First of all, you clearly missed a boat so we're not buying a Lambo when it was 12k.
The point was that Bitcoin is not a digital fiat currency.
White House: Biden Will Veto Bitcoin Legislation
- Thread starter schizo
- Start date
First of all, you clearly missed a boat so we're not buying a Lambo when it was 12k.
The point was that Bitcoin is not a digital fiat currency.
Haha.... I must say, aside from your dietary genius, your wit comes in at a (somewhat) close second. Those are the only reasons I tolerate you. And you're a dog lover. Other than that...
Had you bought a Lamborghini with gold in 2001, it was $400/ounce+/-. A new Lamborghini Diablo was about $250K. Gold is up 500% plus since then, and that same Lamborghini is on Ebay today for 1/2 its msrp. Not sure I follow what you're saying here. I don't see the relationship.
First, normal people buy things with cash, not with gold or Bitcoin. Second, OK, I will explain it again:
A highly appreciating currency can not function as a form of payment, because it encourages hording. (Remember coiners encourage you to invest, not to spend it?) Why would you buy a chair/Lambo with bitcoin, if bitcoin will be worth twice as much in a year, thus you are overpaying for that chair by 100%. You are better of holding/hoarding that bitcoin, but if everybody does that, the economy can't function. That is why societies prefer a slight inflation, because that encourages spending.
I agree with what you're saying... there's a cartoon of a guy jumping out of an 80 floor sky-scraper window because his bitcoin crashed, only to see it had doubled, as on the way down he glanced in at a TV on the 20th floor.
This is one of those threads that at least one or two posters are either on ignore or have me on ignore, so I am probably missing out on important points being made... but was it contended that BTC was a currency? I thought the general consensus was it was "a store of value", not unlike gold or any other sought after and highly limited asset. I can't use a Picasso as currency either. But I can cash it in for $'s when it goes up.
Saylor is brilliant and one of the things I appreciate is how he explains things in simple to understand terms for me who is very much less brilliant
Bitcoin as energy money, a store of energy (value), a batter of some sort that has no leakage or degradation over time
Let's say a person owns a power plant in Kenya that produces energy from a water fall, say 10 jigawatts easily, but there is no market for him to sell that much power
He cannot transport the energy to a Google data center somewhere in the US (over space)
He cannot transport the energy for a business he wishes to start in 5 years (over time)
But let's say he partners with a Chinese bitcoin farmer that is able to mine 1 bitcoin on average per day, and he gets 0.1 btc as payment per day
In 200 days, he has 20 bitcoins, the energy (value) from the power plant has been stored
He can move to Dubai and bring the energy stored in those 20 btc's (across space)
In 5 years he decides to release the energy stored in those 20 btc's by cashing out and starting a business (across time)
I think this is where we have to disagree. You can store value, yes, but you can't store that energy. He can't exactly plug in his electric stove and make a meal from that energy. You could use the value in the bitcoins to buy energy from someone, but that's about it. Stored value is something completely different than stored energy in a battery for example.
Seriously, that's the reason you give as to the why for BTC?!?
Yes, technically you are correct, it's not exactly storing energy and transporting across space and time
How would you store and transport $1M worth of stranded unwanted energy that is in Kenya to Dubai 5 years from now?
Can you do it with batteries? Is that efficient, how much battery you will need and the cost? There's leakage over the course of 5 years
Wait, am I not understanding this correctly? How is that Chinese BTC farmer going to get the electricity he needs? Either he has to go set up shop in Kenya or the energy provider needs to run a cable to China... Neither are a real option.
Today there's a clear understanding that green energy suppliers aren't necessarily close to where they are needed. Advances in underwater, long distance electric cables are showing promises and creating great opportunities in countries that were until very recently considered dead zones, like deserts. But the demand for energy is now exponential compared to even 20 years ago, and BTC is openly competing with AI for it, and I don't see BTC winning that war. But I'm not sure how that will impact BTC as a speculative investment.