Bitcoin and everything associated with it. The home of cryptomaniacs and their adversaries. - page 4
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Yeah, an I.T. guy and a half.)
The horror. Who dismembered the second one? Or was there three of them?
It has been correctly noted that bitcoin will only be a currency when it is backed by someone else's authority. In principle, in a modern state any currency is incomplete, backed only by the authority of the state, but bitcoin has even worse security, now it is just the interest of some part of the internet community.
For the bitcoin, there must be a player who will artificially maintain the demand for it. Is there such a player?
Silcroad.
By the way, the IMF could be such a player.
So you are already admitting that"It is a means to an end. Money is a medium of exchange. Convenient. Everything, full stop." Not everything.
No, that's why I'm interested.
I don't know what's in the wiki and other books, but you can probably find a lot about money without any problem. About what money is. Although with today's frenzy about the quid, there's going to be a lot of pseudoscientific rubbish.
You can't reduce money to just a medium of exchange.
Any currency, be it the ruble, the dollar or bitcoin, must be backed by a commodity created under its jurisdiction. Unfortunately, bitcoin cannot boast of this. The sphere of services and volume of goods for bitcoins is insignificant, and what is offered is simple conversion: "We produced a T-shirt worth $19.95, and you can buy it for dollars, rubles, or bitcoins". The current value of bitcoins, on the other hand, is shaped more by speculative inflation than by fundamental (aka commodity) value. Even the very appearance of the bitcoin price chart resembles a classic bubble - exponential growth, with no visible pullbacks. And don't get me started on America and its unsecured dollar. Within America, the purchasing power of the dollar is extremely high. The Fed is working hard to achieve this. But in the rest of the world, the Fed's skillful hands create inflation. You can see how this mechanism works in the film attached below.
Many people boast that uncontrolled emission in cryptocurrency is impossible - you can't turn on the printing press. However, few people understand that issuance itself is neither good nor bad, it is just a tool in the hands of the regulator that needs to be used properly. Without issuing, the currency would start to grow wildly in case of a massive increase in GDP (more goods, but still the same amount of money). The question then arises, why the fuck should the first holders of the currency have to warm themselves at the expense of the producer who decided to nominate the output of his product in bitcoins? In other words, the producer brought a new commodity into the system, the GDP increased, at the expense of which the value of money increased. Who did well? - The producer. Who gets the bitcoin? - The first owner of the currency.
All in all, today's bitcoin situation is reminiscent of tulip mania in Holland, the tulip bulbs have been replaced by crypto-hedges, but the actors (stupidity, greed, madness of the crowd) remain the same.
About what money is. Although with today's frenzy about the quid, there will be a lot of pseudo-scientific rubbish.
You're slippery, though. Name one thing that bitcoin doesn't do. (other than stability).
Money should not be reduced to a mere medium of exchange.
You're slippery, though. Well, name one property that bitcoin does not fit into. (except stability).
I'm waiting to see why.Categorically object. I'm not slippery, I'm shaggy.
Your messes are simple and easy to fix. You have the wrong idea of what money is.
I'm frankly too lazy to look on the Internet for a sane primer.