization’s operations and supply chain,” Kennedy noted."

Reuters:

Recovery of Colonial Pipeline ransom funds highlights traceability of cryptocurrency, experts say - Thomson Reuters Institute

The US Justice Department's seizure of ransom paid by Colonial Pipeline to hackers shows that cryptocurrency funds may not be that untraceable after all.

www.thomsonreuters.com

 

[Threegoofs]

Because it is easily traceable?

Are you tripling or even quadrupling down on your idiotic claim that criminals use Bitcoin because it is "anonymous" and untraceable?.

Because it most certainly isn't.

I am not entirely sure about you yet... but MOST criminals are not all that smart. I would not use them as a benchmark for cleverness.

Are you like them? I am starting to wonder.

"Ransomware groups’ use of cryptocurrency for ransom payments “is beneficial to ransomware investigations because cryptocurrency blockchains are transparent, and with the right tools, law enforcement can follow the money on the blockchain to better understand and disrupt the organization’s operations and supply chain,” Kennedy noted."

Reuters:

Recovery of Colonial Pipeline ransom funds highlights traceability of cryptocurrency, experts say - Thomson Reuters Institute

The US Justice Department's seizure of ransom paid by Colonial Pipeline to hackers shows that cryptocurrency funds may not be that untraceable after all.

www.thomsonreuters.com

View attachment 67569932

I guess I’m wrong, and all those ransomware attacks don’t know what they’re doing.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

I guess I’m wrong, and all those ransomware attacks don’t know what they’re doing.

Honestly..that is EXACTLY the truth.

You ARE wrong. And the ransomware folks that use Bitcoin in their crimes are either fools, or REALLY REALLY good at using Bitcoin in a private way. Because it is quite hard to do so.

Because Bitcoin is entirely traceable.

You will see that the smarter ransomware folks will use Monero rather than Bitcoin.

Ransomware: Why the crooks are ditching bitcoin and where they are going next

The popularity of bitcoin is creating problems for criminals dealing in ransomware -- and some are already casting their gaze towards a less volatile cryptocurrency.

www.zdnet.com

But you can still hate me... dont worry. I would hate to take away your binky.

Because I also think Monero is a legitimate currency. Entirely because it is as close to private as is currently possible.

I have NO love for criminals. But i DO have a love for privicy and freedom. Just because there is crime does not mean I should have to live my life under a spotlight! (or is innocent until proven gujilty just a fluffy ideal???)

What if I am a Christian? What if I am a Muslim? What if I am gay... or a Palestrinian... or a Ukrainian.. or a poor father in Russia, or a woman in Kenya (or Venezuela, or Cuba or... or...) Dare I say it??? A trucker in Canada... who needs to feed her family even though the currency of her nation is unstable... or even made off limits by tyrants?

Dont like MY preferred flavor of tyrant? Then substitute yours. The logic will still follow.

We can stop criminals with good old fashioned police work. We do not need the masses to submit to the panopticon of a CBDC or even Bitcoin (gasp... did the pro bitcoin guy just dis bitcoin?!?!? (the answer is yes in case you are dim... because he values freedom more than math)).

Just find an prosecute the criminals. But let the masses live PRIVATELY and protected by the fourth amendment if they are fortunate enough to live in the USA.

If you take away Bitcion (OR Monero) because criminals can use it... ..

Well... YOU are the bigger problem.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

Interesting news today.

The Bitcoin CEO has released a video saying that he will be not paying any ransom but instead will pay a reward for information leading to the identity of the hackers.

 

[Visbek]

I did buy along the way.

I could have sworn that you said otherwise, but whatever.

So I am the greater fool, right?

You're the one who got lucky. Most don't.

And I'm honestly not trying to brag about my success with Bitcoin.

Okay then. Why don't you ever talk about the people who have lost money on Bitcoin? Why do you downplay the fraud and criminality that happen in Bitcoin?

And please note, I will not talk about any other "cryptocurrencies" because almost all of them are scams. Honestly, you're right about that.

And please note, the idea that Bitcoin is somehow "special" is ludicrous.

I'm just tired of hearing people deride what will inevitably be the future of hard money just because they don't understand it.

I'm just tired of hearing people claiming that crypto is the "future of hard money," because they are pushing crypto.

And I think if you'll read some of the things that I've posted, you'll see that I'm not really trying to do that. I'm trying to show people what I believe is actually true.

That's an awfully selective set of "truths" you share.

Could I be wrong? Of course. I could be fabulously wrong and super lucky and just did what I did because I happened to bumble myself into the right decision along the way. So if that's what it is, I hope you don't follow any of my thoughts.

Yep, that is what it is. Don't forget that a lot of early adopters made very expensive mistakes, such as
- forgetting a password, and only having one last guess on forgotten password that has sole access to 7,000 BTC (current value $721,044,693.76)
- accidentally throwing out a hard drive with the keys for 8,000 BTC on it (current value: $822,192,077.43)
- spending 10,000 BTC for two pizzas in 2010 (current value: $1,027,740,096.79)

Bitcoin is nothing more than the latest bubble. Its ability to find more suckers than past bubbles doesn't change that.

And, altruistically, I kind of hope that the occasional person might think, well, what the heck? Why don't I toss a couple hundred at this and see what it's like in six, eight years?

Because altruistically, most people who "invest" in crypto lose money.

By the way, I've noticed that your justifications for Bitcoin shift quite a bit. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like they are:
- Government fiat currency will collapse, yet Bitcoin will magically survive
- Dollars inflate, but Bitcoin deflates (even though the mild inflation is healthy for a currency, and deflation is a disaster)
- It's not a security, but why not treat it like a security?
- It's not gambling, but why not treat it like gambling?
- It's the future of hard currency!

Did I miss any?

Because I believe with all my heart, it will be one of the best investments they could possibly make.

Obviously not financial advice.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

You're the one who got lucky. Most don't.

I do not deny that there's luck involved. There's luck involved in everything we do, but I also had foresight and the balls to hold through some of the hardest ups and downs that you could imagine.

Okay then. Why don't you ever talk about the people who have lost money on Bitcoin? Why do you downplay the fraud and criminality that happen in Bitcoin?

Well, when it comes to Bitcoin, if you hold properly over the long term, then you're not ever losing money so far. That's just 100% true. I'm not saying that it's easy to do. It's technically difficult. And I'm definitely sorry for people who've lost their keys and therefore lost access to fortunes. That's terrible.

But it's not Bitcoin's fault. I mean, people lose things. It's just how it works. It's how life works.

And please note, the idea that Bitcoin is somehow "special" is ludicrous.

We're gonna differ on this one. I think Bitcoin is special. And I believe that the vast majority of projects that came after Bitcoin, though some of them have good ideas, or are interesting experiments, are mostly just scams.

Ethereum had a pre-mine. Ripple did too, but even bigger, and they claimed they lost the first several blocks from their blockchain. And then there's all kinds of smart contract-based garbage things designed to make people want to gamble and rip them off. I think a lot of your ire is properly directed at most of crypto, but not Bitcoin.

I'm just tired of hearing people claiming that crypto is the "future of hard money," because they are pushing crypto.

Then quit listening to them, and I would like to say that I'm not one of those people. I don't think crypto is the future of money. I think Bitcoin is.

That's an awfully selective set of "truths" you share.

"Well, that's just like your opinion, man." - the Dude

Yep, that is what it is. Don't forget that a lot of early adopters made very expensive mistakes, such as
- forgetting a password, and only having one last guess on forgotten password that has sole access to 7,000 BTC (current value $721,044,693.76)
- accidentally throwing out a hard drive with the keys for 8,000 BTC
- spending 10,000 BTC for two pizzas in 2010 (current value: $1,027,740,096.79)

I addressed the lost key issue above. I too have lost Bitcoin to various things early on. It was part of the price of being involved with it early. It was even harder to do back then.

But the pizza example really is incorrect. Yes, Lazlo Hayek spent 10,000 Bitcoin on two Papa John's pizzas, I think.

And all the people in the world look at what he did with hindsight and call him a fool. Like you.

But what he actually did was bootstrap the Bitcoin economy that day. He actually put value on Bitcoin. And Bitcoin became something that people understood that could be used in a transactional way. The pizza day is celebrated by all Bitcoiners and I'm sure Lazlo as well.

And believe me, 10,000 Bitcoin is not all that he held. Lazlo is most certainly doing just fine.

And it's because he had foresight and knowledge and fortitude and the guts to make a transaction that later in life people would make fun of... and he held through all of it. And like you like to point out, he was lucky.

Bitcoin is nothing more than the latest bubble. Its ability to find more suckers than past bubbles doesn't change that.

I simply disagree. I don't think I even have to give a reason why this is an opinion. The chart goes up if you zoom out.

Because altruistically, most people who "invest" in crypto lose money.

I've been advising people not to invest in "crypto" for about 12 years now.

By the way, I've noticed that your justifications for Bitcoin shift quite a bit.

I'm a capricious person. I might say all kinds of crazy stuff. But most of those things I agree with, some of those things I think I would add a lot of nuance to, I don't tend to see things in black and white.

And I think the jury is out on what a deflationary asset can or can't do. It might fail because of that. That would be the Keynesian position. But we haven't lived in a world with an internet that and a asset that's working that way in any of our lifetimes. So, we'll have to see.

So far, the future looks bright. Here's to the next bubble. Lol. (Although Each cycle is a little flatter than the ones before.)

 

[jpn]

Makes me want to rush out and by some!

Bitcoin is primed for exactly two uses: Money laundering and gambling. That's it.

 

[Visbek]

And the ransomware folks that use Bitcoin in their crimes are either fools, or REALLY REALLY good at using Bitcoin in a private way.

Yes, BTC is only pseudonymous, so stolen BTC is sometimes seized by law enforcement. (We should note that they are rarely prosecuted.)

However, most serious criminals have figured that out, so they can in fact launder BTC. It is "hard to do so," but well worth it if you've stolen $1 million.

And others, such as those working for the North Korean government, are basically untouchable.

Because I also think Monero is a legitimate currency. Entirely because it is as close to private as is currently possible.

Well isn't that convenient.

It's also a bit weird that you seem to think Bitcoin is fabulous because it's not suitable for criming, but Monero is legitimate because... it's made from the ground up to be suitable for criming.

I have NO love for criminals. But i DO have a love for privicy and freedom. Just because there is crime does not mean I should have to live my life under a spotlight! (or is innocent until proven gujilty just a fluffy ideal???)

So you're saying that no one in America is free without fully anonymized crypto?

What if I... [need] to feed her family even though the currency of her nation is unstable... or even made off limits by tyrants?

News flash! If the economy is in the dumps, or if you live in a dictatorship, crypto will not help you.

By the way, guess which dictatorship tried to move everyone over to Bitcoin? El Salvador. (It failed, by the way.)

We can stop criminals with good old fashioned police work.

North Korea stole $1.5 billion in a single hack of Bybit. When do the good ol' fashioned police arrest them?

If you take away Bitcion (OR Monero) because criminals can use it... ..

Well... YOU are the bigger problem.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

Yes, BTC is only pseudonymous, so stolen BTC is sometimes seized by law enforcement. (We should note that they are rarely prosecuted.)

That's not a Bitcoin problem, that's a law enforcement/legal problem.

However, most serious criminals have figured that out, so they can in fact launder BTC. It is "hard to do so," but well worth it if you've stolen $1 million.

It is much harder to make Bitcoin private than you think and it's much easier to get caught than you think.

And others, such as those working for the North Korean government, are basically untouchable.

Not a Bitcoin problem, geopolitical problem. Also, how do we know that North Korea ended up with it if criminals are so good at covering their tracks on the blockchain?

Well isn't that convenient.

It's also a bit weird that you seem to think Bitcoin is fabulous because it's not suitable for criming, but Monero is legitimate because... it's made from the ground up to be suitable for criming.

You're putting words in my mouth and saying things that I don't believe. Please don't do that again. I am not for crime on any level.

But I am a staunch advocate for privacy. I believe Monero does a great job of providing transactional privacy, which I think human beings deserve. Not to do crime, but to just not be snooped on.

I am really worried, for example, about some of the ideas that we may see happening with CBDCs.

And I also am not black and white and I can think that two things can be true at the same time. I think a transparent blockchain has trade-offs that give it all kinds of advantages. In fact, that's the kind of blockchain I would like governments to use. But an obfuscated blockchain like Monero has has value as well.

I believe layers on top of Bitcoin will inherit much of Monero's privacy eventually. And this will be good for ordinary, law abiding people as well as criminals.

I've said this multiple times now. Bitcoin is just a tool. You can use it for good, or you can use it for evil, like any good tool. Have you ever heard of a getaway car? We shouldn't outlaw cars because they can be used for crimes. Bitcoin is the same. It's just a tool.

So you're saying that no one in America is free without fully anonymized crypto?

No, that's hyperbolic. If I said anything like that, I was being hyperbolic, but I doubt I did. I think privacy, though, is very important for freedom. I think it is of central importance, and you can see that in amendments to the constitution.

News flash! If the economy is in the dumps, or if you live in a dictatorship, crypto will not help you.

Again, not a Bitcoin problem. But you're wrong because if you can escape where you live and remember 12 words, you can take all your value with you and no one can stop you. I would say that helps.

By the way, guess which dictatorship tried to move everyone over to Bitcoin? El Salvador. (It failed, by the way.)

So you say, we disagree. On more than one point there.

North Korea stole $1.5 billion in a single hack of Bybit. When do the good ol' fashioned police arrest them?

First of all, what was stolen was actually Ethereum. And it actually didn't have to do with Ethereum, but with the storage practices of bybit. So it was a bank robbery. And North Korea is a special kind of geopolitical adversary that is rogue. That's nothing to do with Bitcoin. They're just using it as a tool again. So tools can be used for good and evil. Yeah, we can't send police there because they're a sovereign nation and they're bad actors and almost everything they do.

Again, not a Bitcoin problem.

And on top of that, what are we supposed to do? Not allow honest people to use good tools so that bad actors can't have them? That doesn't even work when we try to do it in the first place. This cat is out of the bag. It's not going away. It could be destroyed possibly. It could be outlawed ( which will just put the jurisdictions that outlaw it at a tremendous disadvantage), but it's not going away. The game theory is in play and it's going to keep going until something changes.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

Bitcoin is primed for exactly two uses: Money laundering and gambling. That's it.

Good grief. I wish someone had told me that years ago before I started using it for value storage. I thought it was good for that too. Crap.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

Sorry, but the existence of bad actors doesn't justify restricting everyone else.

The entirety of the legal system is predicated on exactly that.

This exchange has bothered me since I read it... Now I would like to explain why it is wrong.

The "entirety of the legal system" is NOT predicated on limiting the rights of everyone so that we can stop the bad actors.

In fact the legal system - in the US at least - is built on the foundation of the constitution. And that document outlines RIGHTS that citizens have. And the Bill of Rights and the amendments outline several things that would contradict your statement.

The Bill of rights, and 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4rth, 5th, 14th and other amendments refute that idea entirely.

And though not a phrase in the constitution to my knowledge the idea that a person is INNOCENT until proven guilty is a cornerstone to western law in general.

If you like the idea you advocate for above, you might want to move to a country in which the "entirety of the legal system is predicated on" limiting the rights of all people for the sake of the collective.

North Korea might be more to you liking... perhaps China.

 

[Econ4every1]

This exchange has bothered me since I read it...

Getting the gears moving, good, let's see where this goes.

The "entirety of the legal system" is NOT predicated on limiting the rights of everyone so that we can stop the bad actors.

Isn't it though?

In fact the legal system - in the US at least - is built on the foundation of the constitution. The Bill of rights, and 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4rth, 5th, 14th and other amendments refute that idea entirely.

Well, that's like saying that a dictionary is the foundation of language.

The Constitution is a document, a social contract that enumerates and recognizes certain rights. A presumption of rights grounded in the people, not the rulers or the government. Some of the founders didn't want to enumerate positive rights at all, they thought rights were "natural" or "given by god", and that it should go without saying, but it was agreed that these first 10 were pivotal in ensuring that these specific ideas could be socialized and deeply engrained in our culture and that would ensure that the people could live free of tyranny.

But, I think there is an element of what I said. Enumerating through declaration of the positive rights of the Constitution was meant to prevent bad actors. Unfortunately, it seems that time is quickly coming to an end, but I digress.

And though not a phrase in the constitution to my knowledge the idea that a person is INNOCENT until proven guilty is a cornerstone to western law in general.

The 5th, 6th and 14th amendments discuss due process and I don't think it's a stretch to say that the concept of innocence until proven guilty flows naturally from these amendments.

"entirety of the legal system is predicated on" limiting the rights of all people for the sake of the collective.

The collective? That feels like a loaded word that was carefully chosen to imply something.

I would say creating limitations on rights is about ensuring freedom, justice and liberty.


I'm curious, do you think that deporting anyone without due process (except where explicitly allowed by law) is a violation of the constitution?

 

[aociswundumho]

The Constitution is a document, a social contract that enumerates and recognizes certain rights. A presumption of rights grounded in the people, not the rulers or the government. Some of the founders didn't want to enumerate positive rights at all, they thought rights were "natural" or "given by god", and that it should go without saying, but it was agreed that these first 10 were pivotal in ensuring that these specific ideas could be socialized and deeply engrained in our culture and that would ensure that the people could live free of tyranny.

But, I think there is an element of what I said. Enumerating through declaration of the positive rights of the Constitution was meant to prevent bad actors. Unfortunately, it seems that time is quickly coming to an end, but I digress.

The constitution recognizes only negative rights, not "positive" rights, which in fact are not rights at all. For example, the second amendment recognizes the right to keep and bear arms, it doesn't mean the government will give you a free gun.

I would say creating limitations on rights is about ensuring freedom, justice and liberty.

Ah, so the more the state restricts our rights, the more freedom we have.