Satoshi has not envisioned ASICs, no. But it doesn't matter what Satoshi thinks/thought of. Bitcoin is not controlled by anyone; anyone can introduce a better way to mine/use it.
The Bolivars being introduced into circulation over a period exceed the number of Bolivars needed to settle debts and taxes over a period, and the excess of Bolivars in the system resulted in people being able to obtain Bolivars they needed to settle these obligations by doing less work or supplying fewer goods.
Competently run central banks, unlike incompetently run central banks or crypto mining algorithms, intervene to reduce the money in circulation when its purchasing power falls faster than they're comfortable with.
Not unless they had significant debts or tax bills denominated in increasingly worthless Bolivar, or the newly printed Bolivar were being funnelled to them, no.
(Obviously debtors did not continue to be helped either, as businesses and lenders adjusted repayment terms accordingly, including a strong preference for receiving USD in untaxed offshore accounts, or just gave up altogether after incompetent monetary policy had ruined them.)
Very specific example there. Central banks can mismanage currencies, especially when the top government is bad. Film at 11. This doesn't make state currencies inherently bad or wrong. Might as well argue that the fire service is bad idea because that one time it didn't put out a fire.
It helped and is helping people escape oppressive regime in Venezuela. Your snarky question comes from the place privilege as you've never experience this kind of oppression.
> from the place privilege as you've never experience this kind of oppression.
I can't tell if this is bad satire or real bad faith, but my family actually escaped the fascist regime and the nazi invasion and it's a miracle I am alive, I'm much older than you think...
but "check your privilege" rhetorical aside, how is bitcoin helping Venezuela people to escape the oppressive regime?
Venezuela hyperinflation has political roots, there's history of crashing south american economies as the most popular ways to dethrone the elected government without military intervention to install regimes. If the country can adopt bitcoins it's because the government allowed them (Venezuela bank stashed a lot of cryptos), IMO it's pretty weird that an oppressive government would allow something that goes against their interest...
> privilege as you've never experience this kind of oppression.
it is weird to see how the cryptocurrency nerds, with their massively polluting, "I got mine" high-tech get rich quick schemes, grab ahold of the mantle of champion of the oppressed and poverty-stricken.
It's disgusting, phony and hypocritical. It's either acting in bad faith or delusion - I can't tell which, perhaps they blend into each other.
A lot more hype, a lot more FUD about everything that isn't gold, a lot more "now is a good time to buy gold". But at least you can mark its inflated price up by turning it into something many cultures find useful or pretty. :)
Case in point still. The contradictions you make are astounding. What's more astounding is that you are not even noticing them.
> Huge investment firms diversifying into crypto
> this is an indictment of the cryptocurrency community's basic financial literacy
I suggest that maybe it's you who lacks basic financial (and econ) literacy, not investment firms or the "cryptocurrency community"
> You can't just call a speculative instrument a "store of value" because every who bought into it in the past two months has seen a positive return
No, everyone who bought BTC at _any point in the past_ and didn't sell are seeing positive returns. This is the definition of a good store of value. You are conflating SoV properties with volatility. They are orthogonal. SoV is a long-term play.
> This is the definition of a good store of value.
No, it isn't. Apart from the fact that countless people have lost their shirts to BTC (it's down 6% today! There are losers today!), an asset whose value rises in unchecked proportion to the real economy represents a fundamental liquidity risk: everybody is going to want to sell, but nobody is going to want to buy.
That is why cash is the canonical store of value: not only does it not change (much), but you can exchange it without undermining the value itself.
BTC is liquid enough today for companies to move $1B without moving market (see MicroStrategy). Granted, money (USD specifically) is even more liquid, but that's why it's money -- by definition, money is the most liquid good.
BTC's liquidity has been increasing and will continue to increase in the future, so it's just a matter of time.
And you are again conflating SoV with volatility. Todays cash (USD) is not volatile but it's a terrible SoV. That's why no one is storing their wealth in USD and flee to harder assets (stocks, bonds, gold, and BTC).
I (and anyone else) can buy food and water with BTC. This statement along completely negates your point. To understand why BTC is valuable and educate yourself on the topic of money, I recommend this book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07BPM3GZQ/
> 50% chance of Bitcoin crash like in 2018, 50% chance of further price appreciation but I think $100,000 is absurd for a commodity that has close to zero intrinsic value
"$100 is absurd for a commodity that has close to zero intrinsic value"
"$1,000 is absurd..."
"$10,000 is absurd..."
At this point, the burden of proof is on sceptics to show why a commodity with zero "intrinsic" value trends upward despite those sceptics' predictions during the last ~10 years.
A $100 trillion market value for Bitcoin?! Predicated on the view that nation states will trade all their resources for BTC?! This is not the basis of a sane valuation and also doesn’t address fundamental value.
Is Bitcoin more inherently valuable than garlic coin? If so, why? Just first mover advantage or just because other people think its valuable?
Also how is BTC the most reliable store of value? It’s had multiple crashes and is one of the most volatile instruments.
As is often the case, bitcoin's volatility has been overstated:
“In our long-term study of bitcoin, we had compared bitcoin correlations to traditional asset classes and now see another interesting recent trend with its volatility,” according to Gurbacs. “In our current volatility research, we compared the 90 day and year to date volatility—as measured by their daily standard deviation as of November 13, 2020—of bitcoin against the constituents of the S&P 500 Index. We found that bitcoin has exhibited lower volatility than 112 stocks of the S&P 500 in a 90 day period and 145 stocks YTD.”
> Is Bitcoin more inherently valuable than garlic coin? If so, why?
Because of built-in scarcity. No other asset is as provably scarce as btc.
> Also how is BTC the most reliable store of value? It’s had multiple crashes and is one of the most volatile instruments.
Two points here:
- BTC is of course not good for short-term speculation, it's a long-term savings vehicle. Short-term volatility doesn't affect the properties of a long-term store of value.
- There was no period in history of btc where you would buy it and lose $ after 5 years of holding. Most likely, never will be due to my answer to #1 - inherent and ever increasing scarcity.
Is it a trend that the quality of comments about BTC on HN has increased drastically? It's about 50/50 of the good/bad ratio now, whereas 1-2 years ago, I'd say it was easily 10/90.
Tell me mister gxon, are you a good representation of the HN crowd, or is it just Bitcoiners have piled on this article for some reason?
