[dragontamer]

> Is currency ever a good store of value? If you're a billionaire you're certainly not storing it in fiat.

What? Do you change all of your savings into stocks or bonds each month?

Currency is the best short-term store of value. And "short term" means anything I plan to use in the next 6 months (My emergency fund will last 6 months without me being forced to touch my bonds or stocks, giving me breathing room for when to liquidate my long-term savings.)

I trust cash to be stable in the short term, even if it loses value long-term. I can't trust BTC as either long-term or even short-term storage.

BTC utterly fails at "6-month" storage due to its volatility. BTC has no history for growing (stocks are based on company profits. So as long as companies are profitable, they'll grow). Bonds are strong guarantees for growing: only bankruptcy can prevent me from getting me money promised through a bond.

What guarantees do I have for long-term BTC storage? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Short term? Well, again, stability is more important than gains in the short term (which is why my short-term is cash... not stocks).

[smokeyj]

I never suggested storing your savings in bitcoin. I'm saying the future of storing value is in commodities and equities represented on a blockchain - along with a real time settlement layer allowing people to charge and pay in any denomination of their hearts desire. Heck, you could even pay in certificates of USD represented on the Blockchain if you like.

[dragontamer]

Without the value aspect of it, what would incentivize people to perform proof of work?

Work costs money: like electricity isn't free at the scale of the BTC Network. It costs thousands of dollars of electricity to run those BTC mining rigs to verify the ledger.

----------

If you're saying the future of "blockchains" is just a cryptographically signed ledger, without any proof of work or BTCs being assigned, I think I can agree with you on that.

But at the moment, "blockchain" is the new cloud. No one really knows what a "blockchain" is anymore, aside from a new electronic ledger of some kind. BTC is clearly a blockchain, but a lot of the "blockchain-based technologies" are nothing like BTC at all.

A lot of these "blockchains" are just centralized banks electronically verifying transactions. Like a notarized bill of sale, except the 'notarized' portion is electronic. Proof of work and all that stuff just don't exist in a lot of the "blockchain" solutions coming out.

[smokeyj]

In theory users could pay a transaction fee denominated in a commodity. Once mined the miner can convert to another asset type. But say you're saving in terms of kegs of beer and can't pay a fraction of a keg - you could keep an energy fund so you can pay a highly granular transaction fee. Now, if the miner doesn't think the certificate is valid or reputable it won't be included.

[james0001]

Hey smokey, you seem to have a good grasp of practical blockchain applications. Was wondering if you think it is feasible to use Blockchain for organic agricultural commodities? The idea being that the transparency blockchain can bring could help more accurately price organic ag commodities, which still are undervalued at that level (no transparency in this market, still getting lumped in with regular ag commodities). Just curious, like a organic commodities exchange using blockchain for significantly faster settlement and ability to audit the identity of a commodity (quantity, quality, location/logistics). Wondering if you think blockchain could have a use in something like that?

[smokeyj]

One problem with organic produce is the shelf-life making speculation potentially tricky. I could see a role for futures and prediction markets to hedge risk and better find the market rate. Check out Augur for example https://www.augur.net/

[makomk]

For billionaires or even mere millionaires, currency isn't some fungible thing anymore. Remember that bank deposit insurance is capped at a few hundred thousand.