NWR Selling bitcoin

Every time I have the cash discussion with someone, it always comes down to not wanting to lose the privacy that cash offers. What other reasons are there other than nostalgia and a lack of card payment facilities?
I can think of one....the existence of cash is a buffer against the threat of negative interest rates (so long as you are willing to take the risk when you stuff it in the attic).

It's the only reason I can think of, but it's arguably a "biggie".
 
Thread drift... although obviously energy efficiency is a healthy goal for all digital activities with bitcoin being the worst offender.
Ref cash, governments also have the ability to debase currencies... as for private currencies, they are opened to all manipulation (see Musk and bitcoins...) and dynamics are much quicker than governments ...
 
The ability to avoid financial repression. Governments were thinking of just taking your money away when it is deposited digitally by removing a few per cent to encourage you to spend it and not save it. All done at the stroke of a few keys. And why should the government be able to track every transaction you make down to the very last detail? That's a huge loss of privacy. Governments have always destroyed the value of money and making it digital makes that even easier.

I have to apologise for the question I asked of cash, I did so because I thought it would yield this sort of answer from someone.

It's intensely ironic to me because everything you've named (and the issue Johnny named actually) are all challenges that leveraging blockchain technology in the form of a currency protect against in a far more secure, predictable and open manner than cash ever could. It was these sorts of issues that motivated this invention in the first place. It's also why there are large groups of people who are very committed to the potential benefits of things like Bitcoin - they're very good at protecting the individual's wealth against a larger financial insitution that has nefarious intentions.

Extensive real use of more stable cryptos across Latin America shows this - so to Jeremy's point earlier about protecting against hyperinflation being a minority usage - it's not really a one off in one country.

Anyway, I'm not sure me contributing to this thread is all that useful anymore as we're trending towards a discussion around moral authority over what is and isn't a good use of energy which is dangerously political, and its clear my view on this has the potential to ruffle the feathers of people I very much consider friends. As I've said time and time again - I'm not a cryptocurrency acolyte. I merely feel strongly about debunking hype and myth in public forums - I apologise if anyone feels I've been antagonistic. For the record, I am far from relaxed about cryptocurrency's impact, definitely not a climate change denier and I could not be more of a proponent of vaccines.
 
I have to apologise for the question I asked of cash, I did so because I thought it would yield this sort of answer from someone.

It's intensely ironic to me because everything you've named (and the issue Johnny named actually) are all challenges that leveraging blockchain technology in the form of a currency protect against in a far more secure, predictable and open manner than cash ever could. It was these sorts of issues that motivated this invention in the first place. It's also why there are large groups of people who are very committed to the potential benefits of things like Bitcoin - they're very good at protecting the individual's wealth against a larger financial insitution that has nefarious intentions.

Extensive real use of more stable cryptos across Latin America shows this - so to Jeremy's point earlier about protecting against hyperinflation being a minority usage - it's not really a one off in one country.

Anyway, I'm not sure me contributing to this thread is all that useful anymore as we're trending towards a discussion around moral authority over what is and isn't a good use of energy which is dangerously political, and its clear my view on this has the potential to ruffle the feathers of people I very much consider friends. As I've said time and time again - I'm not a cryptocurrency acolyte. I merely feel strongly about debunking hype and myth in public forums - I apologise if anyone feels I've been antagonistic. For the record, I am far from relaxed about cryptocurrency's impact, definitely not a climate change denier and I could not be more of a proponent of vaccines.
I know, Julian, and your contributions are always worthwhile, even when our views diverge. Although I'm not sure they diverge that far in principle even if they do in some specifics.
 
Last edited:
Of course the lack of (dirty) money being manually handled and of course the cost of producing coins and notes is a major saving. Surely the days of cash are numbered.
 
I have to apologise for the question I asked of cash, I did so because I thought it would yield this sort of answer from someone.

It's intensely ironic to me because everything you've named (and the issue Johnny named actually) are all challenges that leveraging blockchain technology in the form of a currency protect against in a far more secure, predictable and open manner than cash ever could. It was these sorts of issues that motivated this invention in the first place. It's also why there are large groups of people who are very committed to the potential benefits of things like Bitcoin - they're very good at protecting the individual's wealth against a larger financial insitution that has nefarious intentions.

Extensive real use of more stable cryptos across Latin America shows this - so to Jeremy's point earlier about protecting against hyperinflation being a minority usage - it's not really a one off in one country.

Anyway, I'm not sure me contributing to this thread is all that useful anymore as we're trending towards a discussion around moral authority over what is and isn't a good use of energy which is dangerously political, and its clear my view on this has the potential to ruffle the feathers of people I very much consider friends. As I've said time and time again - I'm not a cryptocurrency acolyte. I merely feel strongly about debunking hype and myth in public forums - I apologise if anyone feels I've been antagonistic. For the record, I am far from relaxed about cryptocurrency's impact, definitely not a climate change denier and I could not be more of a proponent of vaccines.
I for one appreciate you repeating yourself, as I think it needs to be done. It's also more eloquent than I would be
 
So Julian you tricked Richard in order to take the debate on morality... and withdraw? not sure, but clearly thread drift

I wish to summarise a few things we know (neither belief nor moral) about bitcoins:
- Electricity consumption: It consumed as much energy as Argentina in 2019 and is predicted to consume as much as Italy by 2024, well over 1% of total Humanity consumption
- Its uses: overwhelmingly as a speculation support.
- Cash and actual digital money are massively used to purchase and sell goods and services and are the lubricants of the whole economy.
- Bitcoins are neither used as cash nor digital money (some say it could be used, it actually is not materially used... because of its volatility?) and are of no use for the whole economy.
- Cash and actual digital money are used zillions and zillions time more than bitcoin as currencies yet they hardly consume more energy then bitcoin (even if one assumed cash and digital money consumed 5% of world electricity production this would still give them a zillion time more energy efficiency)
- Despite its lack of contribution to society. its costs are hidden but enormous (electricity). This is the key to consider it as a Ponzi scheme as somebody is paying the bill... at the end
- As a store of value, it is massively volatile so not a stable one and the economy needs stability of currency
- Given the scarcity of energy and the impact of its production on our environment, given the current urgency of global warming, it is really a no brainer :we do not need bitcoins and they damage humanity and its environment . We need cash and digital money.

Musk made a speculative coup by stating you could buy a Tesla with bitcoins... but he could not put a price labelled in bitcoin because of its volatility. He clearly demonstrated that bitcoin cannot today be used as a currency because its value is unstable. Its energy consumption is not volatile, it is massive and growing very rapidly.
 
So Julian you tricked Richard in order to take the debate on morality... and withdraw? not sure, but clearly thread drift

No, I patently did not do what you are accusing me of. By asking a relatively inane and innocent question, I pointed out that many of the anxieties that justify preserving cash are primary drivers of the invention of cryptocurrency - simple as that.

I removed myself because I think asserting what is and is not a good usage of energy is potentially quite political as our individual morals/ethics are at play and I don't want to contribute further to a conversation that seems to be creating friction with people I respect. I also apologised for my part in it happening so far.
 
So Julian you tricked Richard in order to take the debate on morality... and withdraw? not sure, but clearly thread drift

I wish to summarise a few things we know (neither belief nor moral) about bitcoins:
- Electricity consumption: It consumed as much energy as Argentina in 2019 and is predicted to consume as much as Italy by 2024, well over 1% of total Humanity consumption
- Its uses: overwhelmingly as a speculation support.
- Cash and actual digital money are massively used to purchase and sell goods and services and are the lubricants of the whole economy.
- Bitcoins are neither used as cash nor digital money (some say it could be used, it actually is not materially used... because of its volatility?) and are of no use for the whole economy.
- Cash and actual digital money are used zillions and zillions time more than bitcoin as currencies yet they hardly consume more energy then bitcoin (even if one assumed cash and digital money consumed 5% of world electricity production this would still give them a zillion time more energy efficiency)
- Despite its lack of contribution to society. its costs are hidden but enormous (electricity). This is the key to consider it as a Ponzi scheme as somebody is paying the bill... at the end
- As a store of value, it is massively volatile so not a stable one and the economy needs stability of currency
- Given the scarcity of energy and the impact of its production on our environment, given the current urgency of global warming, it is really a no brainer :we do not need bitcoins and they damage humanity and its environment . We need cash and digital money.

Musk made a speculative coup by stating you could buy a Tesla with bitcoins... but he could not put a price labelled in bitcoin because of its volatility. He clearly demonstrated that bitcoin cannot today be used as a currency because its value is unstable. Its energy consumption is not volatile, it is massive and growing very rapidly.
I agree with most of that, Antoine.

There are distinct questions though. One is about the specific currency and mechanism Bitcoin - I thank the ethical and currency effectiveness case against is clear.

A separate question is whether, if generated and used in an energy-efficient way, other non-State digital currencies would be socially desirable. And this hinges to an extent on one's view of relative risks to liberty - do we view states, corporations or criminals as the most likely threat? And this risk ranking may change according to local conditions.

In the cyber domain states are engaged in continuous unofficial wars, and even developed nations seem unable to prevent major hacks by states and criminals. So I would like us to proceed very slowly before we rely solely on digital currencies. Similarly, as we have seen in China, states can move against the individuals running parts of blockchain-based currencies. A currency might mitigate against financial repression or incompetence by one government while exposing one to other kinds of risk.

Lots to think about, not a panacea.
 
It's been a fun thread but I don't think there is much more than can be usefully said while avoiding repetition and getting a bit political.

It will be interesting to see how this all evolves over the next decade or so....I can't help thinking that those who could be the major beneficiaries of an alternative to fiat currencies are those living under repressive regimes in third world countries with or without state-controlled local currency translation rates...these are exactly the sorts of places where effective internet is likely to be sporadic or non-existent. It's not hard to believe that the major beneficiaries from bitcoin in those countries would be the same people in high places who have been misappropriating huge proportions of their countries' economic output for decades...food for thought in an era when global corruption is endemic.

If I'm still alive I'll endeavour to resurrect this thread in five years time!
 
Julian, my apologies, thanks for the clarification, not an accusation and clearly a mistaken but legitimate question.

Jeremy,
You indeed raise and express very clearly the more essential issues: social desirability, arbitration between the bigger threats (states, corporations, criminals) and indeed varying according to situations. But, as says Johnny, we may get political

Johnny,
I share your concern that this may be (it actually is already) a booster for endemic global corruption.
 
At the moment Bitcoin et al are not a threat to fiat currencies, but if they were functional as currency they would be. If the cryptocurrencies were also immune to debasement, that favourite trick of governments everywhere, they would be a serious threat, to the point where they would probably be banned.
 
It's been a fun thread but I don't think there is much more than can be usefully said while avoiding repetition and getting a bit political.

It will be interesting to see how this all evolves over the next decade or so....I can't help thinking that those who could be the major beneficiaries of an alternative to fiat currencies are those living under repressive regimes in third world countries with or without state-controlled local currency translation rates...these are exactly the sorts of places where effective internet is likely to be sporadic or non-existent. It's not hard to believe that the major beneficiaries from bitcoin in those countries would be the same people in high places who have been misappropriating huge proportions of their countries' economic output for decades...food for thought in an era when global corruption is endemic.

If I'm still alive I'll endeavour to resurrect this thread in five years time!

This is where decentralised, publicly viewable blockchains, and coded smart contracts that reduce the need to trust third parties in the transferral of assets can drastically reduce corruption.

Re: internet connectivity, it will continue to be easier and cheaper to get connected. Plus Elon Musk might be a cock but Starlink genuinely has the potential to bring the internet to these formerly cut off locations.
 
As one of the few people here who seems to really understand bitcoin, is there something you'd like to tell us Julian...?

Can magic mushrooms really help you understand bitcoin?

I think Max is the one you should be questioning after his Sunday night manifesto. He said he had a few, but didn't specific what exactly...

Joking aside, a good read Max - definitely touches on some of the things I'd love people to understand about the future of blockchain.

I don't think I can stay away from this thread for long because the topic is so interesting to me! One of the last things in your writings Max is a salient point that I've sort of touched on, and that's looking beyond the headlines.

There is all sorts of incredibly well put together analysis out there but one thing I do find is it's often mixed in with huge amounts of FUD, primarily from people trying to capitalise on those with a fear of missing out of the next big rise, not helped by the ease of which these bad actors can manipulate google in their favour.

I wonder if Max or anyone else can point myself and perhaps others to some more reliable outlets to learn and consume information about the current state of blockchain and crypto tech?
 
I wonder if Max or anyone else can point myself and perhaps others to some more reliable outlets to learn and consume information about the current state of blockchain and crypto tech?

This is a bit of a problem. Mainstream media coverage is pretty woeful, at best too bitcoin centric, at worst actively misleading, in general with minimal technical understanding.

Most valuable information is found on twitter, niche subreddits, individual blogs etc, but the vast amount of noise and the fact that to some extent everyone is talking up their own book makes it tough to sift through.

At the moment there's not much to be done except try and consume as much info as possible to form as good a picture as you can, but hopefully proper journalism does catch up a bit.
 
Top