The Rise and Fall in Bitcoin Value

Communications Center Out Of Pod Experience
1345

This is an interesting video;

1 Like
1346

I told you that I disliked the way you posted. And I kept correcting you to make better posts. You’re welcome. I never said you “talked like an AI along with an idiot poster”. I did curb some of the things you posted that were exaggeratedly naive.

I don’t think so, it was hard to find a good comparison and it’s the best I found. I will post when I find a better one.

1347

bitcoin is dropping
gold is rising

:salt:

1348

You must be looking at a different chart. It’s at the same prices it was 10 years ago.

:sadparrot:

1 Like
1349

So you now post someone you have told us is a scammer?

Anyways, let’s see how fast we can proove his mystery allegations…

The enemies of Bitcoin?

Oh no, he lied. Shall I invest money in the crypto he says is the best? @17m40 he explains what happens once people get into BTC slavery. No government oversight, only a handfull of shady pseudonymous people running the entire financial system. A perfect anarcho-capitalism without borders, rules,…

  • Evil anti-money laundering company “FATF”
    Oh no! How can an institution be so vile to check if people aren’t laundering money…

  • IMF and Wold Bank
    They loan to poor/crisis countries to avoid world wars. How evil.
    So they advise El Salvador and CAR ? Even Argentina? Well, nothing happened, what is the issue?

  • Wall Street
    ROFL. Off course large corporations want to lobby. CBDC want to cut out “the middle man” :smiley: Yeah, we know the lies about that, EXCHANGES … Sure one can avoid them but tell me how many of the businesses that do frequent sales are not on an exchange? How many are not? I don’t know but I can guess.
    They are SO EVIL, they lobby! Also, in the same chapter he talks how at the WEF meeting in Davos crypto companies went to lobby, lol. ROFL.

Thanks for the link, it was the best laugh I had in days. :slight_smile:

1350

You must be talking about the fiat system

Since the Eurodollar market is not run by any government agency its growth is hard to estimate. However, the Eurodollar market is by a wide margin the largest source of global finance. In 1997, nearly 90% of all international loans were made this way.[10]

In December 1985 the Eurodollar market was estimated by J.P. Morgan Guaranty bank to have a net size of 1.668 trillion.[11] In 2016, the Eurodollar market size was estimated at around 13.833 trillion.[12]

I’m currently trying to get my head aroumd this, but it looks to me like the current system is controlled by the banks, not by the government or any democratic process.

No one actually knows how much money they print and a big junk of this banks operate completely outside of legislation. It’s completely intransparent to everyone and they all just cross their fingers that it will work out.

2008 is what happens when it suddenly doesn’t.

And as we explained to you before, Bitcoin is not run by a handful of pseudonymous people. Bitcoin is a transparent protocol and every node verifies every transaction according to the rules that every user can make sure are not tampered with. It is all in the open, and no single person or group can change the rules.

1351

I think that’s the 22nd time that has been explained to him, It’s pretty straight forward to verify what you said as fact.

I’m unsure how people arrive at some of their conclusions, too many of us turn a blind eye to a lot. Some countries still enforce a level of colonialism where they determine what currency another country uses and we just accept it.

Reading back on this thread it’s funny how most accept the current fiat system without question, but a currency designed by a citezen isn’t accepted.

It is the government that creates law regarding money and finance. If we look at Obama’s wall Street reform Act and Consumer protection act, it would have forced bankers to work in a different way than what they were used to, So government law does dictate what banks are permitted to do.

The question is are these laws fit for purpose? Do they need updating or Do governments around the world even have an understanding of what exactly bankers are doing? Are too many governments turning a blind eye for a monetary reward?

If we look at what Obama’s laws changed it can give us a clue to where the issues are; Wall Street Reform: The Dodd-Frank Act | The White House

" Taxpayers will not have to bear the costs of Wall Street’s irresponsibility: If a firm fails in the future it will be Wall Street – not the taxpayers – that pays the price."

This one alone would have changed a lot, traders would have to start being careful and not relay on taxes to bail them out if they make a mess of things.

“The Federl Reserve System: All national and state chartered banks are subject to Federal Reserve supervision and regulation. The Federal Reserve Board of Governors oversees the entire system. The president appoints six of the governors (subject to Senate confirmation) to 14-year terms and the board’s chair to a 4-year term .”

So for the USA it’s actually the President that appoints the governors.

1 Like
1352

Yeah I thought so. But I’m no longer sure about that.

This is such a completely different story about how the monetary system actually works that it’s hard to believe, and honestly I’m currently not sure what I should think about this.

A lot of what he describes makes sense, but the interpretation of what is causing what comes from a pretty Keynesian perspective and I have a hard time following all of that reasoning.

But the fact alone that 90% of the dollars are created as credit in off-shore banks and this numbers seem to come from reliable sources is enough to not call this complete ■■■■■■■■. How should the Fed actually have any influence on the dollar as a whole when their influence reaches like 10% of the supply? Those off-shore banks don’t care what the Fed says, they don’t have central bank reserves to back the “synthetic” dollars they create in the first place.

1353

Banks do not create money just like fractioning BTC does not create more BTC. They just loan out money from others without keeping a reserve, and yes on occasion they fail on repaying when a crisis occurs, similar to BTC. Remember when exchanges
So, you are telling me that saving money in your sock or below the matress is better than on an exchange/bank? Because this is literally the analogy you keep using. And yes, in the BTC world it is because the “EXCHANGES” (a fancy word for crypto-exclusive bank ran by people who can’t run corporations well).

[quote=“Karak Terrel, post:1350, topic:346290, username:Karak_Terrel”]
Bitcoin is a transparent protocol and every node verifies every transaction according to the rules that every user can make sure are not tampered with.[/quote]
That’s the theory, but reality is that it’s not at all; If you follow this link we see some random guy trying to be a banker and asks on Reddit “How does MY RUNNING SYSTEM” work? How transparent is it actually when those who run it has to ask? I don’t have my local banker ask me how transactions work…
https://www.reddit.com/r/lightningnetwork/comments/ot9i1l/lightning_balance_changes_without_new/
*** WoW! *** I really want to use that for real transactions and not just ‘games’.

Check out page 49 and 50. But… It’s “new” from 2015!

No. This is FALSE.
There are 70+ active BTC rulesets. Thus at least 70 people that have changed the rulesets.
BITCOIN GOLD, from 2017?, still being maintained and used. Bitcoin Gold USD (BTG-USD) Price, Value, News & History - Yahoo Finance what is your estimate for it to end? 2525 if humankind still survives? Warhammer 40000? Or even later?

Another thing ;
“Tesla booked a $170 million loss from its bitcoin holdings over the first six months of the year”
Oh nice, that loss will be reducing the tax rate for the Tesla company. Keep “dreaming” (and I had to really search for a nice word) no one is bailing out the BTC clowns. The US is now loosing taxes due to Musks funny adventure in crypto.

1354

That is absolutely wrong. Banks create money directly on their balance sheet. They create a monetary asset and at the same time a liability. It’s literally created out of thin air.

If you go to your bank and get 1 mil dollars to build a house they create that 1 mil dollars on their balance sheet. There is no amount of money that comes from savings accounts or the central bank. When you then go pay the architect and they have their account on a different bank, your bank sends a message to their bank and they then update the balance sheets of the accounts accordingly as well as one bank now owes that amount to the other bank.

The way I understand it (and I’m still a bit shaky on how this actually works) the only time where central bank assets come in to play is when this banks attempt to settle what they owe to each other. And that is only for banks within the US dollar system. But 90% of all dollars are created outside of the US dollar system and they apparently use all sorts of stuff to settle, like the junk bonds that blew up and hence incapacitated that system, which led to the 2008 financial crisis (At least that is what the guy in the podcast says).

No, because cash is usually not insured, but a bank account is. And banks do blow up. However, it’s still under some else’s control and there are multiple scenarios where you can still lose your money or are unable to access it.

Storing your Bitcoin on an exchange or lending service is extremely bad because they are not insured. If there where insured banks for this the same considerations and risks that apply to fiat banks would still apply.

Storing your Bitcoin by yourself has obviously similar risk to storing cash in your mattress. Although since you can have things like multisig wallets and maybe in the future vaults, there is a lot of potential to increase the security of self custody. But the user interfaces for this things are still severely lacking and there isn’t really a best practice yet.

You are talking about something completely different here. I was talking about monetary policy, how money is issued now and in the future. Who can create it, how and how much. This is a simple algorithm in the protocol and your node makes sure it is followed. Think of it as a programmatic accountant you employ completely under your control, that checks every single ledger entry every created to make sure all rules are followed.

What you are talking about is the user interface of the software to transact, make channels etc. There are obviously wallets that completely abstracts that from you and that all happens automatically in the background, that’s what a normal user would use.

This user in the post you liked is running a node interface that is for more advanced users that want more control about the inner workings of the channels and that requires some technical know how the same way it is with every software system if you want to have fine grained control about every aspect. Obviously he is encountering problems and now asks about them, nothing wrong with that at all.

Yes, and the early forms of the internet originated in 1970. When did mainstream start using it? It takes time for completely new technology to mature to a level that it’s usable by regular people. I already said earlier in this thread I consider it extremely early and not ready for mainstream, which is why I was kinda surprised by El Salvador’s push to implement it as payment system.

Although lightning can be used directly by regular people right now, the user experience in my opinion isn’t there yet. There is still a lot to do.

I feel like I have explained this multiple times before and at that point I’m not sure if you are just not get it or are trolling me.

Yes, you can change the rules of your node software and then you are on a new fork, because you change the consensus. And if others agree with you, you can form a network and transact between with each other. You have created shitcoin #878266 and probably no one cares.

The same power that allows you to change the rules and create that fork allows you to NOT CHANGE YOUR RULES and make sure they always stay the same.

I know this is difficult to wrap your head around. But this is how consensus works. And as it turns out it’s now extremely hard to change, because what people value most in a currency is stability and they vote for this literally with their wallet by valuing the unchanged Bitcoin more than any of the forks that exist.

There is no saying how long this forks stay around. As long as someone is willing to run nodes. But if they are PoW they don’t have the hash rate to secure themselves. They are literally under constant thread of attacks.

1 Like
1355

lol.
Banks do not lend money they do not have. They are obliged to back it in fiat or other assets. Otherwise the bank would be insolvent. They can get that money that ‘does not exist’ -if they do not have enough money from the people who deposit- from the central bank and they give a collateral against it. ONLY the central bank can be insolvent as it’s backed by a country (as collateral) and if they see there are many loans they can decide to “print” money to keep the economical engine running. BTC can do that too, they just create another one and call it BTC-71 with 2 million coins and there we go. The limit on coins is a bit moot in the way you can create more currencies and not more coins. Not really a solution in my opinion.

I hope there will be some solution for trust and customer protection in the future.

True, but still, the same issue arises that you claim is one of the large issues with fiat.

1 Like
1356

I felt this as well, all I can say really is that there is a large part of society that does not want to move on, they can clearly see there is a massive problem and some changes need to be made which help normal citezens, The average person can now have full control over a small portion of their finance which really is something to be celebrated. Some people are just not ready for change.

I do try my hardest to embrace change if I find it is logical and in my favour, never in my life would I have thought I can earn money from maintaining a series of powerful computers and renting out processing power, this is something I only saw in sci fi movies and games. I’m very excited and will continue to carefully learn more.

1 Like
1357

Yeah they don’t lend the money they don’t have. They actually create the deposits out of thin air before they lend it :slight_smile:

Unfortunately that is not even where the story ends. But I let you chew on that for now. if you are ready for the next “Santa isn’t real” revelation you can google “Eurodollars”.

The forking is a new mechanic that doesn’t exist in pre-blockchain currencies and it’s completely understandable that it’s confusing as hell. I don’t anyone understands all implications of that yet, although most of this forks fade away, it’s not sure what will happen if Bitcoin is far more capitalized than now and a consensus split would happen between two parties that are equally economically active and are independently capable of maintaining the system.

I find it a rather interesting property. Instead of fighting over it and one side eventually getting the upper hand and forcing the others to comply like in traditional systems, we can just split apart and literally don’t talk to each other anymore.

The in-elasticity of Bitcoin is another topic. I’m aware that this may be an issue. I don’t understand enough about economics to really judge if Bitcoin as money would be viable on it’s own. I know the Austrian economists probably say it would, and the keynsians say it can’t, but from what I have seen they are both full of dogmatic ■■■■■■■■.

At the moment I think a neutral decentralized transparent fixed supply money has it’s uses and are a valuable addition no matter if it replaces anything.

1 Like
1358

As far as I know a debt is made and not really money. For example, I want to loan of €10 000 to start a company. The banks gives me the money and a debt both cancelling each other, either I make enough money to pay them back over a few years -as the loan grants me a discount on taxes- either I go bankrupt and in that case all assets are sold in the hope to recover the money.

So either way there is more economy and logically more need for ‘coins/fiat’ but there is also a negative money which is the debt. In accountancy your always book everything on two sides of the balances. And yes, this is part of the balances system. Would Bitcoin per say change anything? Not really, most bank accounts and bank transfers are made completely ‘on the databases’ and not with exchange of fiat or gold or silver or monopoly money or Pokémon trading cards.

A cheque for example could also be seen as a money generating device (available to anyone) as you could put any amount of money on it (backed solely by your word) but in the same way a debt is created in your name, making everything equal again.

I do understand that if people treat the debt system wrong, there will be severe consequences to the economy. But I do not see BTC change anything in that way, ok, BTC itself (and let’s forget about any forks in this example) is treated as an asset you can short. So you can buy and sell BTC that does not exist as you are selling the intention/order.

I can agree with that, even if only a handful of people find use of the ‘virtual/private currency’. I would think a lot of rules must be put in place and laws around the protection of customers if the userbase expands (inter)nationally.

1359

Some banks are limited to what central banks allow to create.
If your bank is limited by a factor of 100, then for each $ created by central bank, they can make a loan of 100$.

Some other banks are not limited, but they have an issue when they need to transfer money from their clients to another bank. Say client John from bank B1 buys something from client Henri from bank B2, for 100$ ; then the bank B1 needs to send 100$ in value to bank B2, which is typically using central money. Of course at the same time some other clients will transfer from B2 to B1, but basically a bank is limited to how much it can accept to move outside, and as such to how much money it can give (=loan) to its clients.

If a bank goes bankrupt(=> more people want to retrieve money than the central bank gave to that bank), the state has to reimburse the value of what people lost, and since many banks are around 10% only in central money it means the state should reimburse 90% of the value of the clients. Which is more costly than buying bonds to allow the bank to give money to people who want it - bonds that are purchased with central money from the state.

That’s why the banks are “too big to fail” : they can fail but doing so would cost much more to the state (even ignoring domino effect) than saving them. They can fail, because they can loan more money than they actually have access to.

1 Like
1360

But that is the real fiat money. There is no other money. The money you get and have in your account originated in someone else’s liability. And cash is really only a representation, a tool for convenient payment of that money.

All fiat money is created by dept.

Yes, now you get it. The point is that there are very very few checks and balances on how much money can be created this way within for example the US dollar system. And additionally, foreign banks have absolutely no restrictions. It is estimated that over 90% of existing dollars are created in what is called the eurodollar system, which is just a cabal of banks around the world who trust each other send each other messages to update ledgers. No one actually knows how much dollars they created.

I knew the part about the money creation by dept of domestic banks. But the eurodollar is pretty new to me. And it seems like I was actually wrong. I assumed it’s all controlled by the central bank, but it seems to me like it just isn’t. At least I don’t know how they could.

Well Bitcoin is completely different in that it is commodity money and not created out of dept. But it is the first commodity money that works globally at the speed of communication. It’s basically like gold but now capable to keep up with the ledger based fiat in speed. But in many ways it is the complete opposite of fiat.

While fiat is extremely elastic and can contract and expand as the market requires, Bitcoin is in-elastic like a rock. If fiat gets taken to the extreme it causes massive redistribution of wealth, mall investment and inflation. If Bitcoin is taken to the extreme it will probably lead to hoarding, money supply shortage and deflation.

It’s possible that we need both, so they keep each other in check, but I have never heard anyone explore this option so far.

1 Like
1361

To me it seems that the fiat system needs to be fed if times are hard, if we analyse we will see that millions of people who brought BTC are now exchanging it back to fiat and either using it to pay of the rising cost of living or investing it elsewhere.

Ultimately money was borrowed from rich people and borrowed from the future (printed) and from large corporations, All of which need to be paid back.

It looks like the need to borrow money is where this crazy debt/inflation cycle starts and I am unsure if we can fully blame banks and the way currency is managed, I’ve not committed to this view and would like to explore it further.

I’m unsure that we can blame banks for the way finance is today because they are simply reacting to what’s happening in the economy. If we look back in history hard times seem to fall on the world after a major event that required very large amounts of money to resolve. Let’s look at the cost of covid for example, Hardly anyone was in a position to work due to society having to shut down in order to avoid death which had to take the absolute highest priority, Governments and banks had to respond and provide money to their citezens otherwise more illness and death would have occurred.

So generally my point is can we really blame the bank/government for the state of the economy? Or should we blame the people managing the wet market in China and their dealing in wild animals where they store live and dead wild animals poorly?

The cycle seems to be Tragedy > Borrowing > Repayment > Inflation > Debt > More Borrowing > Inflation > Debt > More Borrowing.

War can be included in tragedy, it lead to grain exports being stopped in Ukraine so anyone who grows and harvests grain would need to borrow due to there being no income for their business. Also the people who depend on the grain imports may have to source it at a more expensive price and borrow money to obtain it.

I’d say both systems are needed as there are benefits for the lender and borrower in the points I presented. If more people had a better understanding of BTC then the freezing of fiat value would be a useful tool for all of us.

TLDR: Can banks be held responsible for supplying the mega urgent need to borrow? Can we look at finance/economy without considering the events that drive borrowing?

I’m going to keep it real, I dislike the history of banks as some of their dealings were not ethical, but respect is due as they provided me with money while I was unable to work due to covid, and they did it without issue, every month my furlough was there.

EDIT: I think I get it now after doing some maths, if the UK gov provided a lockdown salary of £25,000 to 45 million people for a year the cost is £1.1 Trillion, all I can tell you is I’m glad I’m not responsible for sourcing that level of money quickly.

1 Like
1362

Here’s some news about one of Warren Buffet’s mortgage lending companies, Warren Himself hasn’t commented yet. Based on his narrative I would have thought he would offer loans to every american regardless of ethnicity,

Evidently there is a double standard in his narrative, As well as making it difficult for people to move forward he also criticizes people who are involved in a decentralised way of managing their finances.

One must be very careful about who they listen to and follow these days, How can one be so vocal with their criticisms, and behind closed doors they plot to discriminate against a group of people. I’d be embarrassed and I’d shut my big mouth if I were him.

Bitcoin puts a small amount of financial power in the little guy’s hands, I’m leaning towards the view that Warren Buffet is against this based on the evidence at hand.

1 Like
1363

It’s sad we still live in a day and age where discrimination and harassment are very frequent. It’s sometimes hard to give advise on what Warren Buffet has to do and how it actually solves issues. Maybe you can start with those crypto guys you are involved in;

https://www.euractiv.com/section/economy-jobs/news/eu-lawmakers-faced-with-sexist-and-racist-abuse-from-crypto-advocates/

1364

The BIS is involved in the structure behind CBDC’s ;

So if CBDCs ever become a thing, the BIS will go on for quite some time. So no removal of the BIS either way.