Why is Bitcoin stagnant right now?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: tanstaafl
Let me know when that actually happens and it gets adopted.

Why are you so focused on whether or not it is a legal tender/currency? I will use whatever I want to use, whether it is barter, BTC, Lightning, or TP - and I can buy something with BTC right now,

No one is going to certify that as an actual payment scheme at this point so it will remain niche.

Yeah, except you're wrong yet again... and I understand Paypal is very close to enabling BTC as an option when paying for something. A bit behind the curve today, are we?

Glad I'm not some bozo who put in money when it was $65,000, or $50,000, or $30,000 or even lower because the Bitcoin pump and dumpers made that money.

Yes... and those who bought it at $32 before it crashed down to $.01 probably felt pretty sad - until it rebounded up to $65k. Only the ones who sold it ended up losing. Same for all of the ups and downs, whether BTC, or any other commodity.

Anyone who bought BTC at $65k hasn't lost anything unless they sell it before it rebounds... and yes, I'll even allow your inevitable retort of 'but what if it goes to zero', and admit that, like an Extinction Level Event asteroid hitting the planet, anything is possible.

And when BTC hits $100,000, or $500,000, or $1,000,000, those who bought it at $65k will be feeling pretty good about things, don't-cha-know.

you need entire server farms to process the exchanges and it uses as much energy as several countries.

And yet, these server farms are actually profitable - or they wouldn't be using them.

Sorry amigo, but that is not a 'drain' on the infrastructure, that is known as a boost for the infrastructure.

Ain't capitalism great?

Blah, blah, blah, Lightning. Maybe it will work as well as Terra which fell apart due to volatility. Good thing Bitcoin isn't volatile.

Disruptive technologies are often quite volatile.

Ain't capitalism great?

Failed as in it cannot be used easily

It's not as easy as Mastercard - yet, but it's easy enough, and getting easier every day.

Patience dear grasshopper.

and it's antiquated.

Antiquated? A commodity that cannot be inflated, hacked (yet), controlled by major corporations or governments... yeah, how quaint that is.

a reply to: tanstaafl

What's missing to make any current crypto a real, deep currency: a bond market, and not an internal one (where coins are loaned vs coins) but based on off-chain income and real-world collateral, like mortgages & real estate.

At the moment it's an electronically transmissible scarce commodity. I have a some but economically it functions as a volatile commodity. Who will give out a 30 year loan in bitcoin? Nobody. The point is that bitcoin or any other crypto becomes money simultaneously with the point it becomes a bad investment. US dollars are bad investments, which is why they are the denominator in every actual investment, and therefore money.

It is illogical to imagine that bitcoin will be going up to a million USD and simultaneously to think that it will be used and held for payments and as currencies. Those two outcomes will not happen simultaneously. For payments, US dollars on a secure digital ledger is great. (I personally think Algorand has the best underlying technology and dev team of any cryptosystem overall). For monetary buy and hold, bitcoin is a potentially good choice.

I'd be buying lithium more than crypto if I could but that's not so easy. Mining equities are very risky, too much so.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Why are you so focused on whether or not it is a legal tender/currency?

Because that's what the creator called it, the opinions of the Bitcoin fan bois are irrelevant. It is a trash currency, it failed.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: tanstaafl
Because that's what the creator called it,

That was one line in his entire treatise, and it certainly was not being presented as something that would ultimately replace the US Dollar.

the opinions of the Bitcoin fan bois are irrelevant. It is a trash currency, it failed.

Thankfully, your opinion is both wrong, and irrelevant to the reality that people use it every day.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: tanstaafl
Because that's what the creator called it,

That was one line in his entire treatise, and it certainly was not being presented as something that would ultimately replace the US Dollar.

It's very clear it was intended as electronic cash in 2009. That's not really feasible now as opposed to a low-to-nonlinflationary commodity.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
That was one line in his entire treatise...

Which you choose to ignore out of convenience.

Thankfully, your opinion is both wrong, and irrelevant to the reality that people use it every day.

My opinion is a reality, it is a horrible currency and the fact that it doesn't have major adoption due to its volatility, latency and the generally poor ability to use it effortlessly proves this.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: tanstaafl
That was one line in his entire treatise...

Which you choose to ignore out of convenience.

Nope, just disagreeing with your total focus on it as if it means he meant replacing the entire system (federal reserve/FRNs/debt-based currency) with it...

My opinion is a reality,

You said it was unusable as a currency. You have been proven wrong. You continue to claim otherwise.

Big surprise...

it is a horrible currency and the fact that it doesn't have major adoption due to its volatility, latency and the generally poor ability to use it effortlessly proves this.

Except that is all wrong, lightning eliminates the cost and latency issues, and is in fact being used even by PayPal.

Does it hurt? Being you I mean?

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Nope, just disagreeing with your total focus on it as if it means he meant replacing the entire system (federal reserve/FRNs/debt-based currency) with it...

Who brought that up? That's an even stupider pipedream than thinking it's a viable currency at all.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: tanstaafl
Who brought that up?

I could have sworn you did, but maybe it was someone else who is also clueless about BTC...

That's an even stupider pipedream than thinking it's a viable currency at all.

And you continue to prove you are firmly in that camp - you know, since it already is a fully functional (and therefore viable) medium of exchange (aka 'currency' in the normal meaning of the term)...

originally posted by: tanstaafl
I could have sworn you did...

Nope, If I did you'd have a quote, but you don't.

And you continue to prove you are firmly in that camp - you know, since it already is a fully functional (and therefore viable) medium of exchange (aka 'currency' in the normal meaning of the term)...

Someone could take a handful of colored rocks from me in exchange, that makes it a perfectly viable currency but still a s***** one like Bitcoin.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: tanstaafl
If I did you'd have a quote, but you don't.

Actually, I just don't care enough to go back and dig it up...

Someone could take a handful of colored rocks from me in exchange, that makes it a perfectly viable currency but still a s***** one like Bitcoin.

And again, more ridiculous nonsensical invalid comparisons to make you feel better about yourself.

God, it must really hurt something awful...

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Actually, I just don't care enough to go back and dig it up...

Like I figured, you made it up.

And again, more ridiculous nonsensical invalid comparisons to make you feel better about yourself.

I love that you claim Bitcoin isn't a currency but is a good currency at the same time.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
And you continue to prove you are firmly in that camp - you know, since it already is a fully functional (and therefore viable) medium of exchange (aka 'currency' in the normal meaning of the term)...

Imagine if you had a 'medium of exchange' that lost more than half it's value over the course of a year due to uncontrollable volatility? Only a jackass would use that to purchase goods and services.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
I wouldn't be surprised to see BTC in the 20's before we see a real recovery.

Wow, it's like you might actually know what you're talking about or something.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: tanstaafl
And you continue to prove you are firmly in that camp - you know, since it already is a fully functional (and therefore viable) medium of exchange (aka 'currency' in the normal meaning of the term)...

Imagine if you had a 'medium of exchange' that lost more than half it's value over the course of a year due to uncontrollable volatility? Only a jackass would use that to purchase goods and services.

Yup.

I wonder how many people with Crypto that in dire straights trying to pay their bills with it finding out that their mortgage companies, and utility companies don’t accept Crypto as a form of payment. Oh and that $5.00 gas down at the station only accepts credit or cash.

Can’t even buy a bicycle with Bitcoin here.

a reply to: 38181

The even bigger piece is that it was supposed to be a hedge against inflation but it took a massive Amber Heard and lost more than half its value.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: tanstaafl
Imagine if you had a 'medium of exchange' that lost more than half it's value over the course of a year due to uncontrollable volatility? Only a jackass would use that to purchase goods and services.

Imagine a medium of exchange that was a) not under the control of any government or (unaccountable) non-government individual or group, b) impossible to inflate, c) impossible to expropriate from the masses all at once, and d) almost impossible to expropriate from any single individual (or group) against their will.

Imagine you were totally clueless about a subject but repeatedly yammered and bleated as if you knew more than you did exposing your ignorance for all to see.

Yes BC is volatile. It is still in its infancy. It is called a disruptive innovation - in this case with regard to money, one that has the potential to completely free the people of the world from the control and machinations of those who believe they are better than everyone else - aka 'the elite'.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: 38181

The even bigger piece is that it was supposed to be a hedge against inflation but it took a massive Amber Heard and lost more than half its value.

Only if you're an idiot and sell it.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: 38181

The even bigger piece is that it was supposed to be a hedge against inflation but it took a massive Amber Heard and lost more than half its value.

Theres part of the cultural argument. They/we wanted it to be a hedge while many, some the same as above, wanted that institutional money for those "sweet gains bro!!!"

Not realizing what comes with it....that being correlation with the markets.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Imagine a medium of exchange that was a) not under the control of any government or (unaccountable) non-government individual or group, b) impossible to inflate, c) impossible to expropriate from the masses all at once, and d) almost impossible to expropriate from any single individual (or group) against their will.

Let me know when that exists and then we can talk.