Remarkable statistic

[AWOL]

*draft

[Bubblesofearth]

Gold can be confiscated, tends to be stored centrally, and is hard to smuggle across borders. All you need to leave the US with $1 billion in bitcoin is remember a seed phrase of 12 words & step across the border in your shorts & flip-flops.

H

Great, so Bitcoin can be smuggled across borders by criminals. I wonder how many Russian oligarchs have been buying Bitcoins.

Another ringing endorsement.

BoE

[XFool]

Great, so Bitcoin can be smuggled across borders by criminals.

Which, apart from speculation, seems to be its main discernible function.

[Hornblower]

Great, so Bitcoin can be smuggled across borders by criminals.

Which, apart from speculation, seems to be its main discernible function.

Why does every 'opinion' expressed here seem to be taken out of a poorly-researched FT article?

That fact you don't see money that can't be confiscated, censored, or inflated away to nothingness as useful speaks of your financial privilege.


H

[XFool]

Which, apart from speculation, seems to be its main discernible function.

Why does every 'opinion' expressed here seem to be taken out of a poorly-researched FT article?

Mine was just a personal view - I haven't read the FT article.

That fact you don't see money that can't be confiscated, censored, or inflated away to nothingness as useful speaks of your financial privilege.

Possibly. But this is the context in which the discussion and opinions are framed. What use does Crypto currency have for me?

Then again: "Money that can't be confiscated". My understanding is more than one person has found that to be false, or does 'confiscation' (via theft, with no state compensation) by non-state operators not count?

[Bubblesofearth]

That fact you don't see money that can't be confiscated, censored, or inflated away to nothingness as useful speaks of your financial privilege.


H

For me, it's not so much that, it's more that I can't see most governments wanting to adopt it. They came off the gold standard for a reason so why should they go back on to an electronic equivalent? Without government adoption as legal currency it's difficult to see what role it has. Although I admit it's held up longer than I thought it would.

BoE

[Urbandreamer]

That fact you don't see money that can't be confiscated, censored, or inflated away to nothingness as useful speaks of your financial privilege.


H

For me, it's not so much that, it's more that I can't see most governments wanting to adopt it. They came off the gold standard for a reason so why should they go back on to an electronic equivalent? Without government adoption as legal currency it's difficult to see what role it has. Although I admit it's held up longer than I thought it would.

BoE

Recent events seem to suggest that your opinion isn't shared by all governments.

Many question a country with as little internet structure as the Central African Republic adopting Bitcoin, but you seemed to also mention gold. Didn't I recently hear that Zimbabwe was reintroducing gold.

Jason Tuvey, economist at Capital Economics, said it is a “slightly strange policy to introduce”.

“In Zimbabwe what they’re basically doing is going back to a type of gold standard as it were, whereby the money is backed by gold,” he said.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... collapses/

When researching that, I found that the idea was floated at least a decade ago and it's taken that long for them to decide to put it into practice.

Of course this won't be popular with the IMF.

In the late 1970s, the United States led an attempt to remove gold from the international monetary system. The Second Amendment of the International Monetary Fund’s articles was intended to achieve this aim by barring members from fixing their exchange rates to gold and removing the obligation on members to conduct transactions in gold at the officially mandated price.

https://www.gold.org/official-instituti ... agreements

Moving to a different country, Argentina's inflation has AVERAGED 190% since 1944.
It's citizens really need a currency that it's government can't fiddle with. The IMF agreed yet another loan to the country recently, on condition that they ban crypto.
https://www.pymnts.com/cryptocurrency/2 ... -policies/

Here is an interesting BBC article about crypto in Argentina.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60912789

[Hornblower]

That fact you don't see money that can't be confiscated, censored, or inflated away to nothingness as useful speaks of your financial privilege.


H

For me, it's not so much that, it's more that I can't see most governments wanting to adopt it. They came off the gold standard for a reason so why should they go back on to an electronic equivalent? Without government adoption as legal currency it's difficult to see what role it has. Although I admit it's held up longer than I thought it would.

BoE

They definitely DON'T want to adopt it. The game theory suggests they'll be forced to in competition with other governments, and as people lose faith in their fiat sh*tcoins.

El Salvador gov gave away some of their autonomy in adopting bitcoin as their currency, rather than using fiat that they control. But, they were using the US dollar anyway since their currency collapsed 20 years ago. They have calculated they'll benefit more from using a currency with a predictable inflation rate that no-one controls, over one a foreign (sometimes hostile) country controls.

I'd expect more Central American countries will make the same calculation over the next year or two. The IMF is already screaming blue murder about the 'dangers' (the danger of course is of the US having less control & influence).

Also the 6 countries that use the Central African Franc are definitely going to be incentivised to switch, the French have systematically exploited them through this currency they control for the past 70+ years. Hence why the Central African Republic became the second country to adopt bitcoin as official currency.


H

[Hornblower]

Moving to a different country, Argentina's inflation has AVERAGED 190% since 1944.
It's citizens really need a currency that it's government can't fiddle with. The IMF agreed yet another loan to the country recently, on condition that they ban crypto.
https://www.pymnts.com/cryptocurrency/2 ... -policies/

Here is an interesting BBC article about crypto in Argentina.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60912789

That one act by the IMF should have told you everything you need to know about their intentions. They only gave the loan (that will of course never be paid back, just like the 6 before it) on condition the Argentinian people were trapped into using their fiat sh*tcoin. Why, I wonder, was the IMF adamant that Argie citizens should be unable to hold bitcoin?

*stage whisper* Because they aren't the good guys they make themselves out to be

The amusing thing is that they can't stop bitcoin adoption by the people. The most they can do is slow it down by banning centralised exchanges, but there are always ways around this...people can just cut out the middle man and trade peer-to-peer on something like Bisq network, or simply just do it in person. That's the point, if governments could stop people using bitcoin then it would have failed.

H

[Hornblower]

Then again: "Money that can't be confiscated". My understanding is more than one person has found that to be false, or does 'confiscation' (via theft, with no state compensation) by non-state operators not count?

Whoever possesses the private key, owns the bitcoin.

There was a case recently of some scammer who had been jailed for some online fraud or blackmail scheme where he had amassed $60 million worth of bitcoin. The newspaper article spoke of the police in his country 'confiscating' his bitcoin, but that he wouldn't reveal the password.

This is poor journalism and/or lack of technical expertise by the police. We still think of the bitcoin being 'on' some device that they had impounded...maybe a hardware wallet, or just a wallet on a hard-drive. But it's not on or in the device, it's in the network. As long as the guy has remembered his bitcoin seed phrase (12 or 24 words), he just needs to hop on a plane to a new jurisdiction, buy a new hardware wallet & boom...he has control of the $60M.

You can certainly be tricked out of your bitcoin, or forced to give it up through threats or violence, but that's not 'confiscation' & there are ways to mitigate against this (for example by requiring several people to authorise a transaction, so called 'multi-sig').

H

[Bubblesofearth]

Recent events seem to suggest that your opinion isn't shared by all governments.

Which is why I was careful to say 'most governments'.

When currencies fail it is because the underlying economy is failing. Zimbabwe and Argentina have been good examples of this. It wouldn't actually make a blind bit of difference what currency a country with a failing economy adopts, the economy is still failing. They will either end up with hyperinflation of their own currency or an inability to afford to pay wages and debts in a foreign currency/gold/bitcoin.

BoE

[Urbandreamer]

Recent events seem to suggest that your opinion isn't shared by all governments.

Which is why I was careful to say 'most governments'.

When currencies fail it is because the underlying economy is failing. Zimbabwe and Argentina have been good examples of this. It wouldn't actually make a blind bit of difference what currency a country with a failing economy adopts, the economy is still failing. They will either end up with hyperinflation of their own currency or an inability to afford to pay wages and debts in a foreign currency/gold/bitcoin.

BoE

I confess that I thought you were arguing that countries would not wish to give up monetary control as it allows them to influence the economy.

The normal Kaynesian argument is that economic activity is encouraged or constrained by the availability of money to perform that activity.

Now you seem to be claiming that their failing economy is outside of such control.

Of course Austrian economists might argue that the problem is actually how governments use/abuse that control. That it is the abuse that leads to serious problems and that evidence seems to show that it's difficult to not fall into abuse. The solution is to remove the ability to abuse money from government control.

Both Zimbabwe and Argentina have in the past had booming economies.

I don't want to get political, but there have, in the past, been arguments made that the problem with communist countries economies is the lack of the profit motive. I think that it can be argued that profits you can't keep because the government won't let you do so can be just as much a problem.

It's possible that Zimbabwe may see positive results in allowing their citizens to keep the wealth that they work for.

[Bubblesofearth]

I confess that I thought you were arguing that countries would not wish to give up monetary control as it allows them to influence the economy.

The normal Kaynesian argument is that economic activity is encouraged or constrained by the availability of money to perform that activity.

Now you seem to be claiming that their failing economy is outside of such control.

Of course Austrian economists might argue that the problem is actually how governments use/abuse that control. That it is the abuse that leads to serious problems and that evidence seems to show that it's difficult to not fall into abuse. The solution is to remove the ability to abuse money from government control.

Both Zimbabwe and Argentina have in the past had booming economies.

I don't want to get political, but there have, in the past, been arguments made that the problem with communist countries economies is the lack of the profit motive. I think that it can be argued that profits you can't keep because the government won't let you do so can be just as much a problem.

It's possible that Zimbabwe may see positive results in allowing their citizens to keep the wealth that they work for.

There may be many reasons an economy fails. Some will be caused by government mismanagement and others may be outside government control. An example of the former could be mismanagement of farmland for a country dependent on farming. An example of the latter could be severe drought leading to decimation of such farmland. What currency is being used will not have a material effect on this failure. Adoption of bitcoin will not help.

My point here is that quoting countries that have experienced hyperinflation as examples of where bitcoin would have been better than fiat is a flawed argument. I don't think it provides any evidence that most governments will either want to, or be forced to, adopt bitcoin.

BoE

[Hornblower]

I confess that I thought you were arguing that countries would not wish to give up monetary control as it allows them to influence the economy.

The normal Kaynesian argument is that economic activity is encouraged or constrained by the availability of money to perform that activity.

Now you seem to be claiming that their failing economy is outside of such control.

Of course Austrian economists might argue that the problem is actually how governments use/abuse that control. That it is the abuse that leads to serious problems and that evidence seems to show that it's difficult to not fall into abuse. The solution is to remove the ability to abuse money from government control.

Both Zimbabwe and Argentina have in the past had booming economies.

I don't want to get political, but there have, in the past, been arguments made that the problem with communist countries economies is the lack of the profit motive. I think that it can be argued that profits you can't keep because the government won't let you do so can be just as much a problem.

It's possible that Zimbabwe may see positive results in allowing their citizens to keep the wealth that they work for.

There may be many reasons an economy fails. Some will be caused by government mismanagement and others may be outside government control. An example of the former could be mismanagement of farmland for a country dependent on farming. An example of the latter could be severe drought leading to decimation of such farmland. What currency is being used will not have a material effect on this failure. Adoption of bitcoin will not help.

My point here is that quoting countries that have experienced hyperinflation as examples of where bitcoin would have been better than fiat is a flawed argument. I don't think it provides any evidence that most governments will either want to, or be forced to, adopt bitcoin.

BoE

I think you are wrong. You're almost saying that the underlying economy has no connection to what the government does with its currency. This is demonstrably false. That there are multiple countries (such as Zimbabwe & El Salvador) that adopted the US dollar as their currency after their own failed should show you that. The economics Prof Steve Hanke (no fan of Bitcoin) is always proposing that countries adopt a dollar standard to stop runaway inflation.

If I'm a small businessman being paid for my services in Pesos that my gov/central bank is mismanaging, & these Pesos are devaluing 50% a year....it cripples my business & ability to invest for the future. That should be obvious. A failing currency is always tied to a failing economy. There isn't a single example of a flourishing economy while the local currency used was rapidly devaluing.

If Zimbabwe gov requisitions vast amounts of private property, such as farmland, then ineptly & corruptly mismanages them, that affects the economy & the currency. If they print trillions of Zim dollars to pay for social programs that it ineptly & corruptly mismanages, then that dilutes the purchasing power of all the other Zim dollars out there.

By using the US dollar, these countries can avoid the worst excesses of gov....it constrains their actions (i.e they can't misallocate so much capital). This worked well in the past. However, it works rather less well when the US $ itself is being printed with abandon, causing 40 year highs in inflation rates. As a Zim or ES, you're TRUSTING the US to be fiscally responsible, rather than your own central bankers & politicians.

Hence why bitcoin is a superior solution, you don't need to trust anything except the maths.


H

[Itsallaguess]

If I'm a small businessman being paid for my services in Pesos that my gov/central bank is mismanaging, & these Pesos are devaluing 50% a year....it cripples my business & ability to invest for the future. That should be obvious. A failing currency is always tied to a failing economy. There isn't a single example of a flourishing economy while the local currency used was rapidly devaluing.

If Zimbabwe gov requisitions vast amounts of private property, such as farmland, then ineptly & corruptly mismanages them, that affects the economy & the currency. If they print trillions of Zim dollars to pay for social programs that it ineptly & corruptly mismanages, then that dilutes the purchasing power of all the other Zim dollars out there.

By using the US dollar, these countries can avoid the worst excesses of gov....it constrains their actions (i.e they can't misallocate so much capital). This worked well in the past. However, it works rather less well when the US $ itself is being printed with abandon, causing 40 year highs in inflation rates. As a Zim or ES, you're TRUSTING the US to be fiscally responsible, rather than your own central bankers & politicians.

Hence why bitcoin is a superior solution, you don't need to trust anything except the maths.

Hornblower quotes the Peso devaluing 50% a year as part of his argument for BitCoin, saying that BitCoin is a 'superior solution, where you don't need to trust anything except the maths', whilst inexplicably forgetting that BitCoin itself has lost over 50% of it's value in the last three months...

https://coinranking.com/coin/Qwsogvtv82FCd+bitcoin-btc

When a positive spin on BitCoin needs to persistently use the following comparators as a large part of their regular arguments, then I think people will see those desperate arguments for what they really are -

• Zimbabwe

• El Salvador

• Carillion

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[XFool]

My point here is that quoting countries that have experienced hyperinflation as examples of where bitcoin would have been better than fiat is a flawed argument. I don't think it provides any evidence that most governments will either want to, or be forced to, adopt bitcoin.

I think you are wrong. You're almost saying that the underlying economy has no connection to what the government does with its currency. This is demonstrably false. That there are multiple countries (such as Zimbabwe & El Salvador) that adopted the US dollar as their currency after their own failed should show you that. The economics Prof Steve Hanke (no fan of Bitcoin) is always proposing that countries adopt a dollar standard to stop runaway inflation.

Forgive me, haven't you just 'cancelled' your own argument?

[Hornblower]

Hornblower quotes the Peso devaluing 50% a year as part of his argument for BitCoin, saying that BitCoin is a 'superior solution, where you don't need to trust anything except the maths', whilst inexplicably forgetting that BitCoin itself has lost over 50% of it's value in the last three months...

https://coinranking.com/coin/Qwsogvtv82FCd+bitcoin-btc

When a positive spin on BitCoin needs to persistently use the following comparators as a large part of their regular arguments, then I think people will see those desperate arguments for what they really are -

• Zimbabwe

• El Salvador

• Carillion

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Moderator Message:
Text removed due to personal remarks against another poster. Please play the ball, not the man

Bitcoin's market cap is north of $400 billion. That I'd be promoting it on some obscure forum to a few dozen or hundred personal finance guys as an attempt to try & influence it's price is just silly.

Anyway, back to his recent post.

The fact that bitcoin is volatile over short timeframes is unfortunate, but that's the consequence of being an entirely new non state-controlled currency that's bootstrapping itself from zero 13 years ago to being as large as the Swedish Krona today. It will continue to be volatile in the short term until it reaches a large enough market cap. We are still in the 'price discovery' phase.

Ideally countries would be able to wait until the volatility has dampened down & bitcoin sits jostling with the Euro, Dollar & Yuan for that top slot. But until we get there, volatility will continue. Luckily the volatility trends to the upside. It's been growing on average 200% a year for the past decade, though with 70% drawdowns every few years.

The choice isn't ideal for a developing country: Stick with a perennially failing local currency, adopt the US $ and trust a third party not to ruin their currency (or impose sanctions or currency controls), or adopt bitcoin & trust maths rather than any self-interested third parties, but with high volatility.

El Salvador has opted for a hybrid: Both the US $ AND bitcoin are legal tender. It gives people the ability to transact in a US stablecoin (short term stable, long term losing value), and save in bitcoin (short term volatile, long term increasing in value)

Argentinians, after having experienced yet another hyperinflation several years ago tried to preserve their wealth in US $ denominated bank accounts. When the (next inevitable) financial crisis happened the gov seized the US $ and gave them pesos instead. Then the next day massively devalued the peso against the $. Holding an unconfiscatable, provably scarce, non-governmental money such as bitcoin in their own digital wallets would have protected them from this latest theft of their wealth. (you've got to seriously question the motives of an IMF that opposes this).

When a positive spin on BitCoin needs to persistently use the following comparators as a large part of their regular arguments, then I think people will see those desperate arguments for what they really are -

You really have to learn to communicate with others in a less confrontational way. I had an acquaintance with the same traits, a very competent developer, but he had such a hard time with interpersonal relationships.

They weren't 'comparators'. I'm attempting to explain to those interested how bitcoin adoption is playing out. My small way of trying to counter the poorly-researched 'journalism' in the FT & The Economist. The only mainstream UK media I've come across with a balanced view on bitcoin is Moneyweek. Countries on the fringes were ALWAYS going to be the first to adopt bitcoin, it's in their interest. The US will be one of the last, it's in their interest. I'm not trying to 'put a positive spin' on bitcoin by talking about obscure developing countries that may be adopting it, I'm explaining THIS is the signal. When the US started cutting countries off from the SWIFT network, and confiscating the reserves of Russia, that was a wake up call. They've declared that money is a political instrument. I believe that a growing number of countries (as seen beginning with ES & CAR) will begin removing the ability of the US empire (or the Euro, or the Yuan) to control them by moving to non-state money. ....& in the future it will be so obvious that we had to separate money & state, just like nowadays it's so obvious that we needed to separate church & state 500 years ago.

Several years ago I would have said no-one in the west needs bitcoin. Our currencies are solid. The only reason we might hold it is for speculation, or for political reasons...you just WANT a money free from gov control, but you don't NEED it. Your money holds its value, your debit card works everywhere you go. However we can now see it IS useful in the west for storing value while the inflation & money-printing rage (completely distorting every other market). In the developing world, the need for bitcoin is much more obvious...protection against local corruption/ineptitude & against foreign imperial powers and their agents like the IMF & World Bank.

H

[Hornblower]

My point here is that quoting countries that have experienced hyperinflation as examples of where bitcoin would have been better than fiat is a flawed argument. I don't think it provides any evidence that most governments will either want to, or be forced to, adopt bitcoin.

I think you are wrong. You're almost saying that the underlying economy has no connection to what the government does with its currency. This is demonstrably false. That there are multiple countries (such as Zimbabwe & El Salvador) that adopted the US dollar as their currency after their own failed should show you that. The economics Prof Steve Hanke (no fan of Bitcoin) is always proposing that countries adopt a dollar standard to stop runaway inflation.

Forgive me, haven't you just 'cancelled' your own argument?

Did you actually read my post?

[XFool]

My point here is that quoting countries that have experienced hyperinflation as examples of where bitcoin would have been better than fiat is a flawed argument. I don't think it provides any evidence that most governments will either want to, or be forced to, adopt bitcoin.

I think you are wrong. You're almost saying that the underlying economy has no connection to what the government does with its currency. This is demonstrably false. That there are multiple countries (such as Zimbabwe & El Salvador) that adopted the US dollar as their currency after their own failed should show you that. The economics Prof Steve Hanke (no fan of Bitcoin) is always proposing that countries adopt a dollar standard to stop runaway inflation.

Forgive me, haven't you just 'cancelled' your own argument?

Did you actually read my post?

I think so... My point was you are quoting somebody recommending a fiat currency (the US dollar) as a solution to serious inflation problems. But seem at the same time to be claiming that cryptos can save us from the risks of inflation caused by governments and fiat currencies.

Of course you may not agree with Prof Hanke. But then it seems strange that you quote him as part of the argument for cryptos.

[Urbandreamer]

When a positive spin on BitCoin needs to persistently use the following comparators as a large part of their regular arguments, then I think people will see those desperate arguments for what they really are -

• Zimbabwe

• El Salvador

• Carillion

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

For what it's worth, I think that I am the only one who has mentioned the last. Indeed any sensible person would question it's inclusion in that list lacking context as to why it's there. A formerly publicly quoted company that never invested in bitcoin?

OK, shall I add another country to the list, just for you.

What of Eritreaa?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-49727573

That was just from the top of my head from mentions in a recent Podcast.

I could do some research and find more countries, but is there much point?

Instead let me mention the Oslo Freedom forum.
You could investigate some of the countries that the speakers were exiled from (over half of the speakers) or imprisoned by

What has such a Human rights forum to do with Bitcoin? Well I think that the last few posts (and that BBC link) clearly show that bad government in control of the money produces bad results.

Try reading this by Nasdaq about the event.
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/how-bit ... edom-forum
You could also listen to some of the speakers.
This one is only 16min long and on the subject of money.
https://oslofreedomforum.com/talks/the- ... -of-money/

I seem to recall that I mentioned that Zimbabwe was using gold rather than bitcoin. My argument was about fiat and it's abuse, not a claim that bitcoin is best. I wish Zimbabwe well in it's new experiment with gold and hope that they succeed.