[javert]

Are you really incapable of understanding that bitcoin might not be a waste?

An unfathomable transfer of wealth from normal people to the rich is happening because of the Fed. How? The rich can borrow money from the Fed at near zero rates. They use that money to buy assets. Meanwhile, the government borrows money from the Fed at near zero rates. The government spends the money, inflating the circulating money supply. That causes the value of money to go down.

The rich can repay their loans to the Fed using money that is worth less than when they borrowed it. I.e., borrow $100M in 2021 dollars and repay $100M in cheap 2050 dollars.

This is turning America into a nation of renters, rather than a nation of homeowners.

It's also turning us into a nation of debtors, via the Federal debt, which will become overburdensome soon. We will either default, or the debt will be erased through hyperinflation, making the rich even richer again (as they get the money first and buy assets at the old prices).

Bitcoin fixes this.

And only bitcoin, or something almost exactly like it, can fix this.

The impoverishment of normal people via the banking system is exactly what the Jeffersons of the world were trying to prevent the Hamiltons of the world from doing.

[ephbit]

This is pretty much how I interpret what's happening in the US and Europe as well.

Anyone here who can point their finger on any of the above statements and explain why it's wrong?

[AnimalMuppet]

> Are you really incapable of understanding that bitcoin might not be a waste?

Quite capable of understanding, thank you. I just think you're wrong.

[randomhodler84]

Agree with parent, I think you might not understand what is going on.

At what point would you admit you are wrong? $100K/BTC? $1M/BTC? I will gladly accept that I got it wrong at $0/BTC, hell I’d go as low as $100/BTC. Who is going to be correct?

[AnimalMuppet]

"Waste" is not disproven by "high price". "Waste" (in this context, at least) would be disproven by bitcoin fixing much of javert's second through fifth paragraphs. My money is on "waste", no matter what the price does.

[randomhodler84]

Yeah see you don’t get it :-) one mans waste is another mans gold. Basically you don’t want to accept others value things differently than yourself, right?

[AnimalMuppet]

If you "value things differently", that's fine. Some people value bitcoin; some value gold, some value Andy Warhol paintings. And that's fine. "It's differences of opinion that make horse races."

But javert laid out this grand vision of what bitcoin was going to do for us, and it was considerably more than "be a good investment" or "be something that people like". And he implied I was too stupid to understand it, which is... not cool. I understood exactly what he said the case for bitcoin was. I remain skeptical that it's going to achieve that, ever.

And if it doesn't, then... it's a waste in terms of the lofty goals that bitcoin proponents have stated, no matter how people valued it financially.

[javert]

> And he implied I was too stupid to understand it, which is... not cool

I'm sorry. I don't think you're too stupid.

It's just that at this point, "Bitcoin is a waste of electricity" comes across as trollish behavior. We've all seen that a million times. It's been explained a million times why that arguably isn't the case. So either engage with the actual argument people are having, or don't say anything.

Saying "bitcoin is a waste of electricity" doesn't contribute to the conversation at all anymore. It's the exact equivalent of posting a comment that says "boo bitcoin" or "bitcoin sucks."

So yeah, if you say that, I'm going to poke at you. And then I'm going to give you the actual argument, in case you haven't seen it. As I did.