They're both divisible to the point of futility, why go further? Crypto fans have failed to justify why they feel this is such a strong point.
It's yourself and his Dukeness that have laboured the point. From the very start of this part of the discussion, I am on record as saying that divisibility is a core characteristic of any currency - but in the comparison of gold/bitcoin/FIAT in that respect, the significant take away is that gold is in no way divisible and on that basis alone, it's not suitable as a medium of exchange.
It's not of major consequence the difference between FIAT and Bitcoin in terms of divisibility. However, despite Dukey's protestations, Kelleher is not wrong to score one as moderate and the other as high for this characteristic because strictly speaking one has eight places of decimal and the other has two. Yes, in practice you could digitally divide it further - but that doesn't make him wrong. That's also why Dukey has not been able to find another commentator that has compared them differently.
Why we have to go back and forth on this makes no sense to me. However, Kelleher has not stated anything that is inaccurate in this respect.
So no benefit over my current use of fiat, thanks.
Only because you're diametrically opposed to crypto - and in that case, you're quite right Leo - you shouldn't go anywhere near it. Just like I said, if there was a discount for paying with Bitcoin (which oftentimes there is as the vendor saves on credit card fees) you'd still not avail of it because of what amounts to a political view rather than a pragmatic view.
But that's fine - horses for courses - there are plenty on the planet that can see the value in it on that basis. There are plenty that see the power in peer to peer transactions without an intermediary.
Give me an example of one thing I can buy with bitcoin for $9.50 that would cost $10 with Visa?
In your case, completely pointless as you have no notion at looking at this pragmatically. My question was would you pay the equivalent of $9.50 with Bitcoin or would you pay $10 via your bank/visa. It's a simple enough question - and it doesn't get answered with the unnecessary follow up question.
No, you're effectively buying LN tokens with bitcoin that you can then trade or exchange (assuming there's a funded path established), and at a later date you can trade those tokens back for bitcoin. There isn't a single bitcoin that lives on the lightning network.
Bitcoin is implicated on opening and closing an LN channel. The point you are making doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the user. As far as they're concerned, they're paying with Bitcoin. I have a LN wallet with Bitcoin loaded in it. Not anything else - Bitcoin. I can have someone else install the very same wallet and receive Bitcoin. It's that simple.
Incidentally, the
World Economic Forum (WEF) has just recognised Lightning Labs - one of the prime developers behind LN - in its list of top 'early to growth stage' companies - for their contribution towards cutting edge technology.
Well, IoT to take one of your examples is considered to have taken up to 8 years for mass adoption, some claim less. Mass adoption of eBooks took a similar timeframe, mass adoption of tablet computing was even quicker, mass adoption of microwave ovens also happened very quickly. We're 11-12 years into bitcoin, the rate of adoption is actually quite slow.
I see. This is intriguing. My understanding was that the origins of the IoT go back to the early eighties. eBooks? - I'm sorry but that's in no way comparable! I see you didn't give the timeline for my other examples - the internet or AI? Are you suggesting that there should be a cut off point for tech - that at a given date, all innovation stops? That would make a whole lot of sense, right?
Furthermore, when you say adoption, has the innovation part stopped already? - because from where I'm standing, it's only getting going.
Tell me, did fibre internet just burst out of the starting blocks on day one? Do you remember dialup? There were different standards within dial-up - let alone what has come along after it. If we were to judge the ability to get online back then, who would have been using the internet and for what? That progress was iterative. It's funny how you work in tech and you don't understand that.
So you don't understand well enough to back up your claims, fine.
That's inaccurate but if that delusion makes you feel better - peachy!
I fear that it may be explanation 2 in post #414 that prevents you understanding that fiat in its digital manifestation is not restricted to 2 decimal places. Ask Airtricity - €0.1496 per unit . Ask any life company who routinely quote their unit prices to 3 decimal places.
It would be unfair of me to keep exposing your blind spot on this, so relax I will spare your blushes.
There is no 'blind spot'. I acknowledged that whilst it's not a definitive part of FIAT that further digital division is possible. Go back and re-read previous posts. It's a misrepresentation to claim that. The issue has been that you have suggested that there's some inaccuracy on Kelleher's part in relation to divisibility. That's incorrect. He has compared them as they have been set out - and they have been set out such that Bitcoin has eight places of decimal and FIAT has two. You must be harbouring some deep seated insecurities in terms of the case for FIAT currency given the way you're labouring on this point.
He also doesn't grasp the reality that consumer demand is for less divisibility, look at the success of the elimination of 1 & 2c coins from circulation. Also, in PAYE calculations, credits and benefits are rounded to the nearest Euro in the individual's favour.
As I've outlined already, Bitcoin needs eight places of decimal because it's the hard money that's alluded to in
Gresham's Law. FIAT continues to rob ordinary people through inflation and rampant money printing - so it will not need to go to eight places of decimal.
tecate has included divisibility as a factor in store of value, which clearly it isn't, witness gold, diamonds, rubies, real estate, works of art.
That's incorrect. I haven't. However, I have cited
Vijay Boyapati - who has included it in his comparison of gold/fiat/bitcoin as a store of value. I would say it makes complete since that it belongs in both comparisons - that of store of value and that of means of exchange.
You have a lump of gold or a piece of gold jewelry. You want to pass it on to your two sons/daughters. What do you do - take a hammer to it? Of course it's relevant - but it has a higher relevance within the context of consideration of the characteristics of what makes a good means of exchange.
Accounts being too expensive is only cited by a very small percentage as the sole reason they do not have an account.
That's incorrect. Now it's time to talk about compliance! This unwieldy worldwide AML/KYC compliance and regulatory regime - together with the banks - is disenfranchising these people. Significant costs come with all of that nonsense - and on that basis, banks won't bank the unbanked. The system fails them.
The notion that they don't need access to banking is also nonsense. I have paid people that didn't have access to a bank account on numerous occasions. Either that had to be done in cash or using a remittance service that charges poor people 9% on transfers in-country with no FX required! There's plenty of money to be made off the backs of poorer classes too.
The same with the 55 million of unbanked or under banked in the US - they end up availing of cheque cashing services at exhorbitant rates - and payday loans as they wait for cheques to clear in the deliberately archaic US banking system.
