The Lemon Fool

Urbandreamer wrote:I have certainly had to pay cash in places because the credit card system was down. Likewise I have had to use a bank card in places that won't accept cash. I've also had to use my own credit card for work related payments, because the company credit card was with the wrong provider.

So there are already existing, non Bitcoin, alternatives? That's what I thought.

Urbandreamer wrote:Look, my point was not that you should either like or use bitcoin. My point was that you were factually wrong.

Where?

Urbandreamer wrote:Shares don't trade 24/7/365, bitcoin does. It is a simple fact.

So what? If I want to buy shares that is what I want to buy, buying a horse would be no substitute. Neither would buying Bitcoin, AFAICS

You haven't yet managed to convince me what I would need Bitcoin for, what I can do with Bitcoin (that I want or need to do) that I can't do already.

XFool wrote:

Urbandreamer wrote:Look, my point was not that you should either like or use bitcoin. My point was that you were factually wrong.

Where?

Urbandreamer wrote:Shares don't trade 24/7/365, bitcoin does. It is a simple fact.

So what? If I want to buy shares that is what I want to buy, buying a horse would be no substitute. Neither would buying Bitcoin, AFAICS

You haven't yet managed to convince me what I would need Bitcoin for, what I can do with Bitcoin (that I want or need to do) that I can't do already.

I suggest that you actually read what you quote and possibly the other posts.

As in the fact that I said I was not trying to do what you claim. I said as much, which you quoted. Or the fact that you responded to a post about the liquidity of bitcoin relative to shares, by claiming that shares were as liquid. Which you now say isn't important, changing the meaning of words to suit yourself.

I really do recommend actually reading what is posted.

BTW, I see little point in explaining the things that you can do with bitcoin, that you couldn't do some other way or less well. Common sense would indicate that you don't currently do them and would probably feel that there would be little reason for you to do so.

To repeat.

Look, my point was not that you should either like or use bitcoin.

Tell me why I should try to convince you that you need bitcoin? If I did, it would benefit me not one jot.

Urbandreamer wrote:I suggest that you actually read what you quote and possibly the other posts.

As in the fact that I said I was not trying to do what you claim. I said as much, which you quoted. Or the fact that you responded to a post about the liquidity of bitcoin relative to shares, by claiming that shares were as liquid. Which you now say isn't important, changing the meaning of words to suit yourself.

I'm far from sure it is myself who needs to read what is being posted.

Urbandreamer wrote:Tell me why I should try to convince you that you need bitcoin?

I've no idea! I was wondering that myself...

AFAICS, we have at least reached a conclusion on this matter. Good!

I can see at least six reasons to have Bitcoin - not in any particular order:

1. For the 'Techno curious'.

2. Small players wanting to 'make it'.

3. Big players, who know what they are doing and control the market.

4. FOMO players.

5. Scammers (seem to have been plenty of those!)

6. Criminals.

But otherwise? To most people, in day to day transactions? No reason at all.

I guess someone could want to shift 'money'/tokens across a border for completely legitimate reasons but just don't want the man to poke his nose in where he has no business.

Tedx wrote:I guess someone could want to shift 'money'/tokens across a border for completely legitimate reasons but just don't want the man to poke his nose in where he has no business.

That was happening long before bitcoin. Hawala, for instance? Diamonds? Prepaid debit cards bought for cash?

That kind of thing was probably more popular back when we had exchange controls under Labour in the 1970s.

XFool wrote:I can see at least six reasons to have Bitcoin - not in any particular order:

1. For the 'Techno curious'.

2. Small players wanting to 'make it'.

3. Big players, who know what they are doing and control the market.

4. FOMO players.

5. Scammers (seem to have been plenty of those!)

6. Criminals.

But otherwise? To most people, in day to day transactions? No reason at all.

You missed many options off.
In particular you assume that there is no downside to NOT having bitcoin.

In addition there are

a) Distrust of the financial system (there is at least some reasons for distrust)
b) Distrust of the state. (see above)
c) Wanting a common international currency.
d) Seeking financial privacy (Note that this may make you a criminal as being private may be a crime).
e) Wanting to transact with groups or people who can't use traditional finance (I.E WikiLeaks)
f) Seeking a cheap way to make micropayments. Ie using Fountain to support content producers (like patreon but crypto).
g) They can't have a bank account.

Most people, but not everyone, can have a bank account. The host of "What Bitcoin Did" had his bank account closed because he received sponsorship for his podcast from a bitcoin exchange. Others have been financially excluded. Were they committing crimes, surely there would be something to prosecute.

Thank goodness we live in a democratic country, unlike those poor Canadians.
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ ... the-family

Urbandreamer wrote:f) Seeking a cheap way to make micropayments. Ie using Fountain to support content producers (like patreon but crypto).

That certainly isn't an argument for Bitcoin, as opposed to other crypto. Bitcoin has extremely high transaction charges, and is unsuited to micropayments.

murraypaul wrote:

Urbandreamer wrote:f) Seeking a cheap way to make micropayments. Ie using Fountain to support content producers (like patreon but crypto).

That certainly isn't an argument for Bitcoin, as opposed to other crypto. Bitcoin has extremely high transaction charges, and is unsuited to micropayments.

On-chain transactions are expensive.
Transactions using lightning are significantly cheaper and normal for that sort of thing.

Indeed this is why El Salvador is using lightning transactions.

For more
https://www.fxcm.com/markets/insights/l ... ork-guide/

The Lightning Network charges incredibly small fees, with a base fee per transaction of 1 Satoshi (or 0.00000001 BTC), roughly the equivalent of US$0.04. Lightning Network can also process a million transactions per second, effectively ensuring fees remain close to non-existent.[5]

Edit: Just checked as that fee looked large to me. If you multiply the current price of bitcoin by 0.00000001 you get a number far less than 1p.

Urbandreamer wrote:

murraypaul wrote:
That certainly isn't an argument for Bitcoin, as opposed to other crypto. Bitcoin has extremely high transaction charges, and is unsuited to micropayments.

On-chain transactions are expensive.
Transactions using lightning are significantly cheaper and normal for that sort of thing.

Which isn't bitcoin.
If it isn't on-chain, it isn't bitcoin, you have lost trustlessness, transparency, self-custody and decentralisation.
Not your keys, not your coins.

Indeed this is why El Salvador is using lightning transactions.

And there is no way of knowing whether people actually own the 'bitcoin' their wallets display to them.

Given all the bugs that have been found in the past, and that the government have been able to simply edit balances, it seems unlikely that they do.

That is the opposite of the bitcoin ideals. All they have done is re-invent central banking, but without any oversight or regulation.

A closed source government controlled 'bitcoin' wallet. Hardly Satoshi's vision, is it?

Urbandreamer wrote:You missed many options off.

I very likely did! I did say "I can see at least..."

Urbandreamer wrote:In particular you assume that there is no downside to NOT having bitcoin.

In addition there are

a) Distrust of the financial system (there is at least some reasons for distrust)
b) Distrust of the state. (see above)

Ah! Now here I realise I did miss some of the significant 'reasons' for Bitcoin enthusiasm. And it's not as if I am unaware of those reasons - so that was a genuine oversight on my part.

"Distrust" - A powerful force in the world today, the driving force between many (strange) ideas and notions on the Internet (How could I have missed that one out?). No doubt some Bitcoin enthusiasts would also self declare as "Libertarians" - I am not a "Libertarian".

But this is an opening into a rabbit warren.

XFool wrote:Ah! Now here I realise I did miss some of the significant 'reasons' for Bitcoin enthusiasm. And it's not as if I am unaware of those reasons - so that was a genuine oversight on my part.

"Distrust" - A powerful force in the world today, the driving force between many (strange) ideas and notions on the Internet (How could I have missed that one out?). No doubt some Bitcoin enthusiasts would also self declare as "Libertarians" - I am not a "Libertarian".

But this is an opening into a rabbit warren.

I think that if you look again at the reasons you suggested, you may realize why you missed the "Distrust" part.

Ignoring technical interest, for which you could mess with testnet (bitcoin deliberately with no financial value), your reasons amount to.

Get rich quick.
Commit crime.

These are in fact the reasons given by the mainstream media for the existence of all cryptocurrency.

I'm not sure quite why, after all the same activities exist using fiat currency.

Still, "distrust" is not something that anyone interested in bitcoin should neglect. The hard core bitcoiner will scream.
"Don't trust: Verify".

They take that "Verify" very seriously. Many to the extent of actually running machines (nodes) to verify the blockchain, but provide little or no other value.

Non of which is any reason that you should be interested in bitcoin or use it. I only mention these things for you to think about since you actually are interested enough to be on this board and thread.

XFool wrote:

Urbandreamer wrote:You missed many options off.

I very likely did! I did say "I can see at least..."

Urbandreamer wrote:In particular you assume that there is no downside to NOT having bitcoin.

In addition there are

a) Distrust of the financial system (there is at least some reasons for distrust)
b) Distrust of the state. (see above)

Ah! Now here I realise I did miss some of the significant 'reasons' for Bitcoin enthusiasm. And it's not as if I am unaware of those reasons - so that was a genuine oversight on my part.

"Distrust" - A powerful force in the world today, the driving force between many (strange) ideas and notions on the Internet (How could I have missed that one out?). No doubt some Bitcoin enthusiasts would also self declare as "Libertarians" - I am not a "Libertarian".

But this is an opening into a rabbit warren.

Which makes it highly gratifying that so many people have learned the hard way that the state is actually more trustworthy than some random cryptocoin.

GS

GoSeigen wrote:Which makes it highly gratifying that so many people have learned the hard way that the state is actually more trustworthy than some random cryptocoin.

GS

To be fair, don't you think this a poor statement? Cryptocurrencies have only existed for 14 years. I do think that it's unfair to expect that they can possibly achieve the heights of the "Reign of Terror", or the "Khmer Rouge" in just 14 years.

Please give us some time before we are charged with genocide.

Boy did Godwin's law strike quick (edited before posting to remove such references).

Possibly I should just remark that obviously we should all trust Big Brother. After all,it's not like, as Lootman said, that the UK government would ever prevent you taking your "money" out of the country. See what I did there? Well 1984 was written in 1948, one year after currency controls were formalized. Oh, ok you didn't, I give up.