Got an overview, I don't have 30min to spare? I assume casey is in the gold camp and the other bloke in the Bitcoin camp. I can work out casey's position on bitcoins but as to how the other guy answers casey's criticisms of the bitcoins would baffle me.
Not really. It's very free-flowing so hard to summarise. Casey is not really against Btc, more like he is struggling to understand it. The other guy is not against Gold he just thinks, as I do, that btc is the next evolution in money. It's a friendly conversation. Worth listening to.
I guess that's the problem. it won't evolve into money until my generation and older are dead. We will never view it as money.
Guess that depends on how old you are. There's an entire generation coming of age now who have never known a world without the internet. Think about that. And ask them what they know of Gold. Or money in general. Most people just want something that works. And nothing has the potential to be more fluid in it's working right now than btc.
And further think about the situation in the US. The young are being screwed by the old via the currency. How much respect do you think they will have for the US dollar when more and more demands are made on the govt via SS and Medicare and the government more and more looks to borrowing and inflation to pay for it. If there is a way out of that do you think they won't take it? And do you think Gold and Silver might just be seen as something used by dinosaurs? Bet on the future. That's my mantra.
I agree with the generational thing, and that is a key sticking point in older people accepting BTC as money, or being coerced into accepting it as money. If the latter comes into fruition then BTC will not be money, it'll be a fiat currency, no different in shape or form to that which we currently have, subject to the same issues we now are facing. I have a dozen reasons why I can't accept them as the way forward, some of them rational, some rooted in my belief they are the product of "child's play". Because of these reasons I have, if we do move to crypto-currencies then it will be a regressive move, rather than progressive. Edit to add: the old are also getting screwed by fiat currency hawkeye.
^ Fair point about the old getting screwed, but I think you get my meaning. I'm not saying it will necessarily replace it, I just think a lot of wealth will move to it. With regards to the generational thing, it's hard to think back to when we were young (yeah I'm nearing 40 now), but that's the way we thought, so it's useful to put yourself in their shoes occasionally and not get too caught up in your own generation that you completely ignore what's happening in theirs. Especially now they are starting to build their own wealth. I'm still hoping on Gold and Silver although doubts are entering my mind. My assumption at this point is that the metals will have one last hurrah and that will likely be it and the world will move on.
I do get your meaning hawkeye, I think the best way forward for currencies is to move to physical - currently our fiat system is physical (albeit dodgy physical), however the majority of currency movements are electronic (and that is basically the only way young people operate) and this is the imminent danger we face, both at the present with our current electronic banking system and in the future if we move to crypto-currencies. The further removed we become from physical, the more screwed we all can be. Little snippets of the future have happened regularly in Qld over the past 2-3 years after each major natural disaster as a reminder to all to not have faith in the electronic funding of our lives. Edit to add: Remember that we put dead people in Crypts.
I am not that old, and I don't understand bitcoins either. I supposed I am with mmm...shiney! In that regards. Question, what if bitcoins are backed by gold. Is that even possible? What will become of bitcoins? And what will become of gold?
Yeah, that is an interesting point you bring up. There is two aspects to what you are saying (I think) and that is 1 , the banking failures (atm failures, etc) and 2 natural disasters. Wrt 1, the decentralized nature of btc basically makes that a moot point. It is like the equivalent of relying on one server to crash or the whole internet to crash. Servers can and do crash. The internet as a whole has never gone down. wrt 2, I think we are talking about when electricity goes down. However, there is the point that more and more it will be handheld battery devices, mobile phones etc. That batteries themselves will be minimised more so there will more and more be the possibility of battery backups for main systems. Combine with more pervasive and cheaper satellite communications and it might almost become a non-issue, even during major disasters. I think some wealth in hard physical form will always be a good idea though.
Yep. And of course there is the third possibility (which makes 1 and 2 good practice for preppers) - governments declaring war on their citizens or an economic collapse - also known as a Zombie Apocalypse. I read an article recently that bitcoins are uniting the left wing techno-anarchists with the the right-wing cave dwelling gold bugs. Now leaving aside the outdated use of the terms left and right wing, and the incorrect assumption that gold bugs are right-wing cave dwellers - cave dwellers yes, right wing hardly (and i don't have a clue about techno-anarchists), herein lies the duality of bitcoins as a symbol of Libertarianism - which is my major concern. As far as I understand it, in order to access/trade your wealth, you must be on the grid. If you are reliant on the grid you cannot have liberty. It could be an even worse system than the one we currently have as far as limiting personal liberty. Thoughts hawk? (Or others)
@hawkeye I'm watching it now making notes up to 3:31. I'm in the Casey camp so I won't respond to his points, only Motonis'. Casey: Bitcoins have currency value but not intrinsic value, unlike Ag/Au which have the runs on the board. Motonis: First point takes the issue of electrical/internet interruption off the table because it generally won't happen and if it does you'll have more pressing issues than accessing your Bitcoin. He just wants to discuss intrinsic value. shiney!: In the event that we have electrical/internet interruption, whilst accessing your Bitcoin may not be your highest priority, having a store of physical wealth that you can access would certainly reduce your stress levels in the event of a breakdown in what we view as the status quo. Bitcoins cannot replace that physical store.
To 6:27 (this could get tedious lol) Motonis: Bitcoin doesn't have ongoing market manipulation, and Bitcoins can play a role in the transfer of wealth in the same way as gold/silver may do in the future. Casey: There is no market manipulation, happy to see Bitcoins as an alternative fiat currency, concerned that alternatives to Bitcoins eg Lightcoins etc may end up diluting the market. shiney!: I'm not a market manipulation believer either, and I think we will only be certain Bitcoins can play the same role as gold (I've purposely left silver out of this) is once we've had a catastrophe and witnessed Bitcoins actually performing this task. If during the catastrophe bitcoins are considered precious and are able to be traded, then there is every chance it will have performed that role. But we won't know until it happens. ^i 3< ? Gotta go shopping for chicken nuggets.
I'm happy someone appreciates it. More to come, when I get the time (I'm a better reader than listener, it's why I'm not a fan of youtube stuff), hopefully when hawkeye checks back in it won't be too overwhelming and he'll be able to share his Bitcoin knowledge to clarify any details. Edit to add: you weren't referring to me were you? :lol:
Well, unless you are completely self-sufficient we are all reliant on the grid to some point. I won't ever be completely self-sufficient nor do I have any desire to be (wastes too much of my time and resources when other people can do these things more efficiently, division of labour and all that). I don't think that makes you unfree. It's the government control over the grid that does that. Whether bitcoin helps with this situation remains to be seen but it is versatile and there are a lot of smart people out there working on these things. I thought I addressed this in the post above. I don't know what you mean when you say catastrophe. For some people missing their favourite TV show is a catastrophe, for others only the end of civilization qualifies. What kind of catastrophe are we talking about?
Yes, which is why adopting a virtual currency is a further move away from liberty, not toward it. A return to a gold standard (actual real physical wealth) with a fungible form of legal currencies (eg private bank receipts, even gold backed legal tender) is a step toward liberty, to hold it and access it you need do no more than hold it in your hand or put it in your pocket. It is tangible, not solely contained inside some system. You addressed the unlikelihood or short term nature of it happening, you did not acknowledge that the presence of some physical store of wealth would help reduce the number of worries you might have in the event of an outage. For example if you are concerned say about where your next meal will come from, having real money would certainly alleviate a lot of your worries. You did mention that a physical store of wealth would be important, well if there is no place for gold as you stated in an earlier post, then physical stores of wealth become ponderous - which is why gold and silver have been the most effective money systems we've had, as opposed to hiho's goats and wives. War. Gold saved many jewish lives before and during WW2. It has a proven track record, it has guarded the liberty of millions, Bitcoins have not been tested in that market yet. Edt to add: did I mention gold has also been one of the root causes of the destruction of liberty as well? Greed more precisely. The Yin and Yang of it all.
I didn't say there wasn't a place for gold. I said it wasn't needed in the bitcoin ecosystem. A good analogy for this is the world we live in. Most people use cash and gold isn't really essential. But we all know it's still useful at some level. However, there are significant problems with cash, especially now we are doing more and more trade online. Bitcoin is more a replacement for cash than it is for gold. Some people think we would be better off going to the gold standard but I've always been wary of that because it is still in the govt's hands. Bitcoin solves that problem in my mind. I don't know if Bitcoin will become a store of wealth or not. But Gold is not the only store of wealth either as we all know. If you think about it there is quite a diverse range of physical options people use to store their wealth. None of them are guaranteed to, not even Gold as we all know it's record from the early 80's to 2000. So, to see if I can sum this up, I think having money controlled by the state is one of the major forces driving the loss of liberty. I don't think Gold or a Gold Standard are going to solve this, because people aren't going to go back to transacting in gold (or silver) coins en masse and the government can't be trusted with a gold standard. Should you store all your wealth in virtual currencies? No. But I do think they will be superior at holding their value (once the initial volatility is overcome and they are in more hands) than cash would and they are superior to cash in almost about every way. So, yes, when it comes to disasters of all kinds, it is definitely best to have some physical assets on hand. I don't think we disagree on this fact. I think what we do disagree on is what should replace cash and that is the case I make for bitcoin. Hope that addresses your points.
