Fidelity Digital Assets™: ADDRESSING PERSISTING BITCOIN CRITICISMS

[RedDuke]

I have pointed out a legitimate use case for Bitcoin. It can be used as a store-of-value-of-last-resort. If the country's currency is failing (Venezuela) and there becomes a need to hide wealth from the government to avoid having it seized and take the wealth out of the country, Bitcoin might be the best option for doing that (holding an asset that swings 5% per days is preferable to holding a currency that could be worth less than toilet paper tomorrow). But to do that, you would need to have the private keys and not be invested in bitcoin through futures or have bought Bitcoin from another company that holds it for you. Similar argument for paper gold vs. physical gold. If you are not worried about the collapse of a government currency, gold is a safer option. If you are not worried about currency debasement, then there's no need to own gold, bitcoin, or any other store of value. Another argument for Bitcoin would be to circumvent a country's capital controls as China did a few years ago. I suspect when China unveils their digital currency, they will not want it to compete with Bitcoin and could ban holding Bitcoin.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Doug+Casey+Bitcion

https://www.zerohedge.com/crypto/bi...ions-will-outlaw-crypto-if-prices-keep-rising

sounds great, now remove USDT and alike and we can talk. Until then, it is all smoke and mirrors.

 

[Sprout]

99% of my posts are on the cryptocurrencies forum "Topics include Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple, Monero, Blockchain, ICO's, etc."

On the rare occasion I venture out of this forum, I don't mention bitcoin or cryptos except in Daal's journal where bitcoin is part of the discussion.

I admit I have been a little nuts in the past telling friends, coworkers and family about bitcoin but I don't do it now. Most of them that I still communicate with have told me they regretted not looking into it more. it's funny there were at least 2 people I have no recollection ever mentioning bitcoin to but it just shows how enthusiastic I was about bitcoin not even remembering talking about it to some people.

One day I'll stop posting on ET for the same reason I stopped talking about bitcoin irl, we're not really exchanging ideas here on this forum. I will try to say goodbye, though. I sometimes wonder how people like Hoi are doing and wish he made a goodbye post.

It’s just so difficult not to be excited by it when one has their ‘bitcoin fixes this’ moment.

Lot’s of folks will never have that moment.

The folks that do are envisioning a very different future.

Immutable Truth in an ‘Alternative facts’ world has value.
Verifiable Scarcity in a copy paste world has value.

 

[Pekelo]

Another argument for Bitcoin would be to circumvent a country's capital controls as China did a few years ago.

Sure. That is still illegal by definition. And not particularly good argument for investment.

The best argument is: It is going up, and others seem to like it.

 

[Sprout]

Sure. That is still illegal by definition. And not particularly good argument for investment.

The best argument is: It is going up, and others seem to like it.

Facts would indicate otherwise

 

[Pekelo]

Facts would indicate otherwise

Holy fuck, you are making a double mistake.

1. I was arguing that if something is against the law in a country, that is by definition, illegal.
2. Just because the dollar can be used illegally, that doesn't mean bitcoin can not be.

Really not that hard to get.

 

[Sprout]

I will correct the myth buster:

• 4. It is. Criminality is the most practical application of cryptos.

 

[Pekelo]

So we have a language problem here. The following 2 sentences don't mean the same:

1. Criminality is the most practical application of cryptos. (I said)
2. Cryptos are the most used application for criminality. (you understood)

 

[Sprout]

So we have a language problem here. The following 2 sentences don't mean the same:

1. Criminality is the most practical application of cryptos. (I said)
2. Cryptos are the most used application for criminality. (you understood)

The nuance you are alluding to is not lost on me.

 

[ET180]

Sure. That is still illegal by definition. And not particularly good argument for investment.

The best argument is: It is going up, and others seem to like it.

Agree. That's all true. However, unfortunately, legality does not necessarily imply morality. Although that probably sounds like some pathetic self-serving nonsense an antifa rioter would say as he smashes the window of a Foot Locker to grab a free pair of Jordans, I think it's true and at some point, I think (hope I'm wrong about this) you'll what to protect what others try to steal from you. The median household net worth in the US is around $97,300 (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/whats-your-net-worth-and-how-do-you-compare-to-others-2018-09-24). If your wealth is significantly higher than that, what stops the majority from simply voting away your wealth through wealth taxes? There are many ways for socialists to rationalize doing that. They can simply make it illegal for anyone to have a net worth of more than $97,300. At that point, I can see a use case for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies to be a last-resort for preserving wealth. But if Bitcoin significantly starts to compete with fiat, governments will most likely ban it or make it difficult to own / trade.

 

[Sprout]

Agree. That's all true. However, unfortunately, legality does not necessarily imply morality. Although that probably sounds like some pathetic self-serving nonsense an antifa rioter would say as he smashes the window of a Foot Locker to grab a free pair of Jordans, I think it's true and at some point, I think (hope I'm wrong about this) you'll what to protect what others try to steal from you. The median household net worth in the US is around $97,300 (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/whats-your-net-worth-and-how-do-you-compare-to-others-2018-09-24). If your wealth is significantly higher than that, what stops the majority from simply voting away your wealth through wealth taxes? There are many ways for socialists to rationalize doing that. They can simply make it illegal for anyone to have a net worth of more than $97,300. At that point, I can see a use case for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies to be a last-resort for preserving wealth. But if Bitcoin significantly starts to compete with fiat, governments will most likely ban it or make it difficult to own / trade.

Bitcoin has more lives than a cat. It’s cut it’s teeth in an adversarial environment, is permissionless and distributed.

Given the failure of the ‘war on drugs’, governments could certainly try but they won’t stop anyone from owning some if they want to own some.

https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoin-obituaries/