Bitcoin only exists on a blockchain. Whether you own it directly or not depends on whether you have your own public and private keys. If you don't, they own the Bitcoin and owe you Bitcoin.
Platform like Luno, I just login my account to trade, I only have login ID, password and double authenticator. I do not have private keys.
That's OK until it isn't. If Luna fails, there goes your money. If you just used Luna to buy and then transferred Bitcoin (for example) to your hardware wallet (such as Ledger) then you have your crypto regardless of what happens to Luna, whether that's Luna failing or someone hacking into your account and stealing your crypto. If none of that happens then you'll be fine. If it does, you won't.
So far Luna still exists. It can receive and transfer BTC, to receive BTC transfer, my wallet got address "38tYk86X7.........." What blockchain is it?
The dollar doesn't have any assets either. Bitcoin is limited to 21 million and it's decentralized (outside of government control). What else can you say that about? The government is constantly creating more currency, reducing the value of the dollar and its purchasing power each time it does so. The ruble has no demand, Bitcoin does.
Dollars do pay taxes. Consider the dollar the token to use when paying obligations to the government and Bitcoin the token for using as a store of value or in countries with runaway inflation if they adopt Bitcoin. There is no limit to Tsarist rubles if people should decided to starting using them. They would be printed to infinity. The dollar is limited if you stop creating more currency, people don't. While it's true that a banana is yellow, that doesn't mean it's relevant to most conversations. Are you particular;y knowledgeable regarding Bitcoin? These comments aren't very weighty, wouldn't you agree?
My knowledge of bitcoins and rubles are the same. I assume that no new rubles can be printed. More bitcoins could be created if the program was modified.
"If you turn Bitcoin into not-Bitcoin, then you could create more Bitcoin!" I like it! Although then you'd just end up with Ethereum but with far less clever functionality! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
For the record, this is a pro and con post I made elsewhere (Reddit in the Bitcoin forum) (I'm accused of not being balanced regarded Bitcoin on here). " Would you like to see people be more reasonable about what Bitcoin can and can't do? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I think it would be good to see more informed options regarding Bitcoin. It's not going to replace the dollar and the Fed isn't going to go away. If we are lucky it will be some competition to the dollar to help keep government financial actors more disciplined. It may exist alongside the dollar in the US. It may serve as a store of value. It has first mover and networking advantages and it's decentralized and limited. It's not going to eliminate the Fed (nor should we want it to). It's not going to eliminate fractional reserve banking. The dollar is going to remain the de facto global reserve currency for a long time (IMO). It's there now because people chose for it to be used that way. That's not going to change even though other currencies may/will be used for certain transactions as is currently playing out. When Black Swan events come along (and they always do) gold couldn't react to that and Bitcoin can't either and for similar reasons. That's not a bad thing. The Fed isn't a bad thing. The problem is just that after we increase the currency to deal with Black Swan events, we don't then raise taxes later when times are good and go back to tight money. I think Bitcoin may hit $500k in 10 years or so if all goes well and if it essentially replaced the investment use case of gold. Maybe the US economy will greatly improve by then, maybe politicians will become more disciplined and responsible and the use case/need for Bitcoin will decline and maybe it won't be as popular. To me, these are reasonable things to consider regarding Bitcoin, both the pros and cons. No one is going to get "rich" on Bitcoin because they own .5 Bitcoin today. So far, I'd guess, the majority of Bitcoin holders aren't breaking even. Coinbase is still a pain in the butt to deal with. This experiment isn't even a sure thing yet."
Back to the thread topic, I see the UK MPs' Treasury Committee is recommending that crypto be regulated as a form of gambling rather than investing: https://www.theguardian.com/technol...ould-be-regulated-as-form-of-gambling-say-mps The argument is that it is a form of speculation that can become addictive, in unbacked assets, whereby investors can lose life-changing sums. Separately, there was a report in yesterday's FT on the US DoJ cracking down on cryto platforms, to reduce money laundering and other funding of criminality. The article mentions not only FTX and Sam Bankrun-Fraud but also the taking down of Bitzlato in January and the current DoJ focus on Binance. Apparently some in the industry are expressing concerns that destabilising Binance could have large effects on the crypto industry. The DoJ reaction, apparently, is to say that they will absolutely not be taking such concerns into account, as criminality is criminality. So it looks as if the regulators and lawmakers are waking up, at last.
To quote the Treasury Committee chairman: “Effective regulation is clearly needed to protect consumers from harm, as well as to support productive innovation in the UK’s financial services industry,” the Conservative MP and Treasury committee chair, Harriett Baldwin, said. “However, with no intrinsic value, huge price volatility and no discernible social good, consumer trading of cryptocurrencies like bitcoin more closely resembles gambling than a financial service, and should be regulated as such. “By betting on these unbacked ‘tokens’, consumers should be aware that all their money could be lost.”
My comment stands. Warren Buffett said Bitcoin was "rat poison" and Charlie Munger said it was "rat poison squared". Those are not well-informed opinions either. By the way, I'd largely agree when the large topic of crypto is being discussed. It just doesn't apply to Bitcoin. The Euro doesn't have any intrinsic value either and it is volatile due to inflation and reduced purchasing power year by year. Bitcoin over most any 2 year period holds more of it's value than the dollar or the Euro (or pound). Centralized "crypto" has more in common with the Pound and Dollar than with decentralized and limited Bitcoin. Why do I comment on Bitcoin? Precisely because of all the ignorance out there.
The value of the Euro is at least an order of magnitude more stable than bitcoin. I have had a Euro account for some years, for the transactions I conduct in France. The range of value over that period has been from €/£ 1.06 at the lowest point to 1.2 at the highest. That is about 13%. Whereas Bitcoin has changed by about 600% over the same period:- Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, Bitcoin isn't useful as a currency at the moment unless some business wants to accept it and either convert it daily or can afford to keep it as a long term store of value. You haven't factored in the long term reduced purchasing power of the Euro either although the result would be similar over the short-term.
Moderator note: There have been some complaints that discussions of the ethical issues of appropriate disclosure of vested interests are off-topic for this thread. It seem to me that Sarkus and Seattle have been promoting Bitcoin as an investment in this thread. Seattle has declared that he owns some Bitcoin, but denies any vested interest beyond that. Sarkus refuses to declare his interests in the promotion of Bitcoin. Both have complained that ethical matters should not be discussed as they talk up the merits of Bitcoin. So be it. For readers who are interested, I have split the "off topic" posts about business ethics to a separate thread, which can be found here: Practical business ethics: when is it appropriate to disclose one's vested interests?
Moderator note: Some off-topic posts involving the prosecution of a personal vendetta by one moderator (Tiassa) against another (myself) have been moved to a separate thread. If posts about the ethics of promoting Bitcoin while refusing to declare vested interests in Bitcoin are off-topic for this thread, then personal attacks by one moderator against another are certainly also off-topic. For anybody who cares, Tiassa's latest complaints about me can be found here: Moderator makes ad hominem attacks on another moderator
