While I agree that the valuation can rapidly fluctuate. Bitcoin is successfully storing a large amount of value in a distributed manner. More than any other system that exists. There is a huge incentive to create transaction fraud with that much money on the line and Bitcoin is working and intended and acting as a distributed, transaction fraud free public ledger with a trade-able currency.
> "Bitcoin is successfully storing a large amount of value in a distributed manner. More than any other system that exists."
No it isn't. The market cap of bitcoin, which is a bullshit number anyway as already explained, is dwarfed by other forms of distributed wealth storage such as (but certainly not limited to) old fashioned pieces of gold. Gold is distributed. If you revise your assertion to be distributed and digital then perhaps you're correct. But the more qualifications you tack on, the less impressive your claims to fame become.
Don't bother mistaking me for some sort of gold bug either. Real Estate is another form of distributed wealth storage that blows bitcoin's pathetic market cap out of the water.
>[Bitcoin] is dwarfed by other forms of distributed wealth storage such as [S.A.] old fashioned pieces of gold
Hi can you let me how I can immigrate out of my country with $10e6 without thieves at the airport taking my wealth? If we can figure this out, man bitcoin is totally KIA. Also can you let me how how I can costlessly assay gold when I accept it as payment? or make the supply of gold only dependent only on time and not how it currently is (price and time)? Whenever the price of gold goes up, they mine more of it :C this makes its Store of Value property worse than bitcoin. Looking forward to your reply and our future endeavor together. /s
I think it's absurd to think that it should be possible to package 150 years of median US household labor into an easily transportable, easily securable form. That simply will never be possible. It's not a technology problem.
Even if you could somehow do this, you would be incredibly vulnerable to extortion, and I doubt you would actually really want to do this even if you had the capability. There are people that have significant wealth that exists outside of "official" legal capacities (drug lords, dictators of small nations, etc.). They have to spend incredible effort on maintaining security of their assets. Pretty much the only thing that works is giving an army of people a better deal than they can get from someone else to steal your wealth from you.
>Even if you could somehow do this...That simply will never be possible
You already can: bitcoin.
>I doubt you would actually really want to do this even if you had the capability
If I'm a Jew in 1930s Germany or a grocery store owner in Venezuela and I see the writing on the wall that my government is constantly deriding me, saying I'm the scourge of and leach on society, I'm going to immigrate out of the country. They've banned all institutions from services me, I benefit from having access to a means to store wealth that's independent from a government. To disagree is to be excessively myopic and optimistic.
> If I'm a Jew in 1930s Germany or a grocery store owner in Venezuela and I see the writing on the wall that my government is constantly deriding me, saying I'm the scourge of and leach on society, I'm going to immigrate out of the country. They've banned all institutions from services me, I benefit from having access to a means to store wealth that's independent from a government. To disagree is to be excessively myopic and optimistic.
I didn't disagree with any of that. My position is that if you are actually in that situation, bitcoin doesn't help that much, and no technology can. If you attempt to actually execute this plan, the risk is extremely high that you will be detected, and a corrupt government doesn't have any shortage of ways to force you to comply with whatever they come up with.
Are there any examples of a Venezuelan moving a significant amount of wealth out of the country via bitcoin?
> Hi can you let me how I can immigrate out of my country with $10e6 without thieves at the airport taking my wealth? If we can figure this out, man bitcoin is totally KIA.
You're supposing that the vast majority of people using bitcoin are using it to exfiltrate money out of countries. That niche application is very far from the reality of what most bitcoin advocates are doing.
But yes, digital exfiltration may be easier than physical smuggling. That's supposing a lot about what forms of control are implemented in that country at at it's borders.
It's a single example of the value of decentralized property rights. Say I'm an alcohol maker in Sharia-law country, I want to be able to make wine but prevent the state from expropriating my wealth because they ban alcohol. Say I live in a country which mandates that all business ventures with returns less than 2% a year will have their profits stolen (read: inflation) I can use bitcoin to escape that oppression.
> Say I live in a country which mandates that all business ventures with returns less than 2% a year will have their profits stolen (read: inflation) I can use bitcoin to escape that oppression.
The moment Bitcoin becomes a viable way to subvert the state, they'll just change the laws. And if people actually start using it to smuggle money internationally the feds will get involved. The entire idea that Bitcoin can subvert the state is absurd.
And if you don't believe me, look at the evidence. ICOs got regulated. Silk roads got shut down.
And furthermore, while it's convenient to use oppressive regimes as examples for this Bitcoin "feature", it's way, way more likely the 1% (you know, the people who actually have money) will use it to hide their wealth from wealth redistribution policies demanded by liberal democracies.
>The moment [cryptography] becomes a viable way to subvert the state, they'll just change the laws.
Does that sentence make much sense? Government decrees don't eradicate goods, they create make black markets.
>if people actually start using it to smuggle money
If? People already use bitcoin to evade capital controls in China, Venezuela etc
>the 1% will use it to hide their wealth from wealth redistribution policies demanded by liberal democracies.
You're confusing equity (something you own) and equality (rights that you have). Bitcoin promotes equality (each client has the same rights). Arbitrarily making certain people unequal (different people have different rights, some have their wealth stolen, some don't) always leads to more inequity. Voting about who to steal from doesn't legitimize theft. If people who generated wealth through voluntary exchange want to protect their property rights from theft, I won't deny them that. Agents who use the state to expropriate wealth through artificial privilege (the real enemy here) want to perpetuate the existing system, not encourage a neutral rights network such as bitcoin.
>> The moment [cryptography] becomes a viable way to subvert the state, they'll just change the laws.
> Does that sentence make much sense? Government decrees don't eradicate goods, they create make black markets.
Your argument is that Bitcoin will let you subvert existing state monetary policy and other regulations. My argument is that once that happens on a significant scale, states will change their policies and enforce them more or less with state violence.
A good example is anonymous payments via a tumbler. As soon as these payments start seriously foiling law enforcement, states will outlaw tumbler services. If that doesn't solve the problem, and the problem is severe enough, they'll outlaw Bitcoin. The way they would do that is to outlaw exchanges and pursue them over Tor the same way the pursue dark web markets, by enlisting banks, employing cyberwarfare and other espionage, and ultimately with on the ground law enforcement.
It's very, very hard (maybe impossible) to solve a political problem with technology, unless that technology is weapons. It's immoral in a democracy because it by definition subverts the will of the people.
>> if people actually start using it to smuggle money
> If? People already use bitcoin to evade capital controls in China, Venezuela etc
I mean "on a significant level minus state actors".
> equity vs. equality.
I think if you're a "taxes are theft" person then we have deeper disagreements, because I'm a "property is theft" person. But those antipodes aside, Bitcoin no more promotes equality than regular currency does, in fact there are lots of services that only let you do certain things with certain account balance amounts.
Furthermore, I have no idea what you mean about a "neutral rights network". Do I get to vote on things because I hold Bitcoin? Did I miss the votes on various forks? Does my vote count equal to one of the Winklevoss'?
I think the exact opposite is true. Not only is there no voting, but holders of lots of Bitcoin (which you can only accrue with actual currency or mining, which you need to spend actual currency to get the equipment for) have far more power over the Bitcoin network than I do. I have no idea what "rights" you think I get through Bitcoin, but I'm pretty sure the answer is "none".
EDIT:
Also, come on, I'm fine with "crypto" meaning "cryptocurrency" now, but it absolutely doesn't mean that "cryptography" means "cryptocurrency" now. This is a hill I am willing to die on.
Many lower income individuals struggle to see their income increase faster than inflation. By contrast when you have immense wealth, it's pretty easy to achieve extremely stable returns on that immense wealth well beyond inflation. In cases where this is true it means the net effect is that the poor effectively pay more while the rich effectively pay less.
There's also an issue of debt differences. One of the big 'benefits' of inflation is that it makes old debts worth less. This is a major incentive for pursuing investments on debt. Not only can you see investments on money beyond what you presently have, but the debt that you took on becomes worth less - meaning it takes a smaller share of your profits each year assuming the principle is not growing. For instance during the government auto bailouts Ford took on a loan for billions of dollars of debt from the government. The interest rate on that loan is sub-inflation. Unsurprisingly, they aren't paying it back since each year it becomes worth less, and given enough time, it will become worthless.
By contrast when a lower income individual takes on debt, it's often 'consumed' such as in the case of education. And the debt becoming worth less over time is not true if an individual's income is not keeping pace with inflation. And another big issue is that lower income individuals are also often going to be seeing rather high interest rates on their loans further diminishing any theoretic benefit of inflation.
---
This is not to say inflation is bad. You can create a comparably negative argument against deflation. I don't really have much of an opinion one way or the other. We've seen how depressive systems can end. And while our current inflation and debt driven system has not yet collapsed, it's not looking as stable as it once did to put it very mildly. I think in 20 or so years (and especially once the petro dollar is 100% dead) we'll have a much better idea of the pros and cons of each system.
> But yes, digital exfiltration may be easier than physical smuggling. That's supposing a lot about what forms of control are implemented in that country at at it's borders.
Given that some forms of cryptocurrency can be stored using only a memorized passphrase and nothing else, (ie. a brain wallet), it's pretty much guaranteed that getting cryptocurrency put of the country would be easier.
You're supposing the government doesn't know you bought those bitcoins (or at the least doesn't know that you are somehow hiding a lot of money without knowing the details) and isn't willing to beat it out of you.
Most cryptoanarchists are deluded nerds who would fold in less than 5 minutes of waterboarding. Do you think these thugs who are willing to look up your ass for a few pieces of gold aren't willing to violate you in other ways? Of course you don't believe that, you've merely failed to seriously consider that possibility.
The only reason smuggling BTC sometimes works right now is because they're not looking for it.
Tell me how anything you just said shows how it could be easier to smuggle physical currency out of the country than digital currency, which was the point that I was refuting.
> it could be easier to smuggle physical currency out of the country than digital currency, which was the point that I was refuting.
Then you were refuting a position I never espoused. My point wasn't that gold is easier to exfiltrate, but rather that BTC isn't necessarily easier to get out. If the border agents of the tyrannical government you're fleeing know you to have wealth, and are informed about bitcoin, they have many options available to them to prevent you from leaving with your wealth, including simply forbidding you from leaving at all. At that point, you'll have to smuggle your body out, so smuggling a few pieces of gold along with your body isn't a huge inconvenience.
If on the other hand the border agents don't know that you're trying to smuggle wealth out of the country, then it shouldn't be to hard to get through the border no matter what method you choose.
The one scenario in which BTC seems clearly superior is when the border guards are simultaneously alert but ignorant. Looking very carefully for money, but totally oblivious to the possibility of BTC. This might work during the present, but don't count on this remaining true forever. If enough people start using BTC for this, tyrannical governments will wisen up pretty quick.
Here are a couple of other scenarios where having BTC works as an advantage:
1. The government doesn't know you have any money, but you are targeted in a random search.
2. The government does know you have money but doesn't know how much. Simply give them X out of Y cryptocurrency keys. They won't know you have any more.
I don't know how much exposure you have to tyrannical regimes, but they aren't as efficient as you seem to think, in that they don't really have much grasp on how much money people own, nor are able to find out instantly.
They also do care about how they are perceived and aren't going to grab some tourist and with no proof whatsoever, torture him to death because he might possibly have some cryptocurrency.
Real estate is likely the best storage of value there is. It's only distributed across governments though. When you own a piece of land you actually trust your government to protect your right to it.
Gold is fantastic. Apart from its physical properties, we all agreed to assign value to it and it's been working for thousands of years.
But wouldn't it be great to have gold in a digital form? Something easily divisible and transferable, yet as gold is, not dependent for its value on some 3rd party? Something that is truly yours not just IOU. Which can keep value.
Forget about Bitcoin, how would you envision something like this?
Apart from technological problems, we have a problem of initial trust and distribution. Please stop here and think for a moment, this is a hard and interesting problem. I'm not saying you can solve it with a few minutes of thinking but just after a few moments some things clarify.
Now imagine we do have it. We did it. Because it would be a cool future where we do have this digital gold. Is it a safe storage of value? What if some better digital gold 2.0 comes along? If people would prefer to move their wealth to it then the 1.0 would become less desirable, so its value should drop. But if it does, then it's not a good storage of value after all.
You can devise a system in which 1.0 tokens can be exchanged to 2.0 but then you cannot change the initial distribution.
If all that thinking is not enough, it is interesting to ponder impact of an actual perfect storage of value system on society. Wealth can be leveraged to generate more of it.
Not that it's something completely new, we had a few close enough matches throughout the history. That's what most wars are about. Although it's easier to go get something if you know where it is.
