[dkshdkjshdk]

I'll bite the bullet and assume that you're asking a legitimate question in good faith:

1) Imagine I have 100 USD and 100 EUR and I want to provide liquidity to a USD-EUR pair to get a cut of exchange fees. Which automated market maker do I need to contact in the space of "conventional financial technologies" to do so?

2) Imagine I have 1 BTC and I want to lend it (in a secure way) to get some return (in BTC). Who should I contact in the space of "conventional financial technologies" to do so?

3) Imagine I want to borrow 100 USD using BTC as collateral. Who should I contact in the space of "conventional financial technologies" to do so?

Do you consider any of the previously-mentioned use-cases to constitute crime and/or speculation? If yes, why?

[RandomLensman]

1) Granted, but also EURUSD pricing does not work like any AMM (i.e. not formulaic exchange rates). So right now this does not work from both sides (no place to do and no method to do it). And no, it will not change to formulaic unless you have insane amount so liquidity in (but even then, central banks could just steam roll over you)

2) Lending can be regulated, so might or might not be ok for you to lend - not a lawyer. What about KYC/AML etc.?

3) Aren't there specialized prime brokers that do that? (maybe Genesis?)

[dkshdkjshdk]

> 1) Granted, but also EURUSD pricing does not work like any AMM [...]

Exactly. So, if I want to put liquidity in EURUSD market, I have no choice but to actively manage it, since traditional financial institutions won't do it for me. That was my point... to bring up examples of use-cases that are not covered by traditional financial institutions.

> 2) Lending can be regulated, so might or might not be ok for you to lend - not a lawyer. What about KYC/AML etc.?

Sure, lending is regulated. But then the problem mostly lies with AAVE (for example), not me (they are the one lending my assets, after all, and the ones possibly subjected to KYC laws), I would assume.

My point is... even if you are willing to go through KYC, and have nothing to hide (e.g. you got your crypto-assets, or whatever you want to call them, legitimately, and file your taxes correctly), there simply is no traditional financial institution that has a "BTC savings account", for example.

> 3) Aren't there specialized prime brokers that do that? (maybe Genesis?)

Probably. But then the argument that "there is no actual use-case for blockchain outside of crime and speculation" kinda breaks down. If you consider Genesis to be part of "traditional finance", then it's clear that "traditional finance" sees value in these things (it's not just vapor). If you consider Genesis to not be part of "traditional finance", then you're just confirming what I implied: there isn't anyone in "traditional finance" providing such services.

[RandomLensman]

On EURUSD, you could look at currency funds (not strictly the same, but as close as it gets)

Depending on which country you are in, things like bitcoin savings accounts are starting to emerge. Also funds might be able to invest.

And yes, traditional finance is starting to see value in providing services for these things (and has so for a while) - not strictly the same as seeing value in the underlyings, but separate point

[dkshdkjshdk]

Ok. So... if even traditional finance is slowly adopting these things, it kind of becomes hard to hold on to the idea that there aren't actually any use-cases outside of crime and speculation.

EDIT: Just to address your edit...

> On EURUSD, you could look at currency funds (not strictly the same, but as close as it gets)

And will they be willing to talk to a person that only wants to put 100 EUR + 100 USD into it? I seriously doubt it.

[rostigerpudel]

> [...]if even traditional finance is slowly adopting these things,[...]

All this means is there is money to be made. It does not mean that any particular use-case exists. So no, this does not make it hard to hold on to the idea above - no use-cases outside of crime and speculation.

If you provide storage for people's stuff and someone wants specialized storage for tulips you probably do not care whether the tulips are worth anything or useful. You rent them the space to store their tulips if you can make money that way.

[dkshdkjshdk]

And "making money" does not sound like a use-case to you? Ok.

And tulips are not worthless... they just aren't as valuable as people thought they were, during the tulip mania.

[RandomLensman]

Wasn't my claim. And speculation is fine anyway, because it is at the heart of any new business etc.

[dkshdkjshdk]

Yes, I know. But it was the original claim that triggered the current thread.

Either way, thanks for the insight and information you brought to the discussion.

[Marazan]

Two of your 3 problems solved by Bitcoin only exist because you have Bitcoin.

[dkshdkjshdk]

Yes... and?

Are people that have Bitcoin not allowed to do useful things with what they have? Does it bother you that there are actual legitimate use-cases for these things (as you seemingly admit, by not including my first example in your comment)?

Someone asked for an example, and I provided a few... perhaps you don't see value in the examples I gave, but there are people out there who do.

[Marazan]

To the question "What problem does Bitcoin solve" the answer "Without Bitcoin I would not be able to transact in Bitcoin" is not valid.

[dkshdkjshdk]

Was that even the question to begin with? Here is the comment I replied to, originally [0]. Try to find the word "Bitcoin" there.

And, again, thanks for continuing to support my point, by failing to address the fact that the first example I gave had nothing to do with BTC.

Have a nice day.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27769442

[skohan]

Yes that was essentially the original question to begin with. You can make a pedantic distinction between "Bitcoin" and "blockchain", but your comments make it clear you are arguing in bad faith here.

[dkshdkjshdk]

I'm arguing in bad faith, according to you, even though I individually and respectfully tried to address every point you asked/made.

Yet, you are the one doing unbased accusations of fraud ("stablecoins are essentially fraud"), and still haven't replied to the question I made 4 or 5 times already: What if I choose to get my returns in some asset that is pegged to USD (e.g. DAI, USDC), am I still speculating on the value of BTC?

I guess my question is inconvenient.

I'm done here, but I do hope you have a nice day. And, don't worry, I won't bite your bait ever again.

[skohan]

I would agree that case 1 constitutes a potentially interesting use of block-chain. 2 and 3 assume the value of BTC, which I would not take as a given.

[dkshdkjshdk]

Regarding point 2, what's wrong with assuming that 1 BTC is worth 1 BTC now and forever? If I'm not trading asset A for asset B, then it's hardly "speculation".

If it makes it any better, I can lend BTC and ask to get returns in USDC (which should be worth as much as 1 USD, if you trust Coinbase). Am I still speculating?

Regarding point 3, where is the speculation, exactly? If, at any point, the BTC I left as collateral goes below a certain level of collateralization (let's say 200% of the value of the borrowed asset), I'll just get liquidated: whoever lent me the USD will get their USD back, and I will lose my collateral (or a part of it, at least), if I fail to keep the value of my collateral over the threshold.

I think perhaps we have a very different idea of what "speculation" is supposed to be...

Either way, I guess you accept that there are use-cases that are otherwise not being provided by more traditional tech/institutions. Good.

[skohan]

> what's wrong with assuming that 1 BTC is worth 1 BTC now and forever?

Because if 1 BTC = 0 USD, and has no real-world utility outside of speculation, there is no compelling reason to try to acquire more BTC.

[dkshdkjshdk]

> Because if 1 BTC = 0 USD...

A big assumption here. I can also hypothesize that 1 USD = 0 EUR, at some point in the future, and, thus, holding or buying USD is pure speculation and there is no compelling reason to try to acquire more USD.

Under this logic, I shouldn't ever buy or hold anything (forex, stocks, etc.), lest its market value goes to zero.

Also, thanks for ignoring the rest of my point: What if I choose to get my returns in some asset that is pegged to USD (e.g. DAI, USDC), am I still speculating on the value of BTC?

[skohan]

For 1 USD = 0 EUR to become a reality, we would have to imagine a massive geopolitical shift has taken place.

For 1 BTC = 0 USD, all you need is one government, which has been the victim or ransomware attacks, to regulate BTC out of existence.

[dkshdkjshdk]

> For 1 USD = 0 EUR to become a reality, we would have to imagine a massive geopolitical shift has taken place.

Which is a possibility (the same way that 1 BTC = 0 USD is also a possibility; just a very unlikely possibility).

> For 1 BTC = 0 USD, all you need is one government, which has been the victim or ransomware attacks, to regulate BTC out of existence.

Unfortunately, reality proves you wrong. Here [0] is an example of one government regulating BTC out of existence (or trying to)... but I'm sure you can find others.

What's the price of BTC today? (hint: not zero)

I think there's not much point in continuing this discussion, since you seem pretty convinced that the ultimate value of BTC is zero (even though you admit that there probably are legitimate use-cases for such things). If you already pre-decided that it is the case (and you are totally within your right to speculate on the value of BTC), nothing I can say will change it.

Also, thanks for ignoring the rest of my point: What if I choose to get my returns in some asset that is pegged to USD (e.g. DAI, USDC), am I still speculating on the value of BTC?

[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/15/india-plans-cryptocurrency-b...

[intev]

Since you seem to be arguing in good faith I'll engage; at which point will you accept that the value of BTC is > $0? It's coming up on a decade of showing seemingly limitless upside with the bottom constantly rising. The tulip mania everyone loves to cite lasted about 3 years. This is going on for more than 3x. At what point would you consider you are maybe wrong?

Personally speaking, I was on the other side of this until about 3 years ago. I first learned about crypto in 2011. At one point I realized I was not looking at the facts unfolding right in front of me. I was just telling myself "look everyone are idiots, and everyone is going to crash and burn because of this. This makes no sense." Then I realized smarter and smarter people were getting in and more and more people were getting convinced and either I benefit from this or I become the person on the sidelines left behind.

[skohan]

There are indeed people willing to trade USD for BTC, so there is a market price for BTC. However, there are three major risks in my opinion which I think could make BTC worthless in the next 10 years:

1) There seems to be very credible evidence that Tether and other stablecoins are essentially fraud, and Tether makes up a massive portion of the BTC market cap

2) Ransomware is becoming increasingly prevalent, and has managed to compromise large institutions - it's not difficult to imagine regulatory action banning cryptocurrency as a result of this

3) Similarly, BTC is viewed by many as an unnecessary driver of fossil fuel consumption. Carbon regulation will necessarily get stronger in the next decades, and BTC may face harsh regulatory challenges because of this

[intev]

1) Seems like a random point to me. I agree with some stablecoins there are fishy things going on, and others not so much. But again I'm failing to see the relevance of this point. Also I'd like to point out, the SEC loves to go after crypto. It's quite clear where they stand. Somehow they are ignoring this "very credible evidence". At what point does this becomes a conspiracy theory? Or is the SEC in cahoots with them? Or do they not care? (can't be this because they demonstrated with XRP they really do care).

2) Yea I see this as a risk. Might reduce the value but tbd on how much. On the flip side you have entire countries trying to adopt it as currency.

3) This current change is much needed IMO for btc to evolve and I'm glad its happening sooner rather than later. BTC mining getting kicked out of China is great. If BTC can't survive without fossil fuel consumption it doesn't deserve to exist. This is forced evolution and I'm pretty optimistic about it.

My initial question still stands. At what point will you think you are wrong with regards to the value? Will you constantly move goal posts, as I did for years, or have a line in the sand after which you will adopt it.

[skohan]

1) As far as I know there are legal proceedings ongoing agains Tether - I don't think this is a conspiracy theory.

> My initial question still stands. At what point will you think you are wrong with regards to the value? Will you constantly move goal posts, as I did for years, or have a line in the sand after which you will adopt it.

I know this is a common argumentative tactic to attempt to get people to change their mind. I don't know what would change my mind, but we're certainly not there yet as long as the risks which I cited still exist.

[dkshdkjshdk]

> As far as I know there are legal proceedings ongoing agains Tether - I don't think this is a conspiracy theory.

Even so, how do you go from "there are legal proceedings against Tether" to "there seems to be very credible evidence that Tether and other stablecoins are essentially fraud"?

Being hyperbolic does not help your argument here... it just makes it seem like you don't know what you are talking about (i.e. you don't know the difference between USDT, USDC and DAI, for example).

> I know this is a common argumentative tactic to attempt to get people to change their mind.

You seem to be under the impression that people are trying to change your mind, rather than simply pointing out the flaws, leaps-of-faith and speculation in your argumentation.

Trust me... you also did not convince anyone that the value of BTC is literally zero (except the ones that were already convinced).

[intev]

> I know this is a common argumentative tactic to attempt to get people to change their mind. I don't know what would change my mind, but we're certainly not there yet as long as the risks which I cited still exist.

This is a common tactic to best understand if I am wasting my time. Seems like I am. Hope you have a good rest of the day.

[dkshdkjshdk]

> in my opinion

> I think could

Who is speculating about the value of things here? Wasn't speculation supposed to be bad?

None of the things you mentioned support the hypothesis that the value of BTC is literally zero (not 0.00000000000001 USD, but literally zero).

> 1) There seems to be very credible evidence that Tether and other stablecoins are essentially fraud, and Tether makes up a massive portion of the BTC market cap

I have a hard time even parsing this ("Tether makes up a massive portion of the BTC market cap"), and it sounds more like an appeal to emotion than an actual argument. Please explain in which ways are DAI and USDC "essentially fraud". Perhaps you should contact US authorities, and complain about the fraudulent Coinbase, if you really believe that to be the case (and if you're not just engaging in unfounded speculation).