Ouch .... difficult to listen to the rather contrary opinion about precious metals (being a fan), although good to hear a very upbeat view of Bitcoin. It does beg the question 'does this positive view also apply to other cryptos - at least the serious contenders such as Ethereum, or should we just pile into BTC?'
Thanks Alan - that's a useful clarification. However, it doesn't address the question of whether BTC is the only (worthwhile) game in town. What's your view ?
Am I right in thinking though, there's nothing to stop anyone creating another decentralised block-chain crypto? In effect, take what Bitcoin is and produce a competitor? Until alchemists find a way to turn base metal into gold, that's the difference between decentralised crypto and gold. Have I got that right?
Bitcoin is the discovery of absolute scarcity in the digital realm. If it could be reproduced then we have a contradiction and absolute scarcity doesn't exist - making all tokens and chains worthless.
Sorry for the highfalutin explanation.
I recommend reading Knut Svanholm found at KnutSvanholm.com or Gigi at dergigi.com for longer form and better explanations of why Bitcoin is unique and cannot be copied.
Alchemy is a good framework for thinking of competing crypto coins. Gold's chemical properties have proven impossible to reproduce. If it were possible, it would render both gold and the alchemical copies worthless.
I think you misunderstand me. Bitcoin is built on a formula isn't it, that contains every transaction that's ever been performed previously? I don't mean build more Bitcoins (ie. forgeries). I know the mathematical number is finite at 21 million bitcoins. What I mean is build another coin like Bitcoin.....or are you saying another mathematical algorithm like Bitcoin could never be reproduced? It would have to compete with the 'original' for market share, but it could possess the same finite number of coins, be decentralised etc.....What would Bitcoins unique selling point, other than 'first in the game' be then?
Thanks Andoni. I will have to 'duly diligently' review other publications, since this title suggests dedication to BTC ! From everything I have seen and heard I will likely stay diversified to a degree, but major on BTC.
He strikes me as a guy who has all his eggs in this basket - and will talk the price up forever.. what do you think he would do if Bitcoin trippled in value? He'd sell it for USD of course!
What can you DO with a bitcoin besides hold it in the hope it will increase in value - relative to what?
Maybe I just don't get it..
It all sounds like more abstract boomer finance talk to me..
Andrew I'd urge you to seek other discussions and material about Bitcoin. Taking from Saylor though, it is the economic, technical and morally superior money that exists.
Think rather of why anyone holds money? It is to have optionality for future wants and needs. If your money deteriorates over time you lose optionality.
Bitcoin will (hopefully) appreciate over time, because of its superior properties, giving its holders greater optionality.
Whether that comes in the form of selling back into fiat or spending it directly with merchants.
I think that a natural extrapolation of what Saylor argues is that BTC could or should become a reserve currency. Is this a good thing? And would our dear cousins allow the dollar usurped?
I’m still unsure as to why the Turks would be guaranteed a “10 - 20%” return on bitcoin, if they sold their gold. Is this just because bitcoin is limited and gold isn’t? If so, why must it increase in value at this extraordinary rate? How does Saylor know?
No one "knows" but I believe his prediction is based on bitcoin's 14-year price history and his extrapolation of how the economic incentives might play themselves out.
Bitcoin being strictly limited is its main value driver. Any additional demand can only force price upwards.
Ouch .... difficult to listen to the rather contrary opinion about precious metals (being a fan), although good to hear a very upbeat view of Bitcoin. It does beg the question 'does this positive view also apply to other cryptos - at least the serious contenders such as Ethereum, or should we just pile into BTC?'
Unlike crypto, only Bitcoin is decentralised and has a fixed supply.
Thanks Alan - that's a useful clarification. However, it doesn't address the question of whether BTC is the only (worthwhile) game in town. What's your view ?
In my opinion yes, only BTC.
This article elucidates further and may help you decide. https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/the-great-plague-of-shitcoinery
Am I right in thinking though, there's nothing to stop anyone creating another decentralised block-chain crypto? In effect, take what Bitcoin is and produce a competitor? Until alchemists find a way to turn base metal into gold, that's the difference between decentralised crypto and gold. Have I got that right?
Bitcoin is the discovery of absolute scarcity in the digital realm. If it could be reproduced then we have a contradiction and absolute scarcity doesn't exist - making all tokens and chains worthless.
Sorry for the highfalutin explanation.
I recommend reading Knut Svanholm found at KnutSvanholm.com or Gigi at dergigi.com for longer form and better explanations of why Bitcoin is unique and cannot be copied.
Alchemy is a good framework for thinking of competing crypto coins. Gold's chemical properties have proven impossible to reproduce. If it were possible, it would render both gold and the alchemical copies worthless.
I think you misunderstand me. Bitcoin is built on a formula isn't it, that contains every transaction that's ever been performed previously? I don't mean build more Bitcoins (ie. forgeries). I know the mathematical number is finite at 21 million bitcoins. What I mean is build another coin like Bitcoin.....or are you saying another mathematical algorithm like Bitcoin could never be reproduced? It would have to compete with the 'original' for market share, but it could possess the same finite number of coins, be decentralised etc.....What would Bitcoins unique selling point, other than 'first in the game' be then?
Thanks Andoni. I will have to 'duly diligently' review other publications, since this title suggests dedication to BTC ! From everything I have seen and heard I will likely stay diversified to a degree, but major on BTC.
Excellent. Very informative and stimulating.
Thanks David
He strikes me as a guy who has all his eggs in this basket - and will talk the price up forever.. what do you think he would do if Bitcoin trippled in value? He'd sell it for USD of course!
What can you DO with a bitcoin besides hold it in the hope it will increase in value - relative to what?
Maybe I just don't get it..
It all sounds like more abstract boomer finance talk to me..
Haha. Thanks Andrew!
Andrew I'd urge you to seek other discussions and material about Bitcoin. Taking from Saylor though, it is the economic, technical and morally superior money that exists.
Think rather of why anyone holds money? It is to have optionality for future wants and needs. If your money deteriorates over time you lose optionality.
Bitcoin will (hopefully) appreciate over time, because of its superior properties, giving its holders greater optionality.
Whether that comes in the form of selling back into fiat or spending it directly with merchants.
I enjoyed your interview of Mr Saylor. Thank you.
I think that a natural extrapolation of what Saylor argues is that BTC could or should become a reserve currency. Is this a good thing? And would our dear cousins allow the dollar usurped?
I’m still unsure as to why the Turks would be guaranteed a “10 - 20%” return on bitcoin, if they sold their gold. Is this just because bitcoin is limited and gold isn’t? If so, why must it increase in value at this extraordinary rate? How does Saylor know?
No one "knows" but I believe his prediction is based on bitcoin's 14-year price history and his extrapolation of how the economic incentives might play themselves out.
Bitcoin being strictly limited is its main value driver. Any additional demand can only force price upwards.