eisfeld

I'll never understand why Thai motorcycle dealerships are so alergic to test rides. It's marketing that costs nearly nothing. They can even charge a small fee if needed. The concept works well in other parts of the world and the costs here are lower. I've been interested in a few bikes in the past but because I couldn't test ride I didn't buy them. I'll never buy a bike blindly. Lucky for them I am regularily in Europe where it's super easy to do test rides for nearly every model that exists there. I'd love to test ride one of those Kawas but I'm not in BKK.

I don't think these two questions rank very high. Who cares? If Hitler invented Bitcoin does that make Bitcoin intrinsically evil? What if it was invented by Ghandi? Would that make it intrinsically good? The thing is: Bitcoin is a rather simple concept. If it were a really complex one then maybe I'd agree one should look at hidden agendas but it's so simple that there really can't be anything hidden in it. And so we just need to look at its mechanisms and effects to judge if it's good or bad or anything in between.

I think I understand them well, they are very simple. The issue is that you take only some part of the necessary requirements for something to be a Ponzi or Pyramid scheme and then say it is one. There are more requirements than having no residual value or legit business behind it and that later investors hope of later investors supporting the price. A key requirement in the Ponzi case is that there is a fraudulent promise of future gains. That does not apply to Bitcoin. A key requirement in the Pyramid case is that a investor needs to sell it to 2 or more other investors. Again this does not apply to Bitcoin. I'm not hung up on the words, you are hung up calling Bitcoin these words. Just stop and I wont have to point out that you are wrong on this point. Simple as that. I hope the above made it finally clear. I really don't understand why you are so stubborn. Look, I agreed with you that Bitcoin has no residual value should a panic occur. All I'm interested in is to provide fact based view on that. We don't need wrong terms to make Bitcoin look bad, there's enough proper ways to do that. It's like you are calling a thief a murderer while I point out he's not a murderer but you then saying I am missing the point and I don't understand the concept because he is a criminal and I should not be hung up on words. We can agree he's a criminal but we really can't call him a murderer if he hasn't killed anyone. You keep saying my comparisons are off base or wrong. But please tell me *why* they are wrong. Don't just say I am wrong, I don't understand yada yada. If you don't bring forth fact based arguments then I can't take what you say at face value. But I have not argued that there is a what you called supporting value behind Bitcoin. I have just argued that Bitcoin is not a Ponzi or Pyramid scheme. Not sure what's unclear about that. I wish you also a great day ????

Right. Your *deposit* at a bank might have assets backing it but at that point you have lent the money to the bank. It's not your money anymore. Your bank book is basically an IOU where the bank promises to pay you that amount on demand. That's the exact same thing when someone deposits Bitcoin in some exchange. At that point it's not their Bitcoin anymore and the exchange has a liability and asset as you correctly stated. To be clear: it's not the currency that you deposited that is backed up. It's the loan you gave the bank that is backed to some degree by some kind of assets. I would agree that central banks are usually much more trustworthy and stable than crypto exchanges. The system of fractional reserve banking though also means that a lot more fiat money can be put into circulation than is actually backed by hard assets like cash. It can be a low single digit percentage. Note also that the liability to you as a depositor is in that currency. If the currency tanks than what do you get back? And that's what I mean by the currency itself not being backed by anything. The government or central bank doesn't guarantee you that for $1M in deposits you will get 1 standard house. Let's take the Argentine Peso as an example. It lost something like 90% I think? What does it mean that the central bank of Argentine has some mortgaged backed assets behind this? It just means that those mortgages got massively devalued. It did not help bank depositors in a meaningful way.

I've asked you to list the characteristics of Bitcoin that match the definition of Ponzi/Pyramid schemes. You haven't. You just explained repeatedly that you think it is such a scheme but not exactly why. I've listed the definition for a Ponzi and showed that they don't apply to Bitcoin. If you have actual arguments why I'm wrong then please go ahead. I'm open for them, really. I don't think it's a matter of opinion or seeing things differently. There's clear definitions and something matches them or doesn't. I also don't understand which of my arguments are circular. Clarifications welcome!

Here are the charecteristics of a Ponzi Scheme from Wikipedia: Bitcoin is *not* promising any returns. Some crypto gurus, some youtube bros might do that. But Bitcoin itself does not. Neither its inventor nor the core devs did. And so it is *not* a Ponzi. It is *you* who is hung up on calling it a Ponzi and now Pymarid scheme. Ponzi and Pyramid schemes have clear definitions. Something is such a scheme or it's not. If you like to say it has no value then fine. If you like to say it has a lot of shills and fraudsters, fine. I'd also agree that it is a high risk asset and most people should probably stay away from it. If you explain which characteristics from the definitions of a Ponzi or Pyramid scheme Bitcoin fullfils then I will concede. Until then I'll continue to discuss on this topic and try to explain things in a factual matter to the best of my ability, thank you very much.

Bitcoin is even further removed from a Pyramid Scheme than a Ponzi Scheme. Please write which exact features of Bitcoin make it either of these. I really don't see it. Also if it's "close to" then by definition it is not. Can't be a little bit pregnant. It either is or it isn't. We can discuss it being a mania, I can also entertain the idea that it doesn't have intrinsic value but lets not label it as something which it is not. Ponzi and Pyramid have clear definitions and they don't apply to BTC. I'm not trying to hype BTC, I'm just trying to present a *factual* view on it. I'm pretty sure Bitcoin can be explained in a forum like this. Don't see why not. Text is text. You say I am contradicting myself but how can you say I left out the main factor that I even mentioned myself? Now *that* is a contradiction. But that's the crux of the matter right there! With water or fruits there is some clear value in the asset for myself outside of trade and we can establish a rough baseline on it. What's the value of some painting? Who the frick knows! Maybe it has some sentinmental meaning to one person and maybe it's complete rubbish to another. The value is decided by how much another person is willing to pay for it and that's completely up to them - they make up a number out of thin air according to how they feel about it. The value of Bitcoin would go *up* if the next guy always thought it's a great investment. The price of an investment is factoring in future gains and risks. I think you didn't see my point. My point is that the price of *any* asset, be it some made up virtual fantasy NFT crap or of a bar of gold is decided by supply and demand. Some assets have a minimum residual value and some don't. Bitcoin has none. That does not mean that Bitcoin *right now* has no value, clearly it has because people are buying it. I think you missed what I said again. I didn't say Bitcoin and traditional finance are the same in every way, clearly they are not. I said some aspects are shared between the systems, aspects that many overlook in the latter one. Note how I am not saying your last statement is wrong, just that it does not make mine not true. PS: you can get insurance for some crypto currencies as well.

Finally someone who agrees that the Austrians are just Germans and an invasion of Austria would be an internal german affair. Also all those blacks in the USA are african and not american. Things get so much easier when we think like a racist! Just ignore what the actual people think and decide for them!

Thanks, if you could point out where I contradicted myself I'd appreciate it. Some points I raised might seem as contradictory but I have just tried to show that some aspects can speak pro and some contra Bitcoin. And some even both at the same time. Regarding the Ponzi: see what ozimoron said. It really does not fit the definition of a Ponzi scheme even though some shills might try to make it one. I think you are overlooking the fact that Bitcoin itself is not promising any gains. Bitcoin never positioned itself as an investment. There are crypto shills that do that. For a Ponzi scheme to be such you need to have a promise of returns which are then paid out by future investors. By your way of thinking a piece of art would also be a Ponzi scheme. Its intrinsic value is near nil but can reach prices in the millions. Why? Because people value it as such. But since it doesn't promise returns it's not a Ponzi. Another example, let's take gold. Gold is a pretty expensive commodity. Why is the price so high and does it match the residual value if you take out the "store of value", "investment" etc. pp. angle. For a private person gold itself has very little value. I'm not sure what you'd do with it. The industrial sector has some use for it but not anywhere near the level to justify these high prices and there would be alternatives for most applications. Is it because it is rare? Well Bitcoin also is. Is it because it's expensive to mine? Well Bitcoin also is. Is gold backed by a government? No. So is gold a Ponzi?

Well yes, that's why I said usually. And of course in crypto you have just as many fails. I just wanted to show how similar the crypto and traditional finance systems are in some regards because many of the features of cryptocurrencies are shown as a downside while ignoring that it's the same in the one the people already have been using. People who understand how a system works can make more money with it than people who don't understand it. Applies to nearly everything ????

Because he's not trading with Bitcoinland. And if he sells his goods to China then he isn't either looking at the USD/THB exchange rate. 99.999% of people (including me) probably don't understand all the inner workings of the fiat currency and banking system. Not a reason to keep hands off of it. It's much much easier to understand the Bitcoin system than global finance. Notice how this again is the same in traditional finance. The bankers are usually making more money than their clients ????

Let's pay attention to what people a few hundred years ago did and ignore what the people currently living in Taiwan want. While at it, let's recreate the Soviet Union and a few southern american countries could be declared provinces of Portugal again. Ah the good old times!

Yes? Drastic measures will come with negative consequences. At the same time you can't let bullies just roam free and cave to every aggression. Neither extreme is a solution and so we see what is happening right now: a middleground between these two where western countries reduced consumption of russian oil by a big amount. This doesn't put the world economy into too much stress but puts pressure on russia. As time goes by and as alternative sources for western energy needs are established the consumption of russian oil will be further reduced.

They've commited themselves by law to defending Taiwan should China invade, for better or worse. I don't think any of the current leaders are that crazy. They know full well that using nukes would spell their own doom - nothing to gain there.

He can't change his mind and change the system. It's not in hist control anymore. Bitcoin is a bit like a direct democracy in that if not the majority agrees then a change does not happen. Because they failed at the secrecy. They failed the Crypto part. If we are talking Bitcoin then it's people losing their keys. USD might remain the dominent currency. I don't think many people would seriously expect Bitcoin to replace it. And that's just as fine. That does not degrade Bitcoin really though and as mentioned is the same for any other currency or asset - nothing special about Bitcoin. In many places on earth assets are exchanged with little regard to their value denominated in USD. A Thai farmer selling a watermelon on the local market cares very little about the USD value of that watermelon. The USD does not gain its power from taxation. Other fiat currencies would have the same power. The USD gets its power from 1. the US being the most powerful country in the world 2. the US being pretty stable compared to others 3. the US being involved in a lot of trade around the world and USD easy to exchange.

No technical reason. Its creator just made that choice so the system is not indefinitely inflationary. There's a real possibility, some places haved banned Proof of Work mining already. There are supperiour mining mechanisms but unlikely that Bitcoin will switch. I understand this point of view but I think it's not the right way to think about things especially fiat notes. You can have bitcoins in tangible form as well. The last part about crypto currencies being measured in form of USD is the most misleading because that's like saying EUR is being measured in USD. You can measure everythings value in terms of USD. Or in EUR, or in THB or in BTC or in ETH or in gold nuggets. It doesn't mean anything in terms of intrinsic value of either the asset or the currency. It's called Crypto Currency because it relies on Cryptography. Kryptos means concealed, hidden, secret. Not unexplainable, mysterious or beyond comprehension. Secrecy is the key to digital security because the opposite would mean everyone could access your accounts, wallets, data etc.

Said he just before taking part in a bitcoin discussion. Impressive. You were ahead of the times given that the Bitcoin whitepaper was published in 2008.

No not like that. The first seller says he's willing to sell the can for $1 and the second dealer agrees to that price. Along comes another dealer and says hey I'm looking for a can of tuna and am willing to pay $2 and the second dealer says sure buddy! Etc. pp. The seller doesn't tell the buyer the price they'll be able to sell it for. Also the price wouldn't go up to $100 if there are other dealers on the open market advertising their cans of tuna for $2. This is how the price for virtually every commodity is determined. Why would a painting by Davinci be worth millions? Because people at an auction are willing to pay that much for it.

As long as there is a legal framework enforcing the rights to the assets - which doesn't exist right now. Because apart from the intrinsic digital security system in Bitcoin that assigns rights to a certain amount of Bitcoins, its blockchain can't enforce rights to other assets. That's why NFTs are such a joke. If you wanted to assign land ownership via a blockchain for example then that only would work as long as you can enforce it via the courts who will send armed men to hunt down violaters. And since you need governments to play along there's about 0% chance of this going to happen for a multitude of reasons.

I think you might have missed the point. If no-one is willing to buy your collection then it has no value on the market. And that's totally fine. Bitcoin obviously has value because people are buying it. This is the trivial demand and supply that defines pretty much all markets.

Very simple. Any asset is worth what other people are willing to buy it for. Nothing is directly backing Bitcoin in terms of physical assets. This is also the case for the Baht, Dollar, Euro or pretty much any other fiat currency since the backing with gold was abandoned. Physical assets in most cases will have some positive value left in the worst case (though in the extreme some might even have negative value i.e. you'll have to pay to get rid of it). As you might have noticed in the recent past, the value of a Dollar can vary quite a bit. Why? Because people changed their mind in terms of how much they value it. Swissie you are calling Bitcoin just a "combination of numbers". This is a misleading way of thinking. Any information that is represented digitally is exactly that. The US nuclear launch codes are just a combination of numbers. How much do you think some evil powers would be willing to pay for them? Or how about the password to your bank account? It's all just a few bits. But there can be some real value assigned to these bits. And the value is exactly what the highest bidder might pay for it. You should know because you said you traded commodities. Wait, halt. You actually didn't trade physical pork bellies. You speculated on digital derivative contracts that might then result in physical delivery or not. Actually on virtually all brokers they'll just force sell/buy the contracts on delivery date because their users don't actually want to receive or deliver these physical goods. Anyone who says Bitcoin was a Ponzi Scheme does not know what the definition of a Ponzi Scheme is. It might be a terrible investment and you might lose all your money but that does not make it a Ponzi. One could argue it being a mania. Now, what most people don't realize is that Bitcoin has some indirect backing. There are billions of dollars in mining hardware deployed. This creates an incentive for invested parties to keep the price as high as possible. Ironically this also represents a danger to Bitcoin because the Proof of Work mining mechanism is just incredibly wasteful in terms of energy. Bitcoin has also seen incredibly little development compared to other cryptocurrencies. Again this is a two sided sword. It made it more stable and safe but creates risk of being left behind eventually. Also the only way for bitcoin to lose value is by people losing "faith" in it. Some kind of panic. Now, Bitcoin itself can't have something like a bank run because your coins can't just disappear like in a bank unless you keep them in an exchange (just don't). What could tank the value possibly is if governments were to ban it. There is also the eventually deflationary aspect to it that guarantees that over long timeframes the price has to go up as it becomes more scarce. This is the core reason why many think it's value will go up, and that in turn brings in all the other "investors" that don't understand much but don't want to miss out either.

...to throw at them should China start war against Taiwan. The fact that China is preparing for it means they have (as they explicitly stated) the intent to use military force to fully subdue Taiwan to its will.

No matter if someone recognizes Taiwan as an independent country or not - China can wage war against Taiwan. War does not necessarily mean two independent countries go against each other. What else would you call two military groups clashing? A special military operation?

What does that mean? Inflation is the increase in price levels and (federal) budget is the amount of money available to the government to spend in a fiscal year. That's like saying I reduce my acceleration to below 5 seats.

Eh yes, logarithmic scale! Values go up exponentially. There's a special place in hell for people who spandardize non-linear scales for general public use.