The Bitcoin threads could be interesting in the future

[Duke of Marmalade]

Ok, I have no real desire to recycle the past three years, but bitcoin is already a medium of exchange. It may be a relatively scarce medium of exchange but so is gold. When is the last time you bought and sold anything in gold other than for decorative jewellery or for fiat currency?
I do not think bitcoin has the propensity to be traded abundantly in our daily lives for groceries and electricity bills any day soon.
Instead, I would consider bitcoin having the prospect of being a great equaliser. Acting as a bulwark against manipulation (human nature) and offering economic opportunity and autonomy to anyone with an internet connection.

Please Wolfie, you're better than that . Real Estate has no utility as a MOE. Neither does precious art. The John Kelleher point is that the only possible utility that bitcoin can achieve is as MOE. Of course it has been used on some occasions to buy latte, or so I am told but we are a galaxy away from its MOE utility value justifying a price of $15k.

 

[tecate]

The John Kelleher point is that the only possible utility that bitcoin can achieve is as MOE.

And your and Nouriel's point is that it's a store of value - which I agree with.

Of course it has been used on some occasions to buy latte, or so I am told but we are a galaxy away from its MOE utility value justifying a price of $15k.

As acknowledged by I think everyone, it is available to be used as a medium of exchange today and is used for that purpose. However, it suits the exchange of large amounts of value right now - and not a cup of coffee. There's plenty that needs to change before it becomes a reasonable prospect for micro-transactions.
It's price today is justified on the basis of the demand its seeing as a store of value - given that it is a supreme asset from the point of view of scarcity. In that respect, it's unmatched and unrivaled.

 

[WolfeTone]

Real Estate has no utility as a MOE. Neither does precious art.

I never suggested they did have utility as a MOE. I referenced gold, which is a medium of exchange, albeit infrequent and relatively rare to fiat currency.

The John Kelleher point is that the only possible utility that bitcoin can achieve is as MOE.

Yes, and I have already stated that I don't necessarily agree with Kelleher. His statement is suppositional, referring to an undefined point of time in the future. Surely there is a time limit to achieving this? If so, when? 12yrs a waiting, no real sign of BTC being adopted as a mainstream MOE yet it is still very much in demand. Perhaps Kelleher is wrong?

The extent upon which bitcoin will be used as a MOE is not apparent. At the moment it is rare, but that may well change in the future and I am open to that.
Granted, references to BTC being $15k and latté purchases in the same sentence does imply a galactic distance from day-to-day use. I wouldn't pay more than 0.00016 satoshis myself.
I don't think bitcoins prospective utility has been fully observed yet.

 

[tecate]

One more u-turn...

Hedge fund veteran Stanley Druckenmiller (net worth $4.4 billion) said of bitcoin in June 2019:

"I don't understand why its a store of value."


November, 2020:

"I own many more times gold than I own bitcoin, but frankly, if the gold bet works, the bitcoin bet will probably work better because it's thinner and more illiquid and has a lot more beta to it"

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Bitcoin is NOT a currency: it is not a unit of account, it is not a single numéraire, it is not a scalable means of payments, it is not backed by any asset, it is not legal tender, its price is highly manipulated & thus its partial store of value function is based on nothing

Gotcha Nouriel You said "store of value". This is a great boost to bitcoin cultists.

However, just like many in crypto I see Nouriel's acknowledgement of bitcoin as a store of value as a complete change

 

[tecate]

Gotcha Nouriel You said "store of value". This is a great boost to bitcoin cultists.

You remember the part your Dukeness when I said that Nouriel is the most poisonous, venomous critic of bitcoin? No claim was being made that the guy has changed his ways. The claim was that he's changed his response, knows he's got this wrong and he's trying to create wriggle room.

Tell me this - what is a 'partial store of value'? Either it is or it isn't! - but he's trying to fudge things now to cover his tracks (because he's in 'fax machine guy' territory). I've never heard anyone refer to a "partial store of value". When you google the phrase, guess what comes up? Nouriel! ONLY Nouriel.

The tweet that you saw is him lashing out at crypto peeps who called him out on his preparatory fudge/u-turn.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

You remember the part your Dukeness when I said that Nouriel is the most poisonous, venomous critic of bitcoin? No claim was being made that the guy has changed his ways. The claim was that he's changed his response, knows he's got this wrong and he's trying to create wriggle room.

Tell me this - what is a 'partial store of value'? Either it is or it isn't! - but he's trying to fudge things now to cover his tracks (because he's in 'fax machine guy' territory). I've never heard anyone refer to a "partial store of value". When you google the phrase, guess what comes up? Nouriel! ONLY Nouriel.

The tweet that you saw is him lashing out at crypto peeps who called him out on his preparatory fudge/u-turn.

@tecate I never heard of Nouriel until you introduced him to me. That the bitcoin community are in a celebratory "gotcha" over his use of the words "store of value" is, frankly, sad.
Thought experiment. If someone offers me a bitcoin for $100 but on condition I do not sell it for a month. I would bite their hand off even though it's BOHA - gotme!, I must think it has part store of value.

 

[tecate]

@tecate I never heard of Nouriel until you introduced him to me.

and your point is?

@tecate That the bitcoin community are in a celebratory "gotcha" over his use of the words "store of value" is, frankly, sad.

The 'gotcha' comment is yours - and its an insight into how you approach and perceive this 'discussion'.
Secondly, you're speaking from a point of ignorance then because if you're not aware of Nouriel, then you're not aware of the back and forth that's being going on with his venomous attacks on bitcoin and crypto. Just like you, him confirming that its a store of value means that he's fudging things as the pressure is on now and he's second guessing himself.

Yesterday, you agreed that its a store of value - after spending three years saying the opposite.

Thought experiment. If someone offers me a bitcoin for $100 but on condition I do not sell it for a month. I would bite their hand off even though it's BOHA - gotme!, I must think it has part store of value.

NOBODY will be offering you a bitcoin your Dukeness. You can buy a fraction of one when the time comes (because by that time, a fraction of one is all you'll be able to afford).
Secondly, nobody is now wondering whether you 'think' it is a store of value. You told us yesterday that it is.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

@tecate if you believe Mr Roubini has made a U-turn and is now supportive of the store of value case for bitcoin, and that makes you happy; it would be unfair of me to rain on your parade.

 

[tecate]

@tecate if you believe Mr Roubini has made a U-turn and is now supportive of the store of value case for bitcoin, and that makes you happy; it would be unfair of me to rain on your parade.

This isn't about your or my happiness, Duke but a discussion of the topic itself.
Are you suggesting that we shouldn't believe Mr. Roubini when he says that bitcoin is a 'partial store of value'?
You agreed with him on that. Should I not believe him or you? Or are you/he being misrepresented in some way?

I had asked you before what the difference is between a 'partial store of value' and a 'store of value'. Is there one? My initial thought was that there wasn't - that there couldn't be a half way house for such a thing. I googled the phrase and it seems the only guy on the planet to use it is Mr. Roubini. To me, it looks like he's covering his tracks - when in later years he's asked about his views on bitcoin.

If there's something I'm missing, please do clarify.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

This isn't about your or my happiness, Duke but a discussion of the topic itself.
Are you suggesting that we shouldn't believe Mr. Roubini when he says that bitcoin is a 'partial store of value'?
You agreed with him on that. Should I not believe him or you? Or are you/he being misrepresented in some way?

I had asked you before what the difference is between a 'partial store of value' and a 'store of value'. Is there one? My initial thought was that there wasn't - that there couldn't be a half way house for such a thing. I googled the phrase and it seems the only guy on the planet to use it is Mr. Roubini. To me, it looks like he's covering his tracks - when in later years he's asked about his views on bitcoin.

If there's something I'm missing, please do clarify.

...its partial store of value function is based on nothing...

@tecate if you still believe that this is Mr Roubini having made a U-turn and supporting the store of value case for bitcoin, I am not going to try and convince you otherwise.
Aside: I hope like you me that you will ignore the noise from the hydra which has sprouted a few more heads after the earlier ones were chopped off.

 

[tecate]

@tecate if you still believe that this is Mr Roubini having made a U-turn and supporting the store of value case for bitcoin, I am not going to try and convince you otherwise.

Firstly, I'm not asking you to convince me of anything your Dukeness. However, I see an opportunity for you to provide a valuable contribution towards advancing the discussion here.

At the third(?) time of asking, can you confirm what a 'partial store of value' is? How could something have a 'partial' store of value? I'm sure there's a wealth of people asking Mr. Roubini the same thing!

Aside: I hope like you me that you will ignore the noise from the hydra which has sprouted a few more heads after the earlier ones were chopped off.

I don't think the ongoing personal reference to anyone who has contributed to this discussion over the course of the past three years - when they present with a point of view contrary to your own (as said commentary is nowhere to be seen when it's a viewpoint you share) - is in any way helpful to the discussion.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

At the third(?) time of asking, can you confirm what a 'partial store of value' is? How could something have a 'partial' store of value?

I don't know what he meant by a "partial" store of value. I only heard of the guy when you introduced him to me and have no knowledge of his linguistic style.
However, I know where he stands now and unlike you I do not see it as a ringing endorsement of the store of value case for bitcoin. That there are a "wealth of people" in the bitcoin community chasing down what they think is a "gotcha" on Mr Roubini tells its own story.

Beware of posters of 35 posts standing showing you fausse empathy.

 

[tecate]

I don't know what he meant by a "partial" store of value.

Really? This was your response to his declaration of bitcoin having a 'partial store of value' ->

He uses the words "part store of value". Obviously it has a part store of value.

I know where he stands now and unlike you I do not see it as a ringing endorsement of the store of value case for bitcoin.

I never suggested this as a 'ringing endorsement. As I've pointed out to you twice already, there has never been anyone in economist circles who has been as poisonous in directing his bile at the crypto community and at bitcoin. I never suggested this was a ringing endorsement because precisely as I said, he will do everything in his power to diss bitcoin/crypto.
What I did say was that he's trying to manufacture a way out - because he now knows he's digging a hole for himself (of fax machine guy proportions).

That there are a "wealth of people" in the bitcoin community chasing down what they think is a "gotcha" on Mr Roubini tells its own story.

Once again, the only person talking about a 'gotcha' is you. Secondly, the crypto community will hold anyone to account for their public comments - and rightly so.

Beware of posters of 35 posts standing showing you fausse empathy.

I don't know what that means. However, if you disagree with the actual contributions of someone, then normal procedure is to deal with that - not to attack people personally - or criticise if they click on the 'like' tab, etc.

At the fourth time of asking - can you explain what is the distinction between a 'store of value' and a 'partial store of value'? How could there be a half way house for such a thing? Surely it either is a store of value or it isn't?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I don't know what that means. However, if you disagree with the actual contributions of someone, then normal procedure is to deal with that.

I have reported the post to the moderators.

At the fourth time of asking

- can you explain what is the distinction between a 'store of value' and a 'partial store of value'? How could there be a half way house for such a thing? Surely it either is a store of value or it isn't?

I had no idea that I was getting involved in a fierce semantic "gotcha" row between the bitcoin community and their nemesis.
I did note the use of the word "part" when I looked at the link and it seemed to mean something. I surmised that it might refer to time qualification but I don't know exactly what he meant. Why are you making such a big deal of this?

 

[tecate]

I had no idea that I was getting involved in a fierce semantic "gotcha" row between the bitcoin community and their nemesis.

Again, the only one mentioning the word 'gotcha' is yourself - no-one else.

I did note the use of the word "part" when I looked at the link and it seemed to mean something. I surmised that it might refer to time qualification but I don't know exactly what he meant.

Well, if you didn't know what it meant, I'm surprised that you decided to mirror his comments - and state the same thing i.e. that bitcoin is a 'part' store of value.

Why are you making such a big deal of this?

Because it's totally unclear what either of you are claiming. Are you claiming that bitcoin IS or IS NOT a store of value? If the latter, why did you back up Nouriel's commentary on it?
When I say that a 'partial store of value' = ' a store of value', have I got it wrong - and if so how?

My suspicion is that Nouriel is trying to find a way to ease back - but because of a few years of vehemently poisonous comments, he's not going to be allowed to. Hence, his follow up tweets.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

@tecate you have given me wonderful links on bitcoin which have greatly increased my understanding of the debate. You have also given me a new hero - Mr Roubini who I have put on my to follow list on Twitter. This particular debate has run its course IMHO but I look forward to future engagements, hopefully without the pollution of trolls.

 

[tecate]

@tecate you have given me wonderful links on bitcoin which have greatly increased my understanding of the debate. You have also given me a new hero - Mr Roubini who I have put on my to follow list on Twitter. This particular debate has run its course IMHO but I look forward to future engagements, hopefully without the pollution of trolls.

It's been a total pleasure your Dukeness. I've no doubt yourself and Nouriel are kindred spirits - so you're very welcome.

I'll leave you with this tweet from the bould Nouriel of November 2018 vintage...

https://twitter.com/Nouriel/status/1065016586824757248?s=20

 

[tecate]

For anyone with an interest, I can highly recommend financial analyst - Lyn Alden's - '7 misconceptions about bitcoin' - which she published on Wednesday.
Earlier today, Paypal rolled out bitcoin to all of its US users. It will extend that to international users within H1, 2021. With much smaller rival Square (Cash App) buying up 2x the bitcoin mining supply over recent months, this should be a very interesting development - given that it seems that Paypal are required via the regulator to buy the requisite amount of bitcoin to match demand from its users. The company has also confirmed that within Q1, 2021, it will enable crypto payments at 26 million US merchants.

 

[DublinHead54]

Potentially a good way for people to cash out of their BTC without tax implications.