-
[quote user="Malachi"]I get the idea that I'm wasting my time because youre a zealot and you cant be bothered to understand the concepts that words represent. [/quote] Okay, your failure to explain yourself is because I can't be bothered to understand the concepts that particular words represent. You just keep telling yourself that
-
[quote user="Malachi"]""A market crash than? Gold can crash too."" then those submarginal uses will become affordable and people will use gold for more things and it will appreciate again. What submarginal uses are going to sustain bitcoin through the crashes? Or are you banking on not having any? [/quote] Bticoin has already
-
[quote] [quote] Exactly the same thing can be said for gold, silver, USD's or Wiemar Marks; or anyting else for that matter. Perhaps you don't understand what the term "counterparty risk" actually means? [/quote] no, the same thing could not happen to gold or silver. [/quote] What you described certainly can. Anyone can refuse to accept
-
[quote user="Malachi"]1)legal prohibition of cryptocurrency [/quote] Bitcoin is deliberately designed in such manner as to render this risk irrelvent for the majority of Internet users. [quote] 2)digital currency affective malware [/quote] Exists. Bitcoin still has a market value. The risk of gold confiscation also exists, and yet gold still
-
[quote user="Malachi"][quote user="MoonShadow"] [quote user="Malachi"]. [quote]Bitcoin does not require many of the modern functions of these institutions, and therefore does not require their overhead costs[/quote] the tradeoff is the assumption of risk. [/quote] What risk would that be? [/quote] Catastrophic loss of confidence
-
[quote user="Malachi"][quote]While it's true that Bitcoin substitutes for credit functions over natural money, Bitcoin doesn't have any counter-party risk either.[/quote] yes, it does. People could choose not to accept it because they cant use it for anything and you are stuck with nothing. [/quote] Exactly the same thing can be said
-
[quote user="Malachi"][quote]People can have physical bitcoins, too. I just don't consider them of any greater utility than sliver rounds[/quote] they are far less utility, since one must "destroy" the physical bitcoin in order to use the digital bitcoin, and outside of the digits, bitcoin loses big in every category vs. Au and
-
[quote user="Malachi"]. [quote]Bitcoin does not require many of the modern functions of these institutions, and therefore does not require their overhead costs[/quote] the tradeoff is the assumption of risk. [/quote] What risk would that be?
-
[quote user="Malachi"][quote]What do you need it to do besides transfer balances & information?[/quote] I need it to do something useful for the bearer of the note, if he, for whatever reason, decides not to exchange it for other goods. [quote]After all, even under a natural gold standard; banks, letters-of-credit & halwala transfer
-
[quote user="Malachi"][quote]I'm not sure that all money has no counterparty risk, particularly fiat money, but even if I grant that, there would be virtually no risk if Bitcoin had even a tiny fraction of the market share that dollars or Gold has today. Even .1% would do wonders.[/quote] fiat "money" has counterparty risk, but