/biz/ - Business & Finance

>speculative
bread and butter derivatives asset: checked
>store of value
hell no
>fundamentals
can't scale
slow and expensive as fuck to transact with
>conclusion
will drop to zero before any other asset

>>15303296
Only redditors and BSVtards are anti-BTC, so which one is it?

>>15303314
are you a wizard?

>>15303327
Nothing wrong with BSV, I do like you guys. High hashrate is propping up BTC's price indefinitely though.

>>15303343
i think eoy/next year that will begin to change

>>15303296
>derivatives asset
From what other asset is Bitcoin's value derived?

>can't scale
>slow and expensive as fuck to transact with
What about LN and other projects like it?

Judging from your posts you believe pretty strongly in BSV. None of your posts specifically addressed my question about Bitcoin's performance specifically during a global recession

>>15303217
>Would BTC perform well in a recession
probably not

>>15303428
yeah sv will go to zero finally

would a risky, fake propped and volatile asset perform well in a recession

the only reason I can think of is that we ve convinced enough people that BTC will be a store of value in the future, so when the crisis hits some capital will fly to BTC

>>15303217
Nothing performs well in a recession. That's why it's called a recession you fucking dolt.

>>15303217
In a recession, you will need money, and no one is going to accept your shitcoins, forcing you to sell them for fiat driving down their value further

>>15304358
Old meme

>>15304317
Why not?

>>15304367
We'll have to wait and see. The SOV narrative is getting shakier by the day, average joes really don't like the volatility we've been seeing lately

>>15304377
Checked and green ID. In any other market I'd agree, but crypto is so young that it could go either way IMO. If securities and forex take a shit and volatility dries up, where else is smart money supposed to play?

>>15303217
we're about to find out the real way.
we're already in a recession, the media phase just hasnt caught up yet. 2020 will be full blown recession/depression
and trump will likely be voted out of office for real

>>15304389
>Why not?
because in a recession cash is king especially at the beginning all assets take a hit. only when the productivity suffers from layoffs and lack of investments the prices for customer goods start to go up. also qe goes straight to the stock market we have seen it there is no indication banks would favor btc just yet.

>>15304805
>trump will likely be voted out of office for real
That'd make him the first one-term president in a long time. You really think one of the clowns the dems have lined up this time around will beat him out? The wind's at Trump's back, even if everything he touches turns into a diarrhea hurricane and the IQ of both parties drops 20 points if you discuss his presidency with anyone of any political affiliation

>>15305087
>there is no indication banks would favor btc just yet
If any year is the year for institutions to come around, it's 2020. Whole new decade, whole new ballgame. It's fuck or walk, and crypto's all warmed up to fuck.

>>15305289
>>15305087
Actually wait no I'm a fucking retard. There's no incentive for central banks to inject money into crypto as it would devalue their currency and potentially destabilize their monetary system. Stocks would make much more sense but again, it would really depend on the intensity and scale of the next recession.

>>15303506
The problem with LN is it effectively kills Bitcoin.

>>15305087
That really depends on the type of market downturn we're in for. Typical recession having cash is good. 08' recession cash is only good at the very beginning, Wiemar recession cash is worthless.

>>15305413
Hot take, care to explain why? I don't doubt you, it's just that I've literally never heard this before

>>15305450
Block rewards. Bitcoin is an ecosystem and a delicate one at that. The only way for the engine to continue humming is if the miners can remain profitable. As the block rewards diminish transaction volume is suppose to increase. Thousands to one day millions of transactions a block. Each transaction comes with fees. These fees keep the miners in business. LN takes transactions off chain effectively stealing this volume and fees from miners who are now getting less Bitcoin block rewards. LN makes the system unsustainable, miners go out of business and hashrate collapses.

The people pushing LN have ulterior motives. Also the shit doesn't even work properly anyway.

>>15305627
Well I guess we're lucky there're less than 1000 BTC on LN and development seems to have ground to a screeching halt, assuming what you suggest is true

>>15305653
I'm not sure what Core's game plan even is anymore. LN is a dumpster fire and scaling up the blocksize would be admitting they lied to everyone about scaling. There is also the matter of segwit, which in effect makes something as simple as scaling on chain less efficient. Plus the other problems it presents with digital signatures. It's seriously a fucking mess.

I really don't know where to turn. BSV is my go to, however at the end of the day hashrate is king. Best I can do is hedge.

>>15303296
>Slow and expensive
VISA takes a week to process transactions but people still use it. Bitcoin is cheaper than VISA if you wait the same time for the transaction to process.

>>15305719
The difference being you don't have to wait for settlement to do a transaction with Visa. The same is actually true with Bitcoin and 0-conf (no longer exists on BTC). Also Bitcoin at scale is massively cheaper and the transaction settles in 10 mins (no longer the case with BTC without exuberant fees).

BTC will perform well in a recession. People talking about transactions per second still don't get that it's digital gold. Physical gold has way worse "transactions per second" than Bitcoin but still performs well in an inflationary recession.

>>15305751
You don't have to wait for a settlement to do a transaction in Bitcoin. Have you ever used Bitcoin? You can see the transaction on the blockchain before it gets confirmed.

>>15305751
What do you mean 0-conf doesn't exist for BTC? Last time I used BTC I could see 0-conf transactions on the blockchain.

>>15303217
Hell no.

1) A recession, by definition, is a contraction in the economy. People lose their jobs, don't get raises, lose money in the stock market, et cetera. As a result, they lack money, and try to cut down on unnecessary expenses. Because of this, people will reduce the amount of new money they invest in Bitcoin.

2) In addition, they start to look for extra places they've stored cash, or items of value. Then they liquidate those, and use the cash. So a lot of people will want to withdraw the money they have already invested in Bitcoin.

The first means there will be fewer motivated buyers of Bitcoin, and the second means there will be more motivated sellers of Bitcoin. So the price of Bitcoin will decrease, possibly by a lot.

_________________

3) Caveat: If the "recession" creates a lot of distrust in the current financial system, and makes people search for alternatives, I could imagine some people running to Bitcoin. This would be a recession like the one that happened in the US, in 2007-2009, or the Great Depression. Possibly even the savings and loan crisis, might make some people distrust banks, and switch to Bitcoin.

>>15304377
Lots of stuff does. Gold, Wal-Mart.

Anything that people buy more of, when times get tough.

>>15305437
Gold generally does better than cash in a recession. And it does excellent in a Wiemar-type depression/recession.

>>15305831
>digital gold
That's a meme. Bitcoin has never been used the way Gold has been. Central banks don't stockpile Bitcoin. Indians don't give Bitcoin jewelry at weddings. Bitcoin has never been used to back a currency.

In addition, bitcoin was created in 2009. It's only been around for 10 years - and never seen a recession. We don't know if scared people are really going to see Bitcoin as a "safe" alternative to currency/bonds/whatever.

>>15305999
You would be right if we didn't have central banks. Central banks like to cause inflation in response to a recession, and Bitcoin does well during periods of high inflation.

>>15306036
>Bitcoin does well during periods of high inflation
Wut.

Bitcoin was created in 2009. There hasn't been significant variation in (USD) inflation rates in that time period. There is no way you could possibly know that.

>>15305999
Both Bitcoin and gold can be used to protect your wealth from inflation. This is what people mean when they call Bitcoin digital gold.

>>15303314
Only pyramid scheme pump and dump basement dwellers are STILL in btc.

All the smart money sold at 15k

>>15306069
There are a lot of countries with high inflation right now.

>>15305999
Very nice numbers.

A few more to pick your brain:
>This would be a recession like the one that happened in the US, in 2007-2009, or the Great Depression. Possibly even the savings and loan crisis, might make some people distrust banks, and switch to Bitcoin.
>Gold generally does better than cash in a recession. And it does excellent in a Wiemar-type depression/recession.
If younger, more tech-savvy people wanted to stick it to the current system, don't you think they'd be drawn to BTC because it is more liquid and already has infrastructure in place to trade much quicker than gold? Wouldn't a generation raised digitally see more value in
digital assets, even if it hasn't got a proven track record like precious metals?

>inb4 young people have less purchasing power
True, but I can see more young people pouring a few hundred into coin base rather than buying bullion

>Central banks don't stockpile Bitcoin
How do you know this?

>>15306074
Literally any investment not denominated in US dollars can be used to protect your wealth from inflation. For example,

1) Stocks (at least if the corporation owns little or no cash/bonds).

2) Commodities. E.g. copper, or steel, or something.

3) Real Estate. E.g. an apartment building or a REIT.

4) Equipment for your business.

That attribute of Bitcoin is not unique, or particularly significant.

>>15306069
If you were a Venezuelan and bought Bitcoin because you predicted the crash, you would be way better off than the Venezuelans who didn't.

>>15306095
>Central banks don't stockpile Bitcoin
>How do you know this?
JPM at last have some and have said as much. Only after spending 2018 fuding. Top kek.

>>15303217

If there's a liquidity event expect crypto to be sold to generate liquidity.

If there's a more traditional recession than crypto might be used as a hedge against recession.

It's worth mentioning that gold (the analogue to BTC) initially crashed during the last liquidity event but rallied after liquidity returned.

If liquidity event and global financial crash

> then BTC is fucked

If liquidity event but central banks restore liquidity

> BTC maybe fucked

If traditional recession

> BTC probably crab market but maybe rally

>>15306113
When real-estate and stocks are in a bubble, and the central bank drops interest rates to 1%, Bitcoin and precious metals are a good investment. I prefer Bitcoin to metals since metals can be counterfeited and can't be sent over the internet.

>>15306138
>If there's a liquidity event expect crypto to be sold to generate liquidity.
In what context? The only brief definitions I can find for a "liquidity event" are mergers and acquisitions of private entities, not entire market sectors. Are you suggesting huge portions of the market will be liquidated?

>>15306091
Ok. Fair point.

So have we seen widespread adoption of cryptocurrencies in high-inflation countries, like Zimbabwe, Argentina, Iran, and Venezuela?

I've heard about some people using it in Venezuela, but I don't know how widely used it is. So I'm not really sure. So far as the other countries go, I've seen /biz/ wonder why Argentina and Zimbabwe aren't adopting crypto. But I don't have any specific data for those countries either.

In general, I don't have enough data to make a conclusion. Maybe somebody could look at Bitcoin usage rates in those countries? I'm not sure what specific data to examine. Regardless, I still don't think that inflation creates widespread adoption of Bitcoin.

>>15306095
>If younger, more tech-savvy people wanted to stick it to the current system, don't you think they'd be drawn to BTC because it is more liquid
Gold is appealing because it's a reliable store of value. That's the primary reason people flock to it. Bitcoin is not a reliable store of value.

Suppose you have $10,000, and you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT LOSE IT. Because of some disruption in the financial system, you don't trust bonds (which, otherwise, would be a reliable way to store your money). Would you put this money in Bitcoin? Probably not. Bitcoin is ridiculously volatile. And remember, you ABOSOLUTELY CANNOT LOSE YOUR MONEY.

I won't disagree with the point about Bitcoin appealing to younger people. As older people die, and younger tech-savvy people come-of-age, digital assets become more widely known and used. But that's a long-term effect. You'd have to wait several years, because those demographic trends significantly modify the Bitcoin user base.

(1/2)

>>15306095
(2/2) >>Central banks don't stockpile Bitcoin
>How do you know this?
Ok, so, firstly, I was imprecise. I said "central banks". I should have said "governments". Or something similar. The US Federal Reserve doesn't hold any gold, but the US government has a lot of gold (especially in Fort Knox).

We know that central banks don't stockpile Bitcoin, because a lot of the stuff they do is public knowledge. The laws vary by the specific country, but I doubt any Western country could stockpile Bitcoin, and get away with it. For example, see the US Federal Reserve's balance sheet:

https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm

No Bitcoin to be found.

We also know that other departments in the US government don't stockpile Bitcoin, because they also disclose stuff.

Of course, maybe some other countries could buy Bitcoin, through their central bank, or not. So, I'm not absolutely sure of that.

>>15306114
Yes, but not really.

1) The crash started in 2010. Anybody who invested in Bitcoin in 2010 did awesome.

2) Obviously, any Venezuelan who avoided holding Venezuelan currency did better, than ones that held Venezuelan currency. For example, anybody who stockpiled equipment, copper, silver, gold, steel, land, or whatever, did better.

3) What we're asking is "will inflation make people switch to Bitcoin?". I don't know the answer. Is there widespread adoption of Bitcoin in Venezuela? Or other high-inflation countries?

>>15306170
>When real-estate and stocks are in a bubble, and the central bank drops interest rates to 1%, Bitcoin and precious metals are a good investment.
1) You're assuming that real-estate and stock are in a bubble. I'm not saying you're wrong, but that's a highly specific claim. In 2007-2009, it was only one part of the housing market - subprime mortgages - that was a bubble. You're claiming that the entire stock market, and the entire real estate market, is a bubble. That's never happened in US history. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but it's never happened before. Even the 1929 bubble only included stocks, and not real estate.

2) Why would that make Bitcoin a good investment? It has no history of performing well (or poorly) during the popping of bubbles. It hasn't been round long enough.

>>15306254
How much bitcoin for venezuelian or argentinian pussy?

>>15306189

The panic of the 2008 world financial crisis was a liquidity event. Banks going bust causes liquidity to dry up. Those lending practices haven't ended and central bankers are trying to plan the economy just like the soviets did. The difference being that the soviets planned to attempt to fix prices and boost production whereas neoliberal central bankers are artificially trying to boost profit. Neither work for similar but not identical reasons.

>>15304805

Leftist cope

>>15305627

If 10.000.000 transactions run on a single block or 100, which block is more valuable for the miner to mine?
Btc will be baselayer contract for the entire world. A single bitcoin will be insanely valued as it is represents a node for the most secure and reliable network on the planet.

>>15307644
>>15305627

In addition. If "everyone" switches to LN the normal classic transactions become cheaper and thus utilized again.
However, generally we will see high value payments on the core and tiny manlet payments pooled together in LN node payments.

>>15304805

So are you faggots going to stop being hypocritical faggots and change your story from "Obama is responsible for the booming stock market under Trump" to "Obama is responsible for the crashing stock market, too"?

>>15307616

Some faggot doesn't understand what basic recession indicators like treasury bond yield curves are it doesn't seem to be the leftist.

> Try harder

I do think trump will win though if Bernie doesn't get the primary (then it will be a fight) he's wrong about that.

>>15305995
There are no 0-conf transactions on BTC. RBF forbids it.

>>15307644
>If 10.000.000 transactions run on a single block or 100, which block is more valuable for the miner to mine?
The 10,000,000 block. By far.

>>15307683
If everyone switches to LN miners go bankrupt.

Bump

>>15308943
rbf is optional flag you ckuld tirn it off as in only accept transactions with no rbf flag for 0conf but it would still be retarded even then as doublespends predate rbf by a fucking lot rbf just makes it trivial but it was not hard before it