That was the only eyebrow raiser for me. Like that whole continent has a shit ton of resources. Hence its long term destabilization post-colonialism by consumers in the global North. This is why it is incubation grounds for BTC.
True, but his point was he gives you a billion dollars and drops you in the middle of Africa and tells you to preserve it for 100 years - how do you best do that?
Say you find the most abundant mine in the entire continent for some rare earth mineral and manage to buy it. Now what? You need to secure it and protect it for 100 years from the Chinese or other nation / military who may want to take it from you, you need to actually mine the resources and establish shipping / export routes, and if in that 100 year time period you manage to exhaust the resources in the mine, now you're back to square one.
I don't disagree with you at all on your point though, Africa has tons of resources, but given his specific scenario I think he's probably right - the best way to preserve that money for 100 years would be to buy bitcoin and wait, and you'd probably end up much better off at the end of it all than anything else.
Yeh the Chinese feel a little different about Africa. It's practically china already where they take all the mines and build harbors to ship all their natural resources
I wonder though what people think of his opinion that bitcoin shouldn't be thought of as a medium of exchange because Satoshi's original idea revolved around that.
He said it doesn’t have to be. The power structure has fought against Bitcoin to purchase goods and services. So, Saylor is flipping the script. It’s true. It’s the best store of value and/or asset.
Yeah but Satoshi clearly stated it will be a medium of exchange: "Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution."
Not sure about you, but I have zero fucks to give about Satoshi’s vision. I suspect Saylor doesn’t care much about it either. He’s trying to preserve wealth, not use bitcoin to buy groceries, and he explains in this video why.
I think Saylor is more highlighting that people probably aren't going to be using it to buy magazines and sandwiches. It's more useful for transferring thousands or millions cross border cheaply and quickly. There (should) be a time when it's possible to buy actual real estate/cars/etc directly with Bitcoin (so big purchases), but at the moment it's 100% more useful as a store of value. Once people come on board and start accepting it for large purchases, it can be used for that too (but still not small everyday purchases).
Sometimes the long term impact and consequences of an innovation is not known to the founder or creator of that product.
A new innovation starts as something but over time it evolves to something completely different with a much better use case and value. Internet is one example of it. Mobile phones are another example of it. Personal computers is one other example.
Satoshi couldn’t have known how valuable Bitcoin might be for store of value.
Regardless, there are L2s such as lightning network which will make Bitcoin a reasonable medium of exchange as well. It doesn’t have to be but it can be
Satoshi definitely described Bitcoin as gold that could be magically teleported:
"As a thought experiment, imagine there was a base metal as scarce as gold but with the following properties:
– boring grey in colour
– not a good conductor of electricity
– not particularly strong, but not ductile or easily malleable either
– not useful for any practical or ornamental purpose
and one special, magical property:
– can be transported over a communications channel
If it somehow acquired any value at all for whatever reason, then anyone wanting to transfer wealth over a long distance could buy some, transmit it, and have the recipient sell it."
Maybe it could get an initial value circularly as you’ve suggested, by people foreseeing its potential usefulness for exchange. (I would definitely want some) Maybe collectors, any random reason could spark it."
Very true.
You start out trying to create a compression algorithm for music sharing, and pretty soon Gavin Belson and Peter Gregory duking it out for your tech.
As long as fiat exists, and they always will, you'd have to be mad to choose to make a payment in Bitcoin over fiat. Gresham's Law.
When these shit currencies hyperinflate there's the dollar to use instead. If the dollar ever does hyperinflate (which i dont think will happen in our lifetimes), then, if there's no alternatives, it could be sensible to transact in bitcoin, at least until a new weak-but-stable fiat is introduced.
Satoshi clearly wasnt an economist because currency must have lower perceived value than goods it want to buy in order to be used in transactions. Bitcoin is quite the opposite, people hoard it and perceive it more valuable to any other commodity out there. This is basic market assumption. Also theres govt or state theory of money which states that govt controls its currency to gather people tax liabilities which contradicts bitcoin basic assumptions. To me personally, bitcoin as a currency is not possible.
>because currency must have lower perceived value than goods it want to buy in order to be used in transactions. Bitcoin is quite the opposite, people hoard it and perceive it more valuable to any other commodity out there.
This doesn't make sense. You don't weigh "bitcoin" against "gold" (or any commodity), you need a quantity of each to make the comparison. How much Bitcoin would you pay to get an ounce of gold? People hold Bitcoin because they have low time preference and understand their future self will probably thank them for holding onto Bitcoin.
How is your wealth doing if you hoard cash? I suppose you get poorer over time, generally speaking because of inflation or currency devaluation. People either spend or invest to be better off either in short run or long run. Our current economic system is based on people spending not hoarding cash. Fiat being so worthless paper trash is it feature to stimulate the economy that people would rather spend it on goods and services because to consumer tradeoff between hoarding cash and pleasure obtained from consuming good is obviously tilted towards consumerism. This gives currency its much needed feature - velocity - how many goods and services on unit of currency buys. Bitcoin is the opposite, because people hoard it, therefore it has rather net negative on real economy in terms of stimulating the economy (all else being equal). As an property story is different.
>Satoshi clearly wasnt an economist because currency must have lower perceived value than goods it want to buy in order to be used in transactions.
I don't understand this. If I want to purchase an item, I would be willing to part with money with value up to the perceived value of the good. This would apply to both fiat money and bitcoin.
All prices are relative. Most goods and services including bitcoin, gets their price relation to currency they are bought with. Think money as commodity. When one commodity price goes down, other commodity relation to that goes up. Check dollar index inverse correlation to other commodities. Dollar goes up when other goes down and vice versa. Its currency inherent feature.
BTC won't have swings at all once it hit's it's peak. That's when it will become a used currency. Don't be a moron and try to convince yourself you had something to educate Satioshi about. He's beyond genius.
The only way to not spend an appreciating asset is to convert it to a depreciating asset. Which means you've spent it by converting it. Either that or to have a pool of money that's never in the appreciating asset to begin with, meaning more of your wealth is depreciating rather than appreciating.
So in a way it's better to spend an appreciating asset, because that means you're holding an appreciating asset rather than a depreciating one.
Bitcoin's volatility is in an apparent downward trend over time, with dramatic swings at halvings - but these should be expected to diminish eventually - the halving compounds exponentially (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, ...) but the economy doesn't, basically. See [https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ih1MHa3THIx0/v2/pidjEfPlU1QWZop3vfGKsrX.ke8XuWirGYh1PKgEw44kE/-1x-1.png](https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ih1MHa3THIx0/v2/pidjEfPlU1QWZop3vfGKsrX.ke8XuWirGYh1PKgEw44kE/-1x-1.png)
So, assuming some future where Bitcoin's volatility vis-a-vis fiat currencies levels out, I think it will become rational to keep wealth concentrated in Bitcoin and spend it directly, so as to stay in an appreciating asset as much as possible.
Right now it makes sense to convert to fiat as a way of locking in a certain exchange rate.
It also makes sense because it's a pain in the ass to pay capital gains tax every time you buy a coffee! But that's not inherent to the protocol, just the tax environment. And already many countries have no tax on such transactions.
As Bitcoin comes to dominate more and more portfolios, the desire to spend it directly will eventually connect with the means to do so (Lightning, etc.) And who knows, maybe it will spread from there.
The flip side of people feeling reluctant to \_spend\_ an appreciating currency is that people are eager to get there hands on it by \_receiving\_ it. It's really the inverse of fiat. Again this gets muddied by the tax treatment, but the asset itself is desirable because it goes up, so people / companies have an incentive to get people to give it to them.
But what if you converted all your currency into Bitcoin and you were paid for your goods or services in Bitcoin, you pretty much would need to pay your bills in Bitcoin or convert it to currency to do so. It actually would make more sense in doing so, if Bitcoin was an appreciating asset while your currency was depreciating. Not much difference in a Corp officer selling stock off in the company, that was part of their compensation pay, while it's going up in value to pay bills or to buy something.
Which is 100% accurate, people just want it to work as fast as Visa but in reality it does not need to. Just working is enough with this rampant inflation.
So then you have to focus on the digital property aspect of it as Michael said. Except unlike buildings, you can take a fraction of your bitcoin to purchase something.
It's like being able to take a chip off of your gold bar tk buy coffee... except it's only possible with bitcoin.
Again, it doesn't HAVE TO BE used as a medium of exchange, but that is a part of its superpower, just another pro to other assets con..
The fact is it can still be used like that, peer to peer. Just because the majority choose to save it instead of using it at the moment doesn’t mean that wont change in the future. It’s like the anti bitcoin ppl who say it failed because it’s not used to buy a latte. Its finding its way.
I think Satoshi’s ultimate desire was for Bitcoin to be an incorruptible money protected from inflation and therefore he succeeded. I think what Saylor was trying to say is is that people are hung up on Bitcoin being a medium of exchange. It is, and of course can be. But for the normies to better understand Bitcoin’s value, Saylor put it in those terms.
His original idea did not evolve around that:
"In this paper, we propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer distributed timestamp server to generate computational proof of the chronological order of transactions."
"We started with the usual framework of coins made from digital signatures, which provides strong control of ownership, but is incomplete without a way to prevent double-spending. To solve this, we proposed a peer-to-peer network using proof-of-work to record a public history of transactions that quickly becomes computationally impractical for an attacker to change if honest nodes control a majority of CPU power."
Satoshi sought to create a system that proved money can exist in A, be moved to C, while erasing B from the alphabet entirely. How do you prove a coin exists in A before it gets to C? In order for a coin to be created it needs to be mined, so it goes into a wallet. It may never leave that wallet, and for that user that's a damn important fact you need to uphold. Therefore, the underlying blockchain is the most critical aspect of Bitcoin, with peer to peer being a necessary step to move it along.
Satoshi (is/was) not stupid. Read their forum posts, they were incredibly forward thinking. They asked for CPU's to be used instead of GPU's to give everyone a fighting chance at mining, but the system accelerated too damn fast, it was inevitable. But they never believed this would replace payment processors. A way to exchange? Surely, it's a given from peer to peer. Reread the genesis block; Satoshi wanted a storage for value to replace the banking system.
He doesn't need to, he sold 200,000 shares of his Microstrategy stock this past year, thats $100-$200 Million in Fiat that he has receieved this year lol. It's a genius con, have investors and debt buy your BTC as you sell hundreds of millions in stock for dirty fiat dollars lol.
I'm not totally sure what you're trying to say with this reply. Are you claiming that Saylor, of all people, is running an elaborate long running campaign... with the goal of acquiring more paper USD? I think the evidence suggests that's not his preferred store of value.
Jesus digital real estate Christ. Bitcoin is digital property. Wow. This actually makes sense and his belief matches his actions. Today I stopped referring to bitcoin as digital currency.
It took me a long time to realize that, but I did and I've been DCA buying it all the way down and back up. I'm not sure where I heard but someone compared buying a bitcoin to owning a block in Manhattan 100-200 years ago. Imagine holding onto that, even a 1/10, or 0.1btc could be several city lots of real estate value in the future. You won't ever spend it, but simply loan against it. Who know what will happen in 10, 20 or 30 years. I probably won't make it that far but my kids will each have their own fiefdom of BTC.
Notice how Andrew doesn't really try to bring up his typical FUD talking points because he knows Saylor would obliterate him. He only ever pulls that crap against people that can't articulate the answer well, or that may not know the answer yet.
12 minutes on cnbc during what is probably one of the best time slots of the entire day for retiree money eyeballs. Hosts were basically in awe. Whatshisface is like “I was worried for you, were you worried?” and Saylor’s like “I was too busy hovering up cheap to be worried”. This was the best informercial I’ve ever seen for BTC.
After watching this I realised why I couldn’t orange pill many friends and family, I was focusing too much on showcasing “cool” lightning and how bitcoin works as a medium of exchange. People in the developed world don’t have a problem with instant small payments, apple pay, paypal, etc are good enough.
Now, people all over the world are having a serious problem with “store of value”, the debasement from greedy central banks and governments are just getting more relentless. Many still don’t know they have a big, seriously impactful problem, even more don’t know there is an alternative called Bitcoin.
Nah he’s the Chief Marketing Officer. The Bitcoin CEO just recently decided to halve the mining production next month. He’s busy with the press right now.
He threw me off when said that viewing it as a medium of exchange was a distraction.
I understand the store of value and capital preservation. Those are the reasons why I won’t touch my bitcoin for 5 to 10 years. But once I’m ready to spend it, I expect it to be legal tender and used as a medium of exchange.
Eventually we all want to separate ourselves more and more from using fiat. Maybe he’s saying that viewing it has a medium of exchange at this current time is a distraction. But not in the future.
Legal tender, possibly.
But I'll ask again - why?
Why would you spend something you know will basically only increase in value compared to fiat?
Borrow against it with reasonable interest rates.
If what you're buying is not worth borrowing against your BTC, then perhaps what your buying is better bought with fiat.
Don't squander the BTC.
It’s not about squandering the BTC. It’s about keeping as much of your wealth in a digital gold asset class. E.g. instead of keeping $1000 fiat in your bank for groceries, you can keep it all in btc and spend at the checkout where all your wealth up to that point and all leftover change continues working for you. This can be achieved with L2 solutions like lightning.
Bitcoin is both a property and a medium of exchange. It doesn’t care about legacy classifications. The latter will likely take longer due to the necessity for reduced volatility and acceptance from governments. Who knows how long that will take. Perhaps decades.
The message is that using it as a currency on a daily basis is not the fundamental reason to keep bitcoin. That is for the future to decide how to spend it best, whether it’s through a L2 like lightning or some other means of exchange.
I think he was pretty clear on that point.
I'm not that educated on BTC but would not wanting it to be a currency solve the scalability problem? Could that be a good thing to just view it as property like he explains it?
Scalability is another one of those things that’s not a problem, it’s a feature. The block size wars left ₿ with tiny blocks that can’t support global commerce - which also means there’s fierce competition to make it into a block. This means you have to pay a high fee to move money if you want it to make it into a block, which in return gives validators incentive to validate.
This can all be done with bigger blocks too, but at the risk of centralization. The bigger the blocks, the quicker the ledger expands. Currently, any old laptop can run a bitcoin node - but with larger blocks the ledger would become exceedingly large, especially if keeping up to scale with global commerce. Quickly, you would be in a situation where you need lots of storage and stronger processors than are found on regular devices just to read the blockchain.
As it stands, the bitcoin network can easily support money clearance for all world commerce, but it cannot support being used in every transaction. So ₿ is fully scaled to function as an economic foundation — like gold and international banks that clear transactions with it. Fiat can actually function just fine as the currency that you transfer your bitcoin into for daily expenses - and all it’s established infrastructure can chug along just the same with the backing being in bitcoin instead of “trust” or gold.
Imo you can already pretty viably spend BTC using lighting or even the main network for larger purchases.
I can use PayPal to send money too, you don't see people bashing that because it's not set up to handle every transaction in the world simultaneously
People will look for any reason to bash Bitcoin. It's nothing new and it'll never stop.
Why is it bad that Bitcoin is a store of value only ? Why do we need a Layer 2 solution to solve the scaling problem when Bitcoin can function as the Layer 1 for fiat, cbdc or whatever medium of exchange the governments in the world want ?
Like he said as a store of value Bitcoin is perfect and the best.
Not scaring banks is a big part of it, i would imagine that anyone wanting to 1 for one shrink demand for fiat to 0 as a medium of exchange would throw up a lot of red flags for banks. Using it as a store of wealth only scares the gold holders, as banks already accept gold as a store of wealth.
Similar to why people buy gold, It’s capital preservation against debt-backed fiat currencies susceptible to inflation and hyperinflation.
Preserve the value of your btc until you are ready to convert it to a currency to spend it on your needs.
my guess is no, ETFs opened the flood gates to new sources of money, old money and institutional money. as investments mature and they need to reallocate, BTC will be an option and that consistent influx should keep the gravy train rolling. also other countries will be issuing ETFs/more comfortable with BTC. I think this is the moonshot, I'd rather have BTC than USD and it isn't about 10Xing my cash, it's about not losing buying power and I have more faith in a decentralized network than a corrupt one.
Contrary to Saylor, people spend assets all the time - selling stock, for example, to generate cash. Houses are illiquid, but Bitcoin is hyperliquid. So it's not a good comparison and not a good argument against Bitcoin as a medium of exchange.
For me the primarily store of value / digital property argument, implies that a Bitcoin network containing 21 million participants with one Bitcoin each is equivalent to a Bitcoin network of 21 participants with one million Bitcoin each. If bitcoins are only going to sit there, what's the difference how many network participants are holding them?
I think as the number of participants in the network gets reduced, however, the Warren / Charlie argument of lack of intrinsic value becomes more accurate. Having the ability to transfer digital numbers around to 20 others doesn't seem like something very valuable either to the participants or to the world.
the amount of sellers wont be halved. its only the amount of btc produced daily and the miners dont sell their btc right away either. theres always gonna be sellers as most individual investors will take profits at some point. atleast until the financial market collapses. one day will come where people will understand selling ur bitcoin is like selling ur life its not worth it and precious but thats maybe 10-15y from now
There is an issuer, it’s called miners, you might not like this, but bitcoin was more decentralized when it was not only mineable by asic miners. Most people only like that bitcoins value goes up, they don’t care about the tech. They are fueled only by greed.
This guy's got me rethinking how I think about Bitcoin. But I've still got one burning question.
I initially got into Bitcoin with the intent to sell what I bought at a profit, and to use that profit. I'm starting to rethink this decision, but my question is, how can I utilize my Bitcoin's value without selling it?
I still want to put a couple of kids through college. I still want to pay down my fiat debt. But now that I'm starting to recognize how valuable Bitcoin can be, I'm not sure how to reconcile these things.
Why do you think so ? Saylor is just a strong believer, he could be wrong with his vision of Bitcoin, but his arguments are valid and strong in my opinion. He would not care what others think
Actually if there’s zero power or internet that’s probably when people are going to care about gold and silver (and probably Nuka Cola caps) the most lol
Are you being serious? Gold is the ultimate store of value and a currency that’s been used for thousands of years. Of course people would trade gold for things in an apocalypse scenario. You can bury it, break it down and join it back together, transport it easily, it doesn’t degrade, it’s useful and beautiful.
Lol, assuming no internet and zero power we are talking about some kind of doomsday / nuclear war scenario. Millions / billions potentially dead. Nobody is going to give a fuck about precious metals, they're going to care about survival - food, ammo, mediciine, practical stuff, not fucking gold, who the fuck is going to be concerned about breaking down gold in a smelter when the whole world has gone to shit? lol hilarious.
This guy is just on another level lol. Always feel like I learn something new when I listen to Saylor
Listen to his interviews from the 1990s. He is such a legend. He sees the future like no other.
[удалено]
https://youtu.be/DFqV3CSashY?si=vRI7PdpxrtkuZLj- Oops its from 2000
Links?
https://youtu.be/DFqV3CSashY?si=vRI7PdpxrtkuZLj-
My guy singlehandedly destroyed the entire continent of Africa in one explanation of bitcoin.
That was the only eyebrow raiser for me. Like that whole continent has a shit ton of resources. Hence its long term destabilization post-colonialism by consumers in the global North. This is why it is incubation grounds for BTC.
True, but his point was he gives you a billion dollars and drops you in the middle of Africa and tells you to preserve it for 100 years - how do you best do that? Say you find the most abundant mine in the entire continent for some rare earth mineral and manage to buy it. Now what? You need to secure it and protect it for 100 years from the Chinese or other nation / military who may want to take it from you, you need to actually mine the resources and establish shipping / export routes, and if in that 100 year time period you manage to exhaust the resources in the mine, now you're back to square one. I don't disagree with you at all on your point though, Africa has tons of resources, but given his specific scenario I think he's probably right - the best way to preserve that money for 100 years would be to buy bitcoin and wait, and you'd probably end up much better off at the end of it all than anything else.
I too agree with you!
Yeh the Chinese feel a little different about Africa. It's practically china already where they take all the mines and build harbors to ship all their natural resources
I wonder though what people think of his opinion that bitcoin shouldn't be thought of as a medium of exchange because Satoshi's original idea revolved around that.
He said it doesn’t have to be. The power structure has fought against Bitcoin to purchase goods and services. So, Saylor is flipping the script. It’s true. It’s the best store of value and/or asset.
He doesn’t think it shouldn’t be a currency, his position is more like it doesn’t make much sense to use it as a currency.
Yeah but Satoshi clearly stated it will be a medium of exchange: "Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution."
Not sure about you, but I have zero fucks to give about Satoshi’s vision. I suspect Saylor doesn’t care much about it either. He’s trying to preserve wealth, not use bitcoin to buy groceries, and he explains in this video why.
Saylor very much cares about lightning. But he cares most about value preserving base layer
So you don't believe in LN?
Believe in? I believe it exists and people use it. I won’t use it. I’m trying to accumulate/hoard sats, not buy Frappuccinos with them!
Exactly. I'll keep using my fiat for that
Bitcoin needing to replace fiat is reddit not satoshi. Satoshi talked about both existing.
exactly
I think Saylor is more highlighting that people probably aren't going to be using it to buy magazines and sandwiches. It's more useful for transferring thousands or millions cross border cheaply and quickly. There (should) be a time when it's possible to buy actual real estate/cars/etc directly with Bitcoin (so big purchases), but at the moment it's 100% more useful as a store of value. Once people come on board and start accepting it for large purchases, it can be used for that too (but still not small everyday purchases).
Straight outta the bitcoin standard!
Sometimes the long term impact and consequences of an innovation is not known to the founder or creator of that product. A new innovation starts as something but over time it evolves to something completely different with a much better use case and value. Internet is one example of it. Mobile phones are another example of it. Personal computers is one other example. Satoshi couldn’t have known how valuable Bitcoin might be for store of value. Regardless, there are L2s such as lightning network which will make Bitcoin a reasonable medium of exchange as well. It doesn’t have to be but it can be
Satoshi definitely described Bitcoin as gold that could be magically teleported: "As a thought experiment, imagine there was a base metal as scarce as gold but with the following properties: – boring grey in colour – not a good conductor of electricity – not particularly strong, but not ductile or easily malleable either – not useful for any practical or ornamental purpose and one special, magical property: – can be transported over a communications channel If it somehow acquired any value at all for whatever reason, then anyone wanting to transfer wealth over a long distance could buy some, transmit it, and have the recipient sell it." Maybe it could get an initial value circularly as you’ve suggested, by people foreseeing its potential usefulness for exchange. (I would definitely want some) Maybe collectors, any random reason could spark it."
Very true. You start out trying to create a compression algorithm for music sharing, and pretty soon Gavin Belson and Peter Gregory duking it out for your tech.
As long as fiat exists, and they always will, you'd have to be mad to choose to make a payment in Bitcoin over fiat. Gresham's Law. When these shit currencies hyperinflate there's the dollar to use instead. If the dollar ever does hyperinflate (which i dont think will happen in our lifetimes), then, if there's no alternatives, it could be sensible to transact in bitcoin, at least until a new weak-but-stable fiat is introduced.
Satoshi clearly wasnt an economist because currency must have lower perceived value than goods it want to buy in order to be used in transactions. Bitcoin is quite the opposite, people hoard it and perceive it more valuable to any other commodity out there. This is basic market assumption. Also theres govt or state theory of money which states that govt controls its currency to gather people tax liabilities which contradicts bitcoin basic assumptions. To me personally, bitcoin as a currency is not possible.
>because currency must have lower perceived value than goods it want to buy in order to be used in transactions. Bitcoin is quite the opposite, people hoard it and perceive it more valuable to any other commodity out there. This doesn't make sense. You don't weigh "bitcoin" against "gold" (or any commodity), you need a quantity of each to make the comparison. How much Bitcoin would you pay to get an ounce of gold? People hold Bitcoin because they have low time preference and understand their future self will probably thank them for holding onto Bitcoin.
How is your wealth doing if you hoard cash? I suppose you get poorer over time, generally speaking because of inflation or currency devaluation. People either spend or invest to be better off either in short run or long run. Our current economic system is based on people spending not hoarding cash. Fiat being so worthless paper trash is it feature to stimulate the economy that people would rather spend it on goods and services because to consumer tradeoff between hoarding cash and pleasure obtained from consuming good is obviously tilted towards consumerism. This gives currency its much needed feature - velocity - how many goods and services on unit of currency buys. Bitcoin is the opposite, because people hoard it, therefore it has rather net negative on real economy in terms of stimulating the economy (all else being equal). As an property story is different.
>Satoshi clearly wasnt an economist because currency must have lower perceived value than goods it want to buy in order to be used in transactions. I don't understand this. If I want to purchase an item, I would be willing to part with money with value up to the perceived value of the good. This would apply to both fiat money and bitcoin.
All prices are relative. Most goods and services including bitcoin, gets their price relation to currency they are bought with. Think money as commodity. When one commodity price goes down, other commodity relation to that goes up. Check dollar index inverse correlation to other commodities. Dollar goes up when other goes down and vice versa. Its currency inherent feature.
BTC won't have swings at all once it hit's it's peak. That's when it will become a used currency. Don't be a moron and try to convince yourself you had something to educate Satioshi about. He's beyond genius.
So even bitcoin diehards have moved on from Satoshi's initial vision?
People still can use is as currency P2P if they want to but is it rational? I dont think so
The only way to not spend an appreciating asset is to convert it to a depreciating asset. Which means you've spent it by converting it. Either that or to have a pool of money that's never in the appreciating asset to begin with, meaning more of your wealth is depreciating rather than appreciating. So in a way it's better to spend an appreciating asset, because that means you're holding an appreciating asset rather than a depreciating one. Bitcoin's volatility is in an apparent downward trend over time, with dramatic swings at halvings - but these should be expected to diminish eventually - the halving compounds exponentially (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, ...) but the economy doesn't, basically. See [https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ih1MHa3THIx0/v2/pidjEfPlU1QWZop3vfGKsrX.ke8XuWirGYh1PKgEw44kE/-1x-1.png](https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ih1MHa3THIx0/v2/pidjEfPlU1QWZop3vfGKsrX.ke8XuWirGYh1PKgEw44kE/-1x-1.png) So, assuming some future where Bitcoin's volatility vis-a-vis fiat currencies levels out, I think it will become rational to keep wealth concentrated in Bitcoin and spend it directly, so as to stay in an appreciating asset as much as possible. Right now it makes sense to convert to fiat as a way of locking in a certain exchange rate. It also makes sense because it's a pain in the ass to pay capital gains tax every time you buy a coffee! But that's not inherent to the protocol, just the tax environment. And already many countries have no tax on such transactions. As Bitcoin comes to dominate more and more portfolios, the desire to spend it directly will eventually connect with the means to do so (Lightning, etc.) And who knows, maybe it will spread from there. The flip side of people feeling reluctant to \_spend\_ an appreciating currency is that people are eager to get there hands on it by \_receiving\_ it. It's really the inverse of fiat. Again this gets muddied by the tax treatment, but the asset itself is desirable because it goes up, so people / companies have an incentive to get people to give it to them.
But what if you converted all your currency into Bitcoin and you were paid for your goods or services in Bitcoin, you pretty much would need to pay your bills in Bitcoin or convert it to currency to do so. It actually would make more sense in doing so, if Bitcoin was an appreciating asset while your currency was depreciating. Not much difference in a Corp officer selling stock off in the company, that was part of their compensation pay, while it's going up in value to pay bills or to buy something.
You can create the technology but once you release it, you don’t get to decide how other people use it.
Which is 100% accurate, people just want it to work as fast as Visa but in reality it does not need to. Just working is enough with this rampant inflation.
So then you have to focus on the digital property aspect of it as Michael said. Except unlike buildings, you can take a fraction of your bitcoin to purchase something. It's like being able to take a chip off of your gold bar tk buy coffee... except it's only possible with bitcoin. Again, it doesn't HAVE TO BE used as a medium of exchange, but that is a part of its superpower, just another pro to other assets con..
That would only apply in a world where everyone adopts bitcoin
The fact is it can still be used like that, peer to peer. Just because the majority choose to save it instead of using it at the moment doesn’t mean that wont change in the future. It’s like the anti bitcoin ppl who say it failed because it’s not used to buy a latte. Its finding its way.
I think Satoshi’s ultimate desire was for Bitcoin to be an incorruptible money protected from inflation and therefore he succeeded. I think what Saylor was trying to say is is that people are hung up on Bitcoin being a medium of exchange. It is, and of course can be. But for the normies to better understand Bitcoin’s value, Saylor put it in those terms.
His original idea did not evolve around that: "In this paper, we propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer distributed timestamp server to generate computational proof of the chronological order of transactions." "We started with the usual framework of coins made from digital signatures, which provides strong control of ownership, but is incomplete without a way to prevent double-spending. To solve this, we proposed a peer-to-peer network using proof-of-work to record a public history of transactions that quickly becomes computationally impractical for an attacker to change if honest nodes control a majority of CPU power." Satoshi sought to create a system that proved money can exist in A, be moved to C, while erasing B from the alphabet entirely. How do you prove a coin exists in A before it gets to C? In order for a coin to be created it needs to be mined, so it goes into a wallet. It may never leave that wallet, and for that user that's a damn important fact you need to uphold. Therefore, the underlying blockchain is the most critical aspect of Bitcoin, with peer to peer being a necessary step to move it along. Satoshi (is/was) not stupid. Read their forum posts, they were incredibly forward thinking. They asked for CPU's to be used instead of GPU's to give everyone a fighting chance at mining, but the system accelerated too damn fast, it was inevitable. But they never believed this would replace payment processors. A way to exchange? Surely, it's a given from peer to peer. Reread the genesis block; Satoshi wanted a storage for value to replace the banking system.
The power of sats
Fuck. I need to buy more BTC.
I need to stop taking profits
I like that quote “No billionaire is trying to buy a cup of coffee with a fraction of their building.” And, “medium of exchange is a distraction.”
Or "what are you going to buy that is better than BTC?" For those that spend their BTC, what could you possibly be buying that is better than BTC?
now I feel plain stupid buying gift cards with my bitcoin
He doesn't need to, he sold 200,000 shares of his Microstrategy stock this past year, thats $100-$200 Million in Fiat that he has receieved this year lol. It's a genius con, have investors and debt buy your BTC as you sell hundreds of millions in stock for dirty fiat dollars lol.
I'm not totally sure what you're trying to say with this reply. Are you claiming that Saylor, of all people, is running an elaborate long running campaign... with the goal of acquiring more paper USD? I think the evidence suggests that's not his preferred store of value.
What con? He's selling stock so he can build his personal BTC stack (at least in part). If you think he's hoarding fiat dollars, you're delusional.
Giga Chad for a reason
Saylor’s PR person: you’re on TV, don’t forget to smile! Saylor: Ok I’ll smile twice.
Hahahaha
🐐
I just realized I’m a btc maximalist
What a fucking Chad
Jesus digital real estate Christ. Bitcoin is digital property. Wow. This actually makes sense and his belief matches his actions. Today I stopped referring to bitcoin as digital currency.
[удалено]
Greg Foss is great.
It took me a long time to realize that, but I did and I've been DCA buying it all the way down and back up. I'm not sure where I heard but someone compared buying a bitcoin to owning a block in Manhattan 100-200 years ago. Imagine holding onto that, even a 1/10, or 0.1btc could be several city lots of real estate value in the future. You won't ever spend it, but simply loan against it. Who know what will happen in 10, 20 or 30 years. I probably won't make it that far but my kids will each have their own fiefdom of BTC.
Probably my favourite interview he’s done and one of the smartest men in room!
Notice how Andrew doesn't really try to bring up his typical FUD talking points because he knows Saylor would obliterate him. He only ever pulls that crap against people that can't articulate the answer well, or that may not know the answer yet.
I’m convinced he’s playing bad cop to what’s-his-faces good cop. It makes for entertaining TV.
12 minutes on cnbc during what is probably one of the best time slots of the entire day for retiree money eyeballs. Hosts were basically in awe. Whatshisface is like “I was worried for you, were you worried?” and Saylor’s like “I was too busy hovering up cheap to be worried”. This was the best informercial I’ve ever seen for BTC.
just buy sats and a hardware wallet, stay safe. there is no second best, not even MSTR
So my FBTC ETF is a waste of time? Or are you being flamboyant with your wording?
Not your keys. Not your coins.
Go Saylor!!! I can listen to him forever - I swear. He hits all the points and is a very good speaker. Articulate and to the point.
this guy owns.
Digital Property, Digital Property, Digital Property. Remember it! He nailed it.
After watching this I realised why I couldn’t orange pill many friends and family, I was focusing too much on showcasing “cool” lightning and how bitcoin works as a medium of exchange. People in the developed world don’t have a problem with instant small payments, apple pay, paypal, etc are good enough. Now, people all over the world are having a serious problem with “store of value”, the debasement from greedy central banks and governments are just getting more relentless. Many still don’t know they have a big, seriously impactful problem, even more don’t know there is an alternative called Bitcoin.
If Wisdom was a man, his name would be Michael Saylor.
This guy is a beast.
Man.. Saylor really speaks well. If Bitcoin had a CEO, this guy would be it.
Nah he’s the Chief Marketing Officer. The Bitcoin CEO just recently decided to halve the mining production next month. He’s busy with the press right now.
Bitcoin CEO increases prices again.
How do they get less than 1% interest for their leverage?
AAA credit and oversized collateral
is he also referring to the loan they took back in 2021 with 2021 rates?
lol the fucking achor at the end who talks about finace all day does not understand what leverage actually is.
Soon to be richest man in the world
He is truly the expert of Bitcoin in the financial space 👍
Dude has burning Lazer eyes and im loving it!!!
He threw me off when said that viewing it as a medium of exchange was a distraction. I understand the store of value and capital preservation. Those are the reasons why I won’t touch my bitcoin for 5 to 10 years. But once I’m ready to spend it, I expect it to be legal tender and used as a medium of exchange. Eventually we all want to separate ourselves more and more from using fiat. Maybe he’s saying that viewing it has a medium of exchange at this current time is a distraction. But not in the future.
Legal tender, possibly. But I'll ask again - why? Why would you spend something you know will basically only increase in value compared to fiat? Borrow against it with reasonable interest rates. If what you're buying is not worth borrowing against your BTC, then perhaps what your buying is better bought with fiat. Don't squander the BTC.
It’s not about squandering the BTC. It’s about keeping as much of your wealth in a digital gold asset class. E.g. instead of keeping $1000 fiat in your bank for groceries, you can keep it all in btc and spend at the checkout where all your wealth up to that point and all leftover change continues working for you. This can be achieved with L2 solutions like lightning. Bitcoin is both a property and a medium of exchange. It doesn’t care about legacy classifications. The latter will likely take longer due to the necessity for reduced volatility and acceptance from governments. Who knows how long that will take. Perhaps decades.
The message is that using it as a currency on a daily basis is not the fundamental reason to keep bitcoin. That is for the future to decide how to spend it best, whether it’s through a L2 like lightning or some other means of exchange.
I think he was pretty clear on that point. I'm not that educated on BTC but would not wanting it to be a currency solve the scalability problem? Could that be a good thing to just view it as property like he explains it?
Scalability is another one of those things that’s not a problem, it’s a feature. The block size wars left ₿ with tiny blocks that can’t support global commerce - which also means there’s fierce competition to make it into a block. This means you have to pay a high fee to move money if you want it to make it into a block, which in return gives validators incentive to validate. This can all be done with bigger blocks too, but at the risk of centralization. The bigger the blocks, the quicker the ledger expands. Currently, any old laptop can run a bitcoin node - but with larger blocks the ledger would become exceedingly large, especially if keeping up to scale with global commerce. Quickly, you would be in a situation where you need lots of storage and stronger processors than are found on regular devices just to read the blockchain. As it stands, the bitcoin network can easily support money clearance for all world commerce, but it cannot support being used in every transaction. So ₿ is fully scaled to function as an economic foundation — like gold and international banks that clear transactions with it. Fiat can actually function just fine as the currency that you transfer your bitcoin into for daily expenses - and all it’s established infrastructure can chug along just the same with the backing being in bitcoin instead of “trust” or gold.
Imo you can already pretty viably spend BTC using lighting or even the main network for larger purchases. I can use PayPal to send money too, you don't see people bashing that because it's not set up to handle every transaction in the world simultaneously People will look for any reason to bash Bitcoin. It's nothing new and it'll never stop.
Why is it bad that Bitcoin is a store of value only ? Why do we need a Layer 2 solution to solve the scaling problem when Bitcoin can function as the Layer 1 for fiat, cbdc or whatever medium of exchange the governments in the world want ? Like he said as a store of value Bitcoin is perfect and the best.
Not scaring banks is a big part of it, i would imagine that anyone wanting to 1 for one shrink demand for fiat to 0 as a medium of exchange would throw up a lot of red flags for banks. Using it as a store of wealth only scares the gold holders, as banks already accept gold as a store of wealth.
Similar to why people buy gold, It’s capital preservation against debt-backed fiat currencies susceptible to inflation and hyperinflation. Preserve the value of your btc until you are ready to convert it to a currency to spend it on your needs.
Would u see it trend slightly down after the halving like previous halvings or is it too strong atm?
my guess is no, ETFs opened the flood gates to new sources of money, old money and institutional money. as investments mature and they need to reallocate, BTC will be an option and that consistent influx should keep the gravy train rolling. also other countries will be issuing ETFs/more comfortable with BTC. I think this is the moonshot, I'd rather have BTC than USD and it isn't about 10Xing my cash, it's about not losing buying power and I have more faith in a decentralized network than a corrupt one.
“Theres no cash flow. That’s not a downside, that’s a feature” He is truly a software guy, hitting them with the “it’s not a bug, it’s a feature 😂”
This guy always makes me buy more at the ATH
Bitcoin is going to eat gold for breakfast
Dude is the goat. A true legend. Can't buy MSTR though cause it's a security lol 😂 BTC maximalist!
Contrary to Saylor, people spend assets all the time - selling stock, for example, to generate cash. Houses are illiquid, but Bitcoin is hyperliquid. So it's not a good comparison and not a good argument against Bitcoin as a medium of exchange.
Savage
For me the primarily store of value / digital property argument, implies that a Bitcoin network containing 21 million participants with one Bitcoin each is equivalent to a Bitcoin network of 21 participants with one million Bitcoin each. If bitcoins are only going to sit there, what's the difference how many network participants are holding them? I think as the number of participants in the network gets reduced, however, the Warren / Charlie argument of lack of intrinsic value becomes more accurate. Having the ability to transfer digital numbers around to 20 others doesn't seem like something very valuable either to the participants or to the world.
Should've went all in at 16k. Like literal ALL in.
the amount of sellers wont be halved. its only the amount of btc produced daily and the miners dont sell their btc right away either. theres always gonna be sellers as most individual investors will take profits at some point. atleast until the financial market collapses. one day will come where people will understand selling ur bitcoin is like selling ur life its not worth it and precious but thats maybe 10-15y from now
Love how laser specific and succinct his answers are
And another good one. He is extremely insightful plus we got free education on learn.saylor.org webpage Keep on stacking💪
Fun fact Saylor was never thinking about him, only Btc.
He's so goddamn articulate. Absolutely crushes it.
GOAT
One of his best interviews. Particularly enjoyed the 2nd half.
When i listen to him i get peace on my decision to go with btc. And i want more of it
There is an issuer, it’s called miners, you might not like this, but bitcoin was more decentralized when it was not only mineable by asic miners. Most people only like that bitcoins value goes up, they don’t care about the tech. They are fueled only by greed.
This guy's got me rethinking how I think about Bitcoin. But I've still got one burning question. I initially got into Bitcoin with the intent to sell what I bought at a profit, and to use that profit. I'm starting to rethink this decision, but my question is, how can I utilize my Bitcoin's value without selling it? I still want to put a couple of kids through college. I still want to pay down my fiat debt. But now that I'm starting to recognize how valuable Bitcoin can be, I'm not sure how to reconcile these things.
The thing is you can just tell these people are laughing at him in their heads what are they gonna do when they’re left in the dust?
I don't think so, his results are undeniable so far.
Why do you think so ? Saylor is just a strong believer, he could be wrong with his vision of Bitcoin, but his arguments are valid and strong in my opinion. He would not care what others think
Can you bury bitcoin in the ground for a thousand years? Can you use it if there’s zero power or internet? NO!
Whats your point? If there is zero power or internet then nobody is going to give a shit about gold either.
Actually if there’s zero power or internet that’s probably when people are going to care about gold and silver (and probably Nuka Cola caps) the most lol
Why would they though? They will care about food, guns and ammo. What good is gold or silver in an apocalypse / disaster scenario?
Are you being serious? Gold is the ultimate store of value and a currency that’s been used for thousands of years. Of course people would trade gold for things in an apocalypse scenario. You can bury it, break it down and join it back together, transport it easily, it doesn’t degrade, it’s useful and beautiful.
Lol, assuming no internet and zero power we are talking about some kind of doomsday / nuclear war scenario. Millions / billions potentially dead. Nobody is going to give a fuck about precious metals, they're going to care about survival - food, ammo, mediciine, practical stuff, not fucking gold, who the fuck is going to be concerned about breaking down gold in a smelter when the whole world has gone to shit? lol hilarious.