Whoa! Full of holes. 1. Even if crypto is an alternative to debit card, it cannot be "usefully faster". Debit card transactions take a couple of seconds. I doubt crypto shaves any off of that. And even if it does, it's not a material benefit. 2. Cheaper? Even if so, doesn't offset the risk that the crypto loses value.. and maybe crashes and loses LOTS of value. A "debit card user" is carrying around dollars on plastic. No chance the purchasing power of that card is going to decline materially in a short period of time or even crash. Not so with cryptos. 3. Anonymous? Does anybody really care about Big Brother knowing you bought a $5 latte? 4. "...the value of their cryptos will always be equivalent to the fiat value..."??
1. Some cryptos are slower than debit cards, but not significantly. 3. It depends. But it is definitely an advantage to have an option to be anonymous. 2&4. I think you do not understand these well. In crypto we have for example the USDT, the equivalent of USD (fiat). The user's crypto value will be stored in USDT, therefore, it's value will not drop nor appreciate according to BTC or other crypto prices. The USDT will appreciate or depreciate according to USD (fiat). A user will convert to other crypto's only when he needs to purchase something. So, the value is preserved, unless he speculates/gambles when he buys BTC, ETN, etc.
So..you're talking about "tethered" cryptos? Is BTC that? What percentage of cryptos are tethered? Haven't there been some well publicized problem stories about "tethered"? Even if you have a "tethered" crypto, isn't that effectively the same as a debit card? And is the "real value issue" of cryptos, the tethered variety or the speculative variety? If the "world of crypto" were limited to tethereds, they would all be little different from debit cards. Is that what all the hubub is all about?
@Scataphagos You said: Quoting you so you can't backtrack and edit your post. I said: Breakdown the above for BTC. So I'm going to give you an out. You can stop right now or dig deeper.
Breakdown "your ass". You argue insignificantly! As to the "one person who can increase BTC in circulation".... well there may not be such a person, I don't know. However, there have been a few "forks" of BTC... all of which dilute the value of BTC. And while not technically increasing the # of BTC in circulation, they have the same effect. And is there a limit to the number of "forks" in BTC, or are they possibly INFINITE??
"Whattttt!?!?!" Errrrr, no. What you're contesting, OVn, is Price Theory. You're arguing against 150 years of neoclassical economics, the Chicago School in particular, and Stigler, Friedman, Becker, right to Freakonomics authors Levitt & Dubner. It won't go well. Your car example...? Are you trying to imply that, in a free market, any rational actor would ever pay more for something than they thought it was worth? You no longer have a consistent system of logic through-out your model, as you broke it at the beginning: the rational actor. Consumer sovereignty -- the grand filter which places the buyer in control of what stays/survives in the marketplace -- itself depends on that rational actor. You are forgetting that the market price comes from transactions between willing buyers and willing sellers. "What the market bears" depends on both sides. If the gem-holder thinks it is worth $20k and I think it is worth $200 -- there is *nothing* that compels me to pay even $200.01 for it. Zero. Thus, no market. Thus, no market price. "Competition" has nothing to do with this buyer/seller rivalry, BTW. "Competition" is between rival buyers and between rival sellers, each seeking to step in front of the other in the bids and offers in which they compete. FWIW and all that. No. Baron's primary thesis was/is that limited supply is the shit. And ignores that rhino turds {actual shit! }, which are in scarce supply seemingly everywhere except in Google Images , are simply sans market -- they are lacking. No demand -- no rational actor wants them at a price worthwhile to supply: Consumer Sovereignty 'reigns' again. Exactly. We can bring all sorts of things to market. But what stays (in a free&fair market) depends on what is bought -- and that depends on a rational actor: Consumer Sovereignty. And if you want to argue with someone buying $100 pebbles to stuff up their naughty bits? We're back to "De Gustibus Non Est Disputandem." And just to return back to Price Theory itself, we don't *need* to know (or make sense of) why someone would buy something -- when or how they might use it, whether they might give it away, whether it's a part in some greater whole, or whatever! We don't need to know. We only need to know that they thought it was worth the price they paid. (( And so, one last Chicago School giant, one last Nobel Prize winner, one last url, for Friedrich von Hayek: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek ))
LOLLOLOLOLOL this is best you got? Another joke on ET exposed. Take your meds Gramps. Excuse you? Dilute? This isn't equities. When a hard fork happens you literally get free money. There's no dilution to the underlying asset. You are in way over your head. Stick to the ET threads where the IQ is < then 90.
You don't understand your own argument. You're not analytical or inciteful... you're just a "believer". You argue like a fool. Enough of you. ON IGNORE!! I'm familiar with your kind. We have 150 Million or so just like you in the US. They're known as "Democrats".
Dear ET, this is ad hominem at its best. Please take note of subject @Scataphagos who is easily beaten by logic not exceeding a 6th grader. I'll note too that Scataphagos is retroactively editing her posts of anything you could expose her IQ of <90. You can see the timestamps in this thread. @Baron I know you have banned people for less, not sure why you would just let this continue. I'm done here. I'm out.