BTC billionaire Tim Draper to Elon Musk: I'd buy the Tesla Cybertruck with Bitcoin

[TruckElectric]

And now I know that you do not.

-Crissa

Can you explain? This will be interesting.

Advertisement

 

[Crissa]

Can you explain? This will be interesting.

No. You employ the gish gallop as counter argument.

The only reason futures exist is because demand is a known thing. People won't suddenly stop needing grain or metal next season, while farmers and miners need seed and loans to produce it for that season.

There is no such connection with bitcoin.

-Crissa

 

[TruckElectric]

The methods to hide bitcoin trades are the same as hiding any securities trading. And hence, illegal.

So, are you saying it is illegal to hide securities trading? It seems so from your statement and therefore you are wrong once again.

 

[TruckElectric]

The only reason futures exist is because demand is a known thing.

Bitcoin is a "known thing" or whatever that means.

 

[TruckElectric]

People won't suddenly stop needing grain or metal next season, while farmers and miners need seed and loans to produce it for that season.

Another statement that makes little sense. And certainly doesn't explain futures.


A futures contract is based on an underlying asset. Whether it's precious metals, grain, a stock index, individual stocks, FX, weather index(weather futures) or Bitcoin.

 

[DarinCT]

Another statement that makes little sense. And certainly doesn't explain futures.


A futures contract is based on an underlying asset. Whether it's precious metals, grain, a stock index, individual stocks, FX, weather index(weather futures) or Bitcoin.

TruckElectric, do you think Bitcoin an asset or a derivative or a currency? Full disclosure, I have a degree in economics, a background in IT, and understand what BTC is.

 

[TruckElectric]

TruckElectric, do you think Bitcoin an asset or a derivative or a currency? Full disclosure, I have a degree in economics, a background in IT, and understand what BTC is.

Is this a setup question? LOL

From the viewpoint of the IRS Bitcoin is an asset.

Bitcoin is a medium of exchange so by definition it's currency.

Bitcoin is not a derivative.

Futures, stock options, forward contacts are derivatives.

A futures contract derives its value from an underlying asset.

Bitcoin is an asset.

 

[Frankenblob]

This FAKE currency looks good...but it has been stated that its days are numbered...WHEN is the only unknown.

 

[TruckElectric]

This FAKE currency looks good...but it has been stated that its days are numbered...WHEN is the only unknown.

Just give in.....Jamie Dimon did

 

[TruckElectric]

A futures contract derives its value from an underlying asset.

Bitcoin is an asset.

I should have been more explanatory. In a CME BTC futures contract Bitcoin is the underlying asset.

 

[DarinCT]

Is this a setup question? LOL

From the viewpoint of the IRS Bitcoin is an asset.

Bitcoin is a medium of exchange so by definition it's currency.

Bitcoin is not a derivative.

Futures, stock options, forward contacts are derivatives.

A futures contract derives its value from an underlying asset.

Bitcoin is an asset.

Yes, it was a setup question, not a trap but a sincere attempt to see how people BTC going forward.

Technically, the IRS calls it a convertible virtual currency that is taxed as property. (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-14-21.pdf).

When you say it's currency, do you mean broadly speaking like a Starbucks gift card or do you mean literally like a nickel? Or is this some other meaning like "easily convertible"? If we barter chickens for a sheep, both parties have their own clear value of the currency being bartered. Additionally, the value of the currency is stable. Laszlo buying two pizzas for 10,000 btc in 2010 seems like the opposite of stable. I've heard M2, hyperinflation, removal of bank intermediary, and a dozen other monetary concepts thrown around as justification. These advocates also seen to ignore the original intent of BTC. Satoshi himself said that BTC was a way to keep the ledger honest. (More of an aside that a point, I think it's weird to say that the integrity glue has value and that somehow having more integrity glue equates to more value. Yes, I know the flaw in that statement even though it's close to the truth).

.
.
.
"Bitcoin is an asset". The issue I have is that assets provide. Intellectual property provide recourse in case of theft. Physical property can assist, create, or otherwise provide economic value. That piece of equipment may not always be used but when it is, it's value can be measured or at least inferred (like IP above). Facilitating the blockchain, as far as I can tell, is both its main purpose and also not $0.5T of economic value.

So as a currency, it's not selling itself: unstable, high barrier to entry to do a transaction, no government backstop.

As an asset, what economic value does it provide? What does it do? How is that worth $0.5T, arguably not your responsibility, but what about even one-millionth of that?

I'm all for irrationality, market manipulation, and crypto-cheerleaders doing their Coinbase, reddit, segwit, navel-gazing, I realized $30K on this and bought my first Tesla. Fundamentally though, I have yet to see a cognizant justification.

 

[Newton]

Bitcoin is a way for hackers to have, perhaps the best supercomputer is history...

Plus, It uses so much freakin electricity. when I mined a coin back like 10 years ago? (Then sold it for $1000 ) It doubled my apartments energy usage.

 

[TruckElectric]

Technically, the IRS calls it a convertible virtual currency that is taxed as property. (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-14-21.pdf).

I haven't kept up with what the IRS calls it now. I just recall when U.S. Bitcoin holders weren't paying any taxes because no one was really sure how to define Bitcoin and finally the IRS called it an asset to get their portion. That was around 10 yrs ago? It was when Bitcoin was used mainly on the Dark Web to buy contraband, illegal drugs without being able to trace the transaction.

When you say it's currency, do you mean broadly speaking like a Starbucks gift card or do you mean literally like a nickel? Or is this some other meaning like "easily convertible"?

I would say in the broad sense of "medium of exchange".

Satoshi himself

Last known to me Satoshi hadn't been identified as a real person.

Satoshi himself said that BTC was a way to keep the ledger honest.

Not sure what that means. I'm not an expert on Bitcoin and have a somewhat fundamental knowledge of it.

Blockchain is used as a ledger for Bitcoin transactions.

So as a currency, it's not selling itself: unstable, high barrier to entry to do a transaction, no government backstop.

One goal of BTC is to avoid, prevent government intervention.

As an asset, what economic value does it provide? What does it do? How is that worth $0.5T, arguably not your responsibility, but what about even one-millionth of that?

Good questions.

Fundamentally though, I have yet to see a cognizant justification.

And yet it thrives!! HA HA!

 

[DarinCT]

I haven't kept up with what the IRS calls it now. I just recall when U.S. Bitcoin holders weren't paying any taxes because no one was really sure how to define Bitcoin and finally the IRS called it an asset to get their portion. That was around 10 yrs ago? It was when Bitcoin was used mainly on the Dark Web to buy contraband, illegal drugs without being able to trace the transaction.
.
.
.
Last known to me Satoshi hadn't been identified as a real person.
.
.
.
One goal of BTC is to avoid, prevent government intervention.
...

At one point, the IRS considered it like a collectable.

Whether he was a real person or a pseudonym, his/her white paper is still available to read.
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

I've heard the whole crypto-anarchists anti-government blah, blah, blah so many times I'm surprised my eyes come back from rolling in my head. Even if there was NO government intervention, there would still be intervention whether it's Chinese miners getting together to sway block size, Coinbase censuring articles that it didn't deem favorable, or the core developer team. Do any of them have absolute power, nope, but they certainly have influence. Now, add in the fact that any government has authority of their markets whether we like it or not e.g. Myanmar FaceBook (tech intervention), US taxes (financial intervention), People's Bank of China funding the miners (BTC political intervention). If taxes aren't taken in BTC, then the only value of the market are the players who play in the market.

I'm not sure I would use the word "thrive" as it suggests growing and/or developing. Ironically, while it's exchange price is going up, the actual BTC is fixed. Somehow, that fixed amount of a thing is the supposedly the reason the thing is inflating. Fun fact: everytime some crytpo-fanatic says "digital Manhattan", a 350 stroker kit throws a rod AND an angel loses its wings.

It seems the only thing about BTC that appears to be thriving is the debate of its true value.

 

[FutureBoy]

It was when Bitcoin was used mainly on the Dark Web to buy contraband, illegal drugs without being able to trace the transaction.

I really don't get the untraceable aspect of bitcoin. Seems to me that because of the public ledger that bitcoin is eminently traceable. Every transaction is tracked and easily seen clear back to the beginning. Including the fact that Satoshi Nakamoto's bitcoins have not been used.

Now if everything is being done in bitcoin, one would just have to conceal the location/identity of the person using the wallet in order to stay anonymous. But it seems like any time a bitcoin was traded for traceable goods like at a restaurant, brick and mortar store, etc that the transaction could easily be traced because it would be done with a known wallet owner (the transaction business) and then surveillance video or personal accounts could be attained as to who the person was that initiated the transaction. Even if the transaction is remote, having a product shipped leaves a trail including a destination address.

So I guess I'd say that if bitcoin is used in a very prescribed manner that it could be used to hide one's identity in a transaction. But so can cash. And cash doesn't keep a public transaction of where it is used. On the other hand, if you don't want to get into personal direct contact with anyone in the transaction, cash doesn't work (well, unless you trust the post office and the other person in the transaction I suppose). So in that case bitcoin does have some benefits.

But I'm not an expert in either bitcoin or police / hacker / criminal procedures. So your use of bitcoin may vary.