bitcoin down to $14000.."healthy correction" ..

[FordGT90Concept]

In the case of Newegg, you're transferring the risk from yourself to Newegg. In the case of sheep, if you agreed to accept my sheep before examining them yourself, the risk they represent is transferred from me to you. On delivery, you might discover their very diseased and very dead. You'd have to take me to court to dispute the trade before a judge. Lets say we substitute sheep for counterfeit legal tender. Now suddenly it goes from a small claims court decision to potentially a Federal criminal case.

That's not an answer.

You said crypto wasn't a currency because it isn't legal tender.

Then you recognized bottlecaps as legal tender as long as it was recognized by the two parties involved in a micro state/economy.

Then you maintain that crypto isn't a currency, even when recognized by two parties in the same situation.

God bless you Ford, but you've always been the king of irrational justification. You keep doing you.

This is what I replying to (without quoting it):

US currency is technically monopoly money at the rate it's issued. What backs it is the fear of economic collapse by the rest of the world as they rely on lovely consumerism that we're really good at. And it helps to have enough firepower in a single carrier fleet to level a small country.

Here's the point you're fixated on:

a) cryptocurrency isn't "currency" at all. In order to be considered a currency, it has to be recognized as legal tender. As far as I'm aware, no country does.

So you're right, generally, cryptocurrency can be considered a currency but in this context, there's an important distinction that's missing: USD is legal tender where cryptocurrency is not. There's a huge legal system backing USD that cryptocurrency does not have (nor Monopoly money).

In your bottlecap scenario, it assumes you have a legal system established for establishing and enforcing your bottlecap currency. If do not, then you're just trading. Calling it a "micro-state/economy" suggests there is a legal contract involved.

It is interesting how banks keep calling it currency.

source

Indeed but not legal tender. No one is under any obligation to accept it.

 

[Papahyooie]

Ford, I never made the claim that it was legal tender for any specific government. You're arguing that crypto isn't legal tender. The fact that it isn't legal tender for a specific government does not have any bearing on whether or not it is a currency. You said, point blank, that cryptocurrency isn't currency.

a) cryptocurrency isn't "currency" at all. In order to be considered a currency, it has to be recognized as legal tender. As far as I'm aware, no country does.

That statement, by your own admission, is false. That's all I'm trying to say. Arguing about risk, and whether there is legal recourse for fraud doesn't change that fact. That quote above, is all I am refuting. I couldn't care less about whether it's legal tender or not. YOU made the assertion that in order to be a currency, it has to be recognized as legal tender. My point is, that statement is patently false. Arguing that crypto isn't legal tender doesn't make it true.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I ask again, are Steam trading cards currency? The only difference between Steam trading cards and BTC is that BTC has subunits. They're both a medium of exchange (e.g. you can trade someone a bunch of cards for a game in someone else's inventory) so using a very broad definition for currency, they both apply. The matter at heart is that people throw the word "currency" around just because someone almost a decade ago called it that. I don't think it is appropriate because it fits better under the definition of "security" over "currency," see #3: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/security. If you lose your documentation of ownership (effectively, the coin), it's gone for good. Currency traditionally means something physical or at least representation of something physical. Cryptocurrency never had anything physical to begin with.

Following me now?

Yes, point (a) is false as quoted; however, Merriam-Webster provides an example of furs being used as a currency but no one called furs currency. Furs are furs. That's the point I'm making: I have no problem calling BTC coins (#3) but they definitely aren't coinage (#1) which implies producing (usually) metal coins.

Meh, it's semantics but legal tender is not.

 

[Papahyooie]

Yes, Steam trading cards are used as currency. Much the opposite of bitcoin, however, Steam trading cards' primary intended use is as a good. A collector's item. Bitcoin was intended to be used as currency, but due to the highly unstable value and possibility of appreciating, they are treated by most as a security. That's exactly what I was saying earlier. However, cryptocurrency fits every (monetary) definition of currency. Physical tokens are simply a convenience. As for "documentation of ownership" cash is exactly that, and is still a currency. A dollar bill is literally a document symbolizing ownership of a certain amount of value. If you lose the dollar bill, it's gone for good. Is it a security then?

I realize that we're getting deep into semantics at this point. But my statement stands, because YOU made the assertion that BTC is not currency. It obviously is, no matter how you want to justify it. I never made any claim that crypto is legal tender for any specific state. YOU made the assertion that it must be to qualify as a currency, which we've established as false. All the other stuff I couldn't care less about. My original statement was that that is the sticking point, and why there is disagreement with your statement. Risk, legality, recourse... none of that matters. My only intended statement here is that cryptocurrency is indeed a currency. That's all.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Is it a security then?

If you're looking at just a banknote, yes (#2). It's a promise from the Federal Reserve to be worth its stated value. When you transfer it to someone else (or in this case, lose it and someone else finds it), that obligation transfers with it. Fiat as a whole (crypto and legal tender) really suffers from that problem. Even coinage, which used to be worth its cost in materials, has gone fiat.

 

[64K]

I think what Bitcoins are and aren't can be debated but one thing that Bitcoins aren't is legal tender. If you look on any US note you will see "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private" printed on them which makes US dollars different in a massive way from Bitcoins. Businesses in the USA have to accept dollar bills as payment for goods and services by law. They don't accept have to accept Bitcoins.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Ill just leave this here....

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/sav...ure-fomo/ar-BBHmI7q?li=AA4Zjn&ocid=spartandhp

and....

https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/statement-clayton-2017-12-11

 

[R-T-B]

Corporations pay people in stock frequently.

That's great, but do they go home and buy food with them?

 

[Steevo]

That's great, but do they go home and buy food with them?

Many banks and financial institutions will give you cash in exchange for the stocks, or many places will allow you to borrow money using the stocks as a form of collateral or insurance. the power of a currency and its stability is the backing with guns part that crypto doesn't have, crypto is no different than buying or selling futures sugar, bacon, or coffee.

 

[R-T-B]

Many banks and financial institutions will give you cash in exchange for the stocks, or many places will allow you to borrow money using the stocks as a form of collateral or insurance. the power of a currency and its stability is the backing with guns part that crypto doesn't have, crypto is no different than buying or selling futures sugar, bacon, or coffee.

You're ignoring the "and" in "goods and services"

You can use crypto to buy goods AND services. You can't use stock in such a context.

 

[TheMailMan78]

The funny thing about Bitcoin or any of these "currencies" is a single incident will eliminate them from circulation. Lets say some Allah-Peanut butter sandwich comes along and buys the goods to make a bomb with untraceable crypto-currency and kills a crowd of people. This info hits the news and guess what happens. All of a sudden the narrative of "Crypto-currency is the future!" turns into what it really is " Crypto-currency is for terrorists and drug dealers". Next up you will have congress calling for a knee-jerk response to ban all forms of Crypto-currency. Your lifetime investment is now worthless.

If you are being honest with yourself, you know this isn't far fetched and if by chance Crypto-currency actually becomes mainstream and competes with the dollar you can bet whatever coin you worship the US government will shut it down.

Ups or downs no real investor with any real world chops is saying "Get in to Crypto-currency!". Again I point to this.....

https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/statement-clayton-2017-12-11

 

[ZenZimZaliben]

If you are being honest with yourself, you know this isn't far fetched and if by chance Crypto-currency actually becomes mainstream and competes with the dollar you can bet whatever coin you worship the US government will shut it down.

Yeah good luck with "shutting it down"...LOL. cause you know there is a big switch in the Fed Reserve building that can just shut down all crypto...the most decentralized and in some cases untraceable way to exchange funds. That will work out about as well as shutting down piracy has gone.

 

[cdawall]

Yeah good luck with "shutting it down"...LOL. cause you know there is a big switch in the Fed Reserve building that can just shut down all crypto...the most decentralized and in some cases untraceable way to exchange funds. That will work out about as well as shutting down piracy has gone.

You mean the non-us government run fed reserve right?

 

[ZenZimZaliben]

You mean the non-us government run fed reserve right?

Yeah the private entity, that reports to no one, that prints all our legal tender.

 

[cdawall]

Yeah the private entity, that reports to no one, that prints all our legal tender.

Yea its a good thing about all these currency laws.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

You're ignoring the "and" in "goods and services"

You can use crypto to buy goods AND services. You can't use stock in such a context.

People can accept stock certificates in trade just like anything else. They don't have to, of course, and that's completely up to the discretion of the store owner. Most people, in that circumstance, would sell the shares to get liquid cash from them to expedite subsequent transactions.

Yeah good luck with "shutting it down"...LOL. cause you know there is a big switch in the Fed Reserve building that can just shut down all crypto...the most decentralized and in some cases untraceable way to exchange funds. That will work out about as well as shutting down piracy has gone.

Ban the possession and transfer of cryptocurrency. Think pot, heroin, cocaine, etc. Police get wind of a crypto-farm in a house? Knock down the door for probable cause of being in procession of contraband. Crypto would be driven underground in less than a year.

Yea its a good thing about all these currency laws.

Government moves at a snails pace. Right now, securities regulation agencies are trying to get a grip on it but nothing of the above sort would happen unless a new law is written explicitly talking to cryptocurrencies.

As TMM said, it's not in the works now but one major event where people start crying about lost billions then, bam, law gets drafted and passed heavily regulating it.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Yeah good luck with "shutting it down"...LOL. cause you know there is a big switch in the Fed Reserve building that can just shut down all crypto...the most decentralized and in some cases untraceable way to exchange funds. That will work out about as well as shutting down piracy has gone.

And its worth will be what when you can not launder it for cash? Yeah that's what I thought.

One law and boom. All worth gone. No one messes with the Fed. Reserve. Id rather pick a fist fight with the entire 101st Airborne. Better chance of winning.

Also you do understand the US government has the ability to shut down the web right? At least in the states.

 

[ZenZimZaliben]

And its worth will be what when you can not launder it for cash? Yeah that's what I thought.

One law and boom. All worth gone. No one messes with the Fed. Reserve. Id rather pick a fist fight with the entire 101st Airborne. Better chance of winning.

Also you do understand the US government has the ability to shut down the web right? At least in the states.

One law...like don't pirate? don't do drugs? don't sell humans? Don't kill for ivory, don't steal, murder, rape...but thankfully we have laws in place and none of those things happen anymore. If the US Gove tried to do that I believe it would have the opposite effect...I think it would increase the price even further. Who says I have to sell it in USA for US Currency?

 

[trog100]

And its worth will be what when you can not launder it for cash? Yeah that's what I thought.

One law and boom. All worth gone. No one messes with the Fed. Reserve. Id rather pick a fist fight with the entire 101st Airborne. Better chance of winning.

Also you do understand the US government has the ability to shut down the web right? At least in the states.

The US government has the ability to do lots of things we had better hope it dosnt do them.. he he

trog

 

[TheMailMan78]

One law...like don't pirate? don't do drugs? don't sell humans? Don't kill for ivory, don't steal, murder, rape...but thankfully we have laws in place and none of those things happen anymore. If the US Gove tried to do that I believe it would have the opposite effect...I think it would increase the price even further. Who says I have to sell it in USA for US Currency?

Apples and oranges and normally I would fully agree with you. On this however you are talking about the US Reserve. This is a whole different game. The only reason Bitcoin is worth ANYTHING is because of what Buffet said. FOMO. When it becomes taboo/illegal or it messes with the world standard (US Dollar) it will go bottoms up in a week. Its NOT a stable/long term investment.

With that being said I had 32.6 coins back in the day...........I hate myself now.

 

[R-T-B]

They don't have to, of course, and that's completely up to the discretion of the store owner.

Have you ever seen a storefront or webpage that says "we accept stock trades?" in the window?

They do this with various cryptos.

The only reason Bitcoin is worth ANYTHING is because of what Buffet said.

Uh, it was worth quite a bit more than a dollar before Buffet said anything. Just FYI.

Its NOT a stable/long term investment.

I agree, kinda. It's not stable. It's not a SAFE long term investment either. But as your 32.6 coins illustrate (when it also wasn't a "safe investment") it might just be a good long term investment despite being high risk.

How'd you lose your coins, out of curiosity?

And its worth will be what when you can not launder it for cash? Yeah that's what I thought.

Probably the same. It's seldom used for criminal activity anymore. Too tracable, too expensive. Monero is a better pick.

 

[ZenZimZaliben]

Apples and oranges and normally I would fully agree with you. On this however you are talking about the US Reserve. This is a whole different game. The only reason Bitcoin is worth ANYTHING is because of what Buffet said. FOMO. When it becomes taboo/illegal or it messes with the world standard (US Dollar) it will go bottoms up in a week. Its NOT a stable/long term investment.

With that being said I had 32.6 coins back in the day...........I hate myself now.

I 100% agree with your stance on stable/long term...know and accept the risks or don't play.

32.6 coins..hey as long as you made a profit that is what matters. It does suck but you can't look at investments like that.

 

[notb]

I think you're really stretching definitions there. Anything that has no inherent value other than for trading for goods is currency in my books.

Thankfully, this is not the actual definition.

If you call him telling me it would never breach 15k earlier this year "schooling me," cool.

First of all, I don't intend to "school" anyone - I'm simply trying to provide some basic theory of finance and of money to these otherwise pretty chaotic discussions.
And it's not just because people here don't know much about what money is and how state currencies work - I don't expect that in a gaming community. But it still amazes me that the same people, that despise the government and fiat currencies, are trying to convince others that cryptos are currencies.
And having a slightly above-average financial knowledge doesn't mean I'm always right with my forecasts. No one is.

That said, I think we where talking about 50k, not 15k. Maybe I don't remember that discussion very well.
And yes: I'm still betting on the 50k.

And I'm not against cryptos. I'm simply skeptical. I must be. We should all be.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Have you ever seen a storefront or webpage that says "we accept stock trades?" in the window?

It's not a high-volume thing so unless their business is structured around it, it's not something that is advertised. Case in point: virtually every store will accept gold and silver bullion but they don't advertise that either.

Uh, it was worth quite a bit more than a dollar before Buffet said anything. Just FYI.

But the facts haven't changed: there are no assets behind cryptocurrency. People only buy it because they think it will rise in value because other people are buying it. It's the very definition of a bubble and, even if it is worth only a penny, it's still a bubble. It has no ceiling and no floor because it has no intrinsic value. It's driven by greed, nothing tangible.

 

[R-T-B]

But the facts haven't changed: there are no assets behind cryptocurrency.

Other currencies are still the asset behind it. There's no asset behind "gold" either you know. It also has no ceiling or floor beyond it's interested market.

You could argue gold has uses, but well, so does blockchain, frankly.

People didn't always buy it because they would think it would rise. That's a recent thing.

Thankfully, this is not the actual definition.

What is? Serious question since we don't seem to be accepting the dictionary in this discussion.

That said, I think we where talking about 50k, not 15k. Maybe I don't remember that discussion very well.

That could be true, it doesn't really matter as I was just messing with mailman.