[danShumway]

Correct, and all of that stuff is subject to manipulation, often by powerful actors behind the scenes or by grifters playing off of people's insecurities, fear of missing out, etc...

Controlling the supply of a coin does not mean the coin's actual value can't be manipulated by dedicated actors, and in the case of cryptocurrency, the "mystique" of the tech behind it, the ease of creating new systems on top of it that are complicated for ordinary users to understand, and the general fear people have of missing out on a speculative investment (as well as the general fear they have that they might be in a speculative bubble) make coins like Bitcoin particularly vulnerable to specific kinds of social manipulation, scams, and phishing, all of which end up affecting the price of the coin.

The fed can't release new Bitcoins, sure, but in exchange, now random celebrities on Twitter can cause sell-offs and spikes in value; random Discord groups can pump coins so they can sell off and make a profit before they crash. You haven't gotten rid of currency manipulation, you've just changed who's doing it.

[rglover]

> The fed can't release new Bitcoins, sure, but in exchange, now random celebrities on Twitter can cause sell-offs and spikes in value; random Discord groups can pump coins so they can sell off and make a profit before they crash.

This is why anything that isn't Bitcoin is referred to as a shitcoin, and why the conflating of Bitcoin with everything else is so problematic. The former is designed to prevent that manipulation, the latter leverages it.

[danShumway]

Then we get back to looking at Bitcoin's price chart, and I still think looking at the level of volatility in Bitcoin's price over time shows that it is not really immune from the kind of manipulation you're saying it resists.

I mean, if nothing else, shitcoins crashing/spiking regularly cause Bitcoin's price to adjust as well. Tera isn't Bitcoin, but that didn't make Bitcoin immune from volatility when Tera's price crashed; the manipulation techniques that work on shitcoins seem to fairly regularly have knock-on effects on Bitcoin as well.

I don't buy that social manipulation has no influence on Bitcoin.

[rglover]

The focus on price relative to USD is too short-term of thinking. The reason I hold the opinion I do is related to scale. A system like Bitcoin if adopted at a standard-level (i.e., long-term prospects) would not see fluctuations in price because it wouldn't be able to—the market would naturally stabilize as people would be able to use it to pay bills, buy groceries, and the sheer scale of the market couldn't be dictated by a single "whale." Technically that can happen today, but there's a massive psychological gap that needs to be crossed.

[rootusrootus]

> The focus on price relative to USD is too short-term of thinking.

What is the incentive for Average Joe to use BTC for transactions while USD exists?

[rglover]

For the average Joe? Nothing. Just like there was no incentive to use Facebook when MySpace existed.

The average Joe will be the last person to use it daily, just like every other technological invention. That's why they're average.

[danShumway]

I'm curious how you expect Bitcoin to obsolete every single alternative currency/value-store we have today including longstanding systems like gold, when you're telling me that Bitcoin's price stabilizing is reliant on it being the only possible currency that people can use.

[rglover]

> I'm curious how you expect Bitcoin to obsolete every single alternative currency

I didn't say that.

> you're telling me that Bitcoin's price stabilizing is reliant on it being the only possible currency that people can use

Nor did I say that.

---

Obsoletion of the incumbent options will come through a few means:

1. Hyperinflation (where I think we're headed). Basically, what happened in Germany in the 1920s. Instead of a Rentenmark, though, we'll get CBDCs which are a hyper-limited, state-issued digital currency that's used as a political weapon. They'll give it to people for "free" to encourage adoption (because they can mint as much as they want) but not tell them that it expires or can't be used for certain purchases the regime disagrees with. This will create a financial caste system where free/wealthy people use Bitcoin and the proletariat use the CBDC (i.e, they become slaves of the state). I think this is most likely as state power will fight to the death to not give up control of money (that's their only control against the people) but they will tolerate an "elite" class that can bribe their way out of control.

2. Natural transition. As more options for accepting Bitcoin (e.g., if Square/Block add lightning payments to their terminals, circumventing Visa/MC/etc.) become available and people understand it, they'll be incentivized to use it via discounts, perks, etc. Think early days of "order online" and how a lot of people scuffed at that.

[danShumway]

> 1. Hyperinflation (where I think we're headed)

It would be unfortunate then if there was a large amount of evidence that Bitcoin's price was partially tied to the stock market's health, and that global volatility and market issues in general affected the value of cryptocurrency just like they affect the price/value of everything else.

> 2. Natural transition

I think this is what a lot of us are getting at; Bitcoin as it stands is worse at transactions then pretty much every other currency and platform today. It's not competitive with those platforms for most people. That's not to say that it has no usecase at all, but for mass-market adoption and for the average person's use-case, Bitcoin is an awful transaction method.

So when people tell me that I need to think long term, I'm curious how they expect to get to the long term given that in the short term Bitcoin is basically awful for mass-market usage and isn't going to be adopted by ordinary people for ordinary transactions until after its fundamental problems like volatility are solved. So it all feels pretty circular.

You're telling me that stabilization requires increased use. In your words, "a system like Bitcoin if adopted at a standard-level (i.e., long-term prospects) would not see fluctuations in price because it wouldn't be able to".

I am telling you that Bitcoin won't get increased use if it doesn't (at least) stabilize. So it doesn't really matter whether Bitcoin would have fluctuations at that point, because nobody who's not a speculative investor, dedicated to the cause, or an extremely niche user wants to deal with the fluctuations in order to use it as a currency today.