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.
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.
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?
> 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?
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.
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
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.
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.
> 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).
I am quite confident my arguments are sound. However you are posting from a brand new account, continuously splitting hairs rather than confronting the argument head-on, and generally engaging in bad-faith argumentation tactics.
This might be effective on other forums, but I'm quite confident the HN audience will not be impressed.
> 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.
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).
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.