You see, the problem is, that I have expressed my view and my point. It's just that you do not understand it, thus it doesn't sound for you as an argument. So the discussion is pointless going forward. And yes, by looking at your posts, your knowledge gap is visible in crypto side. PS: that's clearly noticeable, it's just that I do not care about your grammatical mistakes or if you're native english speaker or not. Not sure why it seems important to you, the only reason I can think of, is that you haven't had any arguments to add further to the discussion, so you tried to shift it. Otherwise it's pointless.
No you never did explain your point on the issue of payments and store of value. You just claimed it is a store if value and everyone who disagrees is accused by you of not understanding the subject matter. How about you start and explain why bitcoin are an excellent store if value and how about you specifically address the counter point which is that a large part of the definition of "store of value" is that it is safe (the storing) and that it intrinsically retains value, which fiat currencies do but bitcoin largely doe not. Fiat currencies by large promise me that I can buy a product one year from now at a similar price (ignoring product specific issues that might cause price changes). That is not the case with bitcoin. You might lose 10% of your value even in 2 minutes, as was just the case yesterday when India shut the lights for cryptos. There is an exception re fiat currencies and that is countries that a battling sky high inflation. But that is not the problem of fiat currency itself, it is the problem of reckless government and monetary policy. With overwhelming evidence have we in western societies (and Japan) enjoyed decades of fiat currencies that provided an excellent store of value and a means to perform payments and transfer.
And that's the problem with you two fanboys. You know the other party made completely valid points and argued their case and all you have left is to run for the hills, before that you of course pull a stupid excuse out of your lame asses. Either the counterpart is not informed enough, or there are too many hypothetical or variables at play to go further into details (on a fucking video, mind you, how moronic is that to say) Your biggest flaw in your line of argumentation is that you are conflating industry with politicians, lawmakers, and regulators. One or 5 or even 10 bureaucrats are not representative of where the US will go re cryptos. Neither are companies. Policies are made by very specific institutions and implemented by others.
No, it's not safe. Fiat, safe, retain value and government printing money does not fit in the same sentence. Look at Dow Futures, I think from Feb 21 to 28, 2020. Imagine what would happen if trading would not be halted multiple times and government not stepped in with stimulus packages? Your points are very invalid.
It does I just showed you and gave an example. You just replied I am wrong. No evidence, no counter example. Here another more specific example. I could have had 1000 dollars 50 years ago. Stuck into a fixed income instrument guaranteed only by the US government, and today liquidated it and had a very similar purchasing power. If I bought bitcoin on Thursday and sold it yesterday I would have lost 10%.
It does not, only in your bubble. If you stepped out of your bubble and looked how fiat behaves, how it fails and how central banks intervenes you wouldn't be talking shit. I am not here to educate you, you have to do it on your own, and then we could discuss. This showing your knowledge gap not only in crypto, but in finance in general.
See? You can't go into any specifics I named a specific example. You just sit there and again accuse the person. I tried staying on the issue, you cant apparently. Perhaps you are from Argentina or some other jurisdiction with irresponsible monetary and fiscal policies and lost it all and have an axe to grind. That would explain your attitude at least. Let's end it here, your mere personal attacks are not worthy any more of my time.
The problem is, that before going into such a discussion, you should at least know the basics and some history. You don't know it, and it's visible. You don't go into math conference and start calling everyone out to prove that 2+2=4, as well as 2*2.
And yet here you are without being able to counter any single argument or point, made, not by myself only but anyone who disagrees with your narrative. My last reply to you in this thread, adios. I know you will reply and again talk about the knowledge gap. Lol
I've already told you, I am not here to educate you. Do it on your own time and come back to the discussion. Maybe, just maybe, you'll be able to understand my points expressed here.